# Do you think guns should be banned?



## Sicatiff (Aug 1, 2016)

Simple thread. Do you think guns should be banned? The world has become such a horrible place lately. So.many shocking  incidents happened and they involved guns. Should civilians even process guns?


----------



## oath2order (Aug 1, 2016)

Yes, **** guns.

Figuratively. Please do not literally **** a gun.


----------



## seliph (Aug 1, 2016)

Yes guns are stupid


----------



## kayleee (Aug 1, 2016)

Yeah I hate guns and when people have the attitude of "I NEED MY GUN 2 PROTeCT MY FAMILY!!1" I'm just like... please stfu


----------



## Stalfos (Aug 1, 2016)

Simple answer: I do.


----------



## Mega_Cabbage (Aug 1, 2016)

I think the only people who should be carrying guns should be law enforcement, so yeah, guns shouldn't be given to normal civilians.


----------



## Paxx (Aug 1, 2016)

JUST CLOSE ALL GUN STORES HONESTLY

It probably won't stop gun violence all together, but it will at least help it.


----------



## namiieco (Aug 1, 2016)

Yes, I don't understand why they haven't yet.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Aug 1, 2016)

weapons whose sole primary purpose is in causing active harm should never have been made period

- - - Post Merge - - -



oath2order said:


> Yes, **** guns.
> 
> Figuratively. Please do not literally **** a gun.



you don't tell me what not to do


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 1, 2016)

the us definitely needs gun restriction laws lmao


----------



## SugardewVillage (Aug 1, 2016)

Yes, if I had my own country you'd be arrested for having one. And if you killed any innocent person or endangered animal with it, you would starve in prison.


----------



## Paxx (Aug 1, 2016)

LambdaDelta said:


> weapons whose sole primary purpose is in causing active harm should never have been made period
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



It's hard to imagine a world without guns. They do have a purpose for law enforcement and especially come in handy when confronting robbers and what not (people will usually back down and stop what they are doing if faced with a gun). Even if guns weren't invented though, there are still knives, bats, tasers, etc.

But I agree with you, they shouldn't have been made. ;v;


----------



## SugardewVillage (Aug 1, 2016)

At least I live in Canada and there's strict gun laws unlike the U.S.


----------



## Xerolin (Aug 1, 2016)

No. There should just be stricter laws

oh no, i stated my opinion. time to get bashed.


----------



## Bowie (Aug 1, 2016)

In an ideal world, guns wouldn't even exist. But of course there's no point in doing anything about that because in order to enforce such a thing you'd require guns, ironically.

Just bring in stricter rules. You can't have a gun if you have any sort of criminal record, if you have a history of violent behaviour, if it's been fewer than five years since you immigrated here, if you're under 25, etc.


----------



## Acruoxil (Aug 1, 2016)

Yeah, they need to be.


----------



## ellarella (Aug 1, 2016)

i'm pretty happy about them being banned here.


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 1, 2016)

Recently in the UK, A man entered someone's home and shot a one year old child with an airgun. Before this incident (and still currently), the UK laws on airguns and similar weapons was rather relaxed (anyone over 18 could purchase an air rifle as long as it delivered less than 16.2 joules of energy). Due to this event and a few other events, new legislations are coming into place, tightening the laws on such weapons (this law was first mentioned back in July 2015). Also in the UK, 1996, the Dunblane school shooting took place, this incident led to the UK having one of the strictest anti-gun legislation in the world, as before that the gun laws were more relaxed. Since this law was implemented, there has been 0 school shooting related deaths in the UK, unlike American where there has been 112 school shooting related deaths, (64 school shootings in 2015 alone) since 2010 (according to Wikipedia).

The point I'm making is, when something terrible happens, you make clear that you don't want it to happen again. If your child hurts another child badly using something, say a BB gun, you discipline them strongly and take away their BB gun to show that you don't agree with that type of behavior, it doesn't mean they won't do it again, but it means you aren't condoning it, you have clearly shown, by your actions, that you don't want it to happen again. By not banning guns (or at least making some sort of attempt to) America are being complacent to all the gun related deaths, they are not showing that they don't want it to happen again. (of course people who shoot other people are punished, but they are allowing it to happen again by still allowing guns). To me Sandy Hook was the turning point, the minute you see 20 very young children being shot and don't think that calls for a serious change, that's when you're well and truly ****ed. That's when you are showing that you allow this, and that is disgusting.

As Bowie said, in an ideal world guns wouldn't exist. My own feelings and anger lead me to wish that guns were never created in the first place, I wish it were simple to remove them all from the Earth completely, but obviously that is not at all possible. Guns will always exist and will always be used to kill people, no matter what laws are brought in. However, gun laws can definitely make a difference, I'm not saying take everyone's guns away and ban them completely (although I strongly wish that could happen) I'm just saying at least make an attempt, stop allowing this. It's about time something was done. Guns obviously aren't the problem, people are, but gun laws can make a difference.

None of that really makes sense but my in my opinion yes. At the very least stricter laws need to be brought in.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 1, 2016)

I'm actually against gun control. It's not the gun that kills the person. It's the person holding the gun that kills. If guns are banned, that wouldn't stop criminals from owning guns. They don't believe in the law, so they would still own guns.

If anything, lack of morals is the leading cause of crime in America.


----------



## Stalfos (Aug 1, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I'm actually against gun control. It's not the gun that kills the person. It's the person holding the gun that kills. If guns are banned, that wouldn't stop criminals from owning guns. They don't believe in the law, so they would still own guns.
> 
> If anything, lack of morals is the leading cause of crime in America.



"Guns don't kill, people do." True, but guns give people the means to do it on a much larger scale and that is a fact. And yes, a ban wouldn't stop criminals from getting their hands on guns since *there's over 300 million of them in the US*.

You gotta start somewhere.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 1, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I'm actually against gun control. It's not the gun that kills the person. It's the person holding the gun that kills. If guns are banned, that wouldn't stop criminals from owning guns. They don't believe in the law, so they would still own guns.
> 
> If anything, lack of morals is the leading cause of crime in America.



ok but if guns are harder to get (because they are illegal) a lot less people would own guns. of course some people would still have guns, but not every guy and his dog would have an own gun. and if there are less people who have guns, less people will be using guns, which results in less crimes involving guns. yay.

sure, people can still get guns. but it will be harder.
and yeah, people can use other weapons, but it's generally a lot harder to kill a ton of people with a knife than it is to kill them with a gun


----------



## vel (Aug 1, 2016)

ok the u.s. says there is nothing to do to prevent these shootings, but you could freaking ban guns? some people say we should let everyone get a gun but then we'd have to give children guns as well, as crazy as it sounds, and it'll be a ****ing free for all! no, guns should be banned from the u.s. shootings are happening regularly, guys. this isn't freaking normal.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 1, 2016)

Stalfos said:


> "Guns don't kill, people do." True, but guns give people the means to do it on a much larger scale and that is a fact. And yes, a ban wouldn't stop criminals from getting their hands on guns since *there's over 300 million of them in the US*.
> 
> You gotta start somewhere.



Plus, America has more haters and hate groups than countries where guns are rare. Not only we have public shootings this bad, but also funeral picketing. And let's not forget that we have more mentally ill people.

Another reason why public shootings have increased is because we kept reporting them more. Yes, terrorist attacks need to be reported, but somehow it gives haters "ideas", which leads to more of these shootings.

- - - Post Merge - - -



visibleghost said:


> ok but if guns are harder to get (because they are illegal) a lot less people would own guns. of course some people would still have guns, but not every guy and his dog would have an own gun. and if there are less people who have guns, less people will be using guns, which results in less crimes involving guns. yay.
> 
> sure, people can still get guns. but it will be harder.
> and yeah, people can use other weapons, but it's generally a lot harder to kill a ton of people with a knife than it is to kill them with a gun



You're not able to convince me to support gun control. I'm already set in stone on every issue I side conservative on.


----------



## moonford (Aug 1, 2016)

They should be banned everywhere, glad I'm living in a "no gun" country, less crime and why tf were they ever invented? 
We don't need another thing to add to the list of why Humans suck. =/


----------



## Bunnilla (Aug 1, 2016)

I would like guns banned from public use, and only the military and special people who need them for their jobs like police or guards can have them


----------



## Alex518 (Aug 1, 2016)

100%, anyone who disagrees is probably a redneck


----------



## Aquari (Aug 1, 2016)

yes, there is no need to have something that was literally designed to kill things/people, owning one doesnt make you any cooler and carrying one around in public just makes you look like a ****ing idiot

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people!".. guns DO kill people it was LITERALLY designed for the purpose of killing people (and animals)


----------



## TheGreatBrain (Aug 1, 2016)

Lol. I'm not a redneck, but no, I do not think guns should be banned.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 1, 2016)

I think people should be allowed to keep a gun in their house for personal protection, but not be allowed to carry guns around in public. I think all semi-automatic and automatic weapons should be banned for civilian use; if your aim is that bad that you can't hit an intruder in your home with a handful of shots or you need a semi-automatic weapon for hunting, then you really shouldn't have a gun. There should be a limit for guns per person. Two or three maximum is enough; no one needs enough guns to start a militia in their house.


----------



## ams (Aug 1, 2016)

Yes. I live in Canada where you certainly can't buy a gun at a Walmart, and I even think that we should have stricter gun laws here. Mass shootings just aren't part of our daily lives here though and I'm very grateful.


----------



## moonbunny (Aug 2, 2016)

ams said:


> Yes. I live in Canada where you certainly can't buy a gun at a Walmart, and I even think that we should have stricter gun laws here. Mass shootings just aren't part of our daily lives here though and I'm very grateful.



Yep. I will never, for the life of me, understand the obsessive love Americans have for their guns. Their gun culture/political climate is precisely why I no longer wish to move back. (I'm Canadian, but grew up in the Southern US as a kid and loved it. For the longest time, my #1 life goal was to move back. Not anymore.)


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 2, 2016)

I don't believe they should be completely banned, but I'm in favor of putting many more restrictions on using them.


----------



## Corrie (Aug 2, 2016)

At the very least, please have stronger laws and restrictions. Seriously.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 4, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> Plus, America has more haters and hate groups than countries where guns are rare. Not only we have public shootings this bad, but also funeral picketing. And let's not forget that we have more mentally ill people.
> 
> Another reason why public shootings have increased is because we kept reporting them more. Yes, terrorist attacks need to be reported, but somehow it gives haters "ideas", which leads to more of these shootings.
> 
> ...


okiedokie.. ? just saying tho that Maybe u should rethink ,..

because while guns don't kill ppl on their own, they  do make it a *** ton easier to kill ppl. which makes them dangerous.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 4, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> okiedokie.. ? just saying tho that Maybe u should rethink ,..
> 
> because while guns don't kill ppl on their own, they  do make it a *** ton easier to kill ppl. which makes them dangerous.



Yeah, they do kill a lot of people at once, but the slower methods that kill fewer at once are usually more cruel and inhumane as just one offense warrants the death penalty in the United States since it goes under "torture" and "crimes against humanity". Gun violence simply goes under "murder". Also, with guns, a criminal can be scared off or even shot by the person that is about to become a victim (or even became a victim of something). If guns are banned, the person can't defend himself/herself from the criminal.

But I seen why people have supported gun control more often. It's because of these recent shootings. Even if the Orlando Shooting and Sandy Hook Massacre were both horrible cases, I felt that Columbine was the worst one. Why? Because it opened Pandora's Box. Ever since that one public shooting, public shootings have gotten more common. If someone was mentally ill enough or so filled with hate to do something that crazy, and if public shootings have never been reported, they wouldn't do something like that because they don't have the inspirations from reports on these tragedies. I honestly think these reports give people "ideas", which is why shooting rates like that have gone up. It's even at the point that public shootings have become predictable every year. And this is in a time where crime rates are decreasing.


----------



## KCourtnee (Aug 4, 2016)

No. Gun control will do nothing. People will still obtain guns. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America, yet so conveniently has the highest murder rate in America. People in general want what they "can't have". I'm not saying that no gun laws would make a better difference, but having strict gun laws literally does nothing positive.


----------



## Cariicarky (Aug 4, 2016)

i don't think ordinary citizens should be able to get assault rifles, but they should be allowed to posses handguns as self-defense (with background checks, of course). if it becomes illegal to own guns, criminals who want to kill somebody can still obtain guns illegally. they ARE criminals, after all. if they're going to go as far as to murder somebody, i doubt it would phase them to illegally get a gun. and then law-following citizens won't have any way to defend themselves against murderers with guns.

there is the argument that other countries have had less mass shootings than the US, but keep in mind that we have higher mental illness rates, so there will surely be more people trying to murder other citizens. and when someone murders somebody, they're getting punished whether owning a gun is illegal or not. stricter gun laws won't stop them from murdering people.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 4, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> Yeah, they do kill a lot of people at once, but the slower methods that kill fewer at once are usually more cruel and inhumane as just one offense warrants the death penalty in the United States since it goes under "torture" and "crimes against humanity". Gun violence simply goes under "murder". Also, with guns, a criminal can be scared off or even shot by the person that is about to become a victim (or even became a victim of something). If guns are banned, the person can't defend himself/herself from the criminal.
> 
> But I seen why people have supported gun control more often. It's because of these recent shootings. Even if the Orlando Shooting and Sandy Hook Massacre were both horrible cases, I felt that Columbine was the worst one. Why? Because it opened Pandora's Box. Ever since that one public shooting, public shootings have gotten more common. If someone was mentally ill enough or so filled with hate to do something that crazy, and if public shootings have never been reported, they wouldn't do something like that because they don't have the inspirations from reports on these tragedies. I honestly think these reports give people "ideas", which is why shooting rates like that have gone up. It's even at the point that public shootings have become predictable every year. And this is in a time where crime rates are decreasing.


the thing is that a lot of the people killed with guns would not be killed if the culprit didn't have a gun. It takes a lot more effort to use the "more inhumane" methods. (not that guns are humane but alright)

and yes, the shootings have become way more. probably they are inspired. but, many of the shootings wouldn't have happened if it would have been harder for them to get guns.


----------



## Celes (Aug 4, 2016)

Yes, if not then there should be way stricter laws. Gun should only be purchased through tons of trials and paperwork. Not to be bought easily at a local shop.


----------



## strawberrigod (Aug 4, 2016)

I think there should be stricter gun laws, mostly because I don't think a ban on guns is entirely realistic. I don't understand how certain people are able to obtain a gun license to begin with.. I have no idea what the process is for that, but it should definitely more efficient in keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people. I hear the argument "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Those people are typically civilians, everyday people, whatever you want to call them, that have the means to just purchase a gun from the store.


----------



## Cory (Aug 4, 2016)

Whoever thinks guns should be banned has an IQ under 80


----------



## Aali (Aug 4, 2016)

No. One of the reasons people think they should be banned is because when something bad happens the government gets a crisis actor on the news crying "oh lets ban guns please!"


----------



## Kirbystarship (Aug 4, 2016)

I think people should be able to have guns. If a big shooting comes people will be able to try and stop it.


----------



## Watchingthetreetops (Aug 4, 2016)

No. I think that psychological assistance should be more readily available. I think that the problem is not the shootings, it's the people.  People with deep issues. There's a problem when a young kid thinks that his only way out of his current situation is to kill lots of people, and it has nothing to do with guns.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 4, 2016)

KCourtnee said:


> No. Gun control will do nothing. People will still obtain guns. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America, yet so conveniently has the highest murder rate in America. People in general want what they "can't have". I'm not saying that no gun laws would make a better difference, but having strict gun laws literally does nothing positive.



Chicago is right on the border next to Indiana which has much looser gun laws, so anyone can buy a gun or two or a hundred in Indiana and bring them to Chicago. So maybe it's Indiana's loose gun laws which prevent Chicago's tough gun laws from saving lives.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 4, 2016)

Kirbystarship said:


> I think people should be able to have guns. If a big shooting comes people will be able to try and stop it.



That's true too. I don't know why people thought of that earlier. I do agree on having more mental institutions, tougher anti-bullying laws, and stricter laws against supporting foreign terror groups. Basically, get rid of the causes behind the shootings rather than the guns.


----------



## glow (Aug 4, 2016)

nah but there needs to be better regulation of them


----------



## Mink777 (Aug 5, 2016)

Even if they are banned, people will still find away to get them. So if they are dumb enough to ban them, then they shouldn't be surprised to see a lot more shootings.


----------



## Alienfish (Aug 5, 2016)

Cory said:


> Whoever thinks guns should be banned has an IQ under 80



So you're saying over 80 is good enough to handle one then? Lmfao.

But yes they should, this freedom act speech that you are entitled/have rights to carry one around is just stupid. Yeah sure, go around and shoot then.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 5, 2016)

Kirbystarship said:


> I think people should be able to have guns. If a big shooting comes people will be able to try and stop it.



wat
or they might be the ones causing the shooting????


----------



## Alienfish (Aug 5, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> wat
> or they might be the ones causing the shooting????



Pretty much.

Also there will always be a black market for everything regardless of if it's legal or not.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 5, 2016)

Sheila said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> Also there will always be a black market for everything regardless of if it's legal or not.



tbh yeah, when ppl use that argument it's just like.. ok ... so do you mean we should justmake everything legal because making stuff illegal "won't stop people from doing it"

letms legalize murder bwcause ppl will still be killed and making it illegal isnt stopping all murders !!!! logic level 100


----------



## Aali (Aug 5, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> tbh yeah, when ppl use that argument it's just like.. ok ... so do you mean we should justmake everything legal because making stuff illegal "won't stop people from doing it"
> 
> letms legalize murder bwcause ppl will still be killed and making it illegal isnt stopping all murders !!!! logic level 100



But if guns are illegal only people who buy them in the black market will get them 

What if they shoot up a place? NO ONE will have a gun to fight back with


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 5, 2016)

Aali said:


> But if guns are illegal only people who buy them in the black market will get them
> 
> What if they shoot up a place? NO ONE will have a gun to fight back with



the police?
ppl in general dont need guns "to protect themselves" because you shouldn't need to kill someone in order to protect yourself. 
and in shootings etc u should let the police do the killing of the culprit, chances are that if u are a civilian in a shooting drama you'll just do more damage than good if you start shooting too


----------



## moonbunny (Aug 5, 2016)

If you find yourself in an environment with an active shooter -- and you have a gun on you, too -- you'll probably make things worse by using it. You may miss your target. You may not only miss your target, but accidentally shoot an innocent. And even if you hit your target, they may not actually be the shooter. They could be a random person trying to stop the shooter with their gun too. They could also mistakenly make YOU their target...


----------



## Draco (Aug 5, 2016)

FleshyBro said:


> Recently in the UK, A man entered someone's home and shot a one year old child with an airgun. Before this incident (and still currently), the UK laws on airguns and similar weapons was rather relaxed (anyone over 18 could purchase an air rifle as long as it delivered less than 16.2 joules of energy). Due to this event and a few other events, new legislations are coming into place, tightening the laws on such weapons (this law was first mentioned back in July 2015). Also in the UK, 1996, the Dunblane school shooting took place, this incident led to the UK having one of the strictest anti-gun legislation in the world, as before that the gun laws were more relaxed. Since this law was implemented, there has been 0 school shooting related deaths in the UK, unlike American where there has been 112 school shooting related deaths, (64 school shootings in 2015 alone) since 2010 (according to Wikipedia).
> 
> The point I'm making is, when something terrible happens, you make clear that you don't want it to happen again. If your child hurts another child badly using something, say a BB gun, you discipline them strongly and take away their BB gun to show that you don't agree with that type of behavior, it doesn't mean they won't do it again, but it means you aren't condoning it, you have clearly shown, by your actions, that you don't want it to happen again. By not banning guns (or at least making some sort of attempt to) America are being complacent to all the gun related deaths, they are not showing that they don't want it to happen again. (of course people who shoot other people are punished, but they are allowing it to happen again by still allowing guns). To me Sandy Hook was the turning point, the minute you see 20 very young children being shot and don't think that calls for a serious change, that's when you're well and truly ****ed. That's when you are showing that you allow this, and that is disgusting.
> 
> ...



America is a funny place. not every law works in every place ,theres a reason its called United States. It may be 1 Nation but many times it is more like one nation with 50 opinions ( don't you mean 51? no shoo DC you dont count lol )  What works in Texas may not Work in California.
I belive this country was founded on right to make our own choices. the right to speak freely without answering to any King or Tyrant.

A person must do what is best for them and there family ,to protect them selfs ,within the boundarys of the law Some view this as Guns rights.
I think often we in this country (USA) often have our opinions run so hot we often stomp over the opinions of others regardless to get our point across and in process we forget True laws are not made with threats or Violence there made ,when to sides come together and do something that in politics has become a dirty word ( Compermise ). True Action Dares to put opinion aside, and do something far more Difficult Talk.


----------



## ZetaFunction (Aug 5, 2016)

No, because even if you ban guns, it still won't solve all the world's problems.  Criminals will buy off the black market instead, or use knives or bombs or something else to kill with, so no.  Banning guns literally won't do anything except create another tear in the social fabric of america: liberals who hate guns and want them banned, and southern conservatives who believe in "guns are love, guns are life <3".  If all guns do get banned from america, I can see a civil war between the north and the south.  LOL not like a war isn't already going to happen with trump or hillary as president though.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 5, 2016)

Lucanosa said:


> No, because even if you ban guns, it still won't solve all the world's problems.  Criminals will buy off the black market instead, or use knives or bombs or something else to kill with, so no.  Banning guns literally won't do anything except create another tear in the social fabric of america: liberals who hate guns and want them banned, and southern conservatives who believe in "guns are love, guns are life <3".  If all guns do get banned from america, I can see a civil war between the north and the south.  LOL not like a war isn't already going to happen with trump or hillary as president though.



yeah you're right, let's not do anything if it doesn't solve all the problems of this world. /s

 bombs are hard to get
guns will be harder to get
knives aren't very great for mass killings, they require more of a person physically than using a gun does etc.

and guess what? not all people who do criminal things know 100 other criminals and have loads of Illegal Guns at hand lmao. it _ will_ be harder for criminals/potential criminals to get guns, while it won't be impossible it will be harder. n if you don't have a weapon,, well you're less likely to kill ppl arent u.....


----------



## Stalfos (Aug 5, 2016)

The lax gun laws is the reason that there is an abundance of guns on the black market.


----------



## Kirbystarship (Aug 5, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> yeah you're right, let's not do anything if it doesn't solve all the problems of this world. /s
> 
> bombs are hard to get
> guns will be harder to get
> ...



Trucks can kill people as well do you want to banned trucks as well as guns?


----------



## N e s s (Aug 5, 2016)

No, I don't think guns should be banned. I do think however that there should be some kind of system to where someone can be approved to have a gun.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 5, 2016)

Kirbystarship said:


> Trucks can kill people as well do you want to banned trucks as well as guns?



guns are made to kill. trucks, knives, baseball bats etc are not.


----------



## Aali (Aug 5, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> guns are made to kill. trucks, knives, baseball bats etc are not.



Guns don't get up on their own and shoot people.


----------



## Stalfos (Aug 5, 2016)

Aali said:


> Guns don't get up on their own and shoot people.



Did someone say that?


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 5, 2016)

Aali said:


> Guns don't get up on their own and shoot people.



no one said that lmao
but ppl get up on their own and shoot other ppl with the help of guns


----------



## Aali (Aug 5, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> no one said that lmao
> but ppl get up on their own and shoot other ppl with the help of guns



Anyone can kill anyone with anything.  A gun is just another thing we can kill with


----------



## seliph (Aug 5, 2016)

Aali said:


> Anyone can kill anyone with anything.  A gun is just another thing we can kill with



They were saying guns were made for the sole purpose of killing.
Knives were made to cut food. Bats were made for baseball. Other tools that people can kill with are made for carpentry. Guns are made to kill.

Plus even so, nothing else can do as much damage in such a little amount of time as a gun can.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 5, 2016)

nvll said:


> They were saying guns were made for the sole purpose of killing.
> Knives were made to cut food. Bats were made for baseball. Other tools that people can kill with are made for carpentry. Guns are made to kill.
> 
> Plus even so, nothing else can do as much damage in such a little amount of time as a gun can.



I agree, and that's why I support gun control mostly. I would say, however, that using a gun for hunting animals is different than using one to kill people.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 5, 2016)

Aali said:


> Guns don't get up on their own and shoot people.



And bullets don't just fly out of people's hands. It takes both a gun and a human to shoot someone. So should we make humans illegal instead of guns by your logic?

Oh, and guns don't make themselves either. They're made by humans. So you could argue that the human who made the gun is just as responsible as the human who fired it. As well as the human who sold the gun to the killer. That's why it's better to just stop people from manufacturing and selling guns in some cases instead of allowing them to play a role in a murder.


----------



## Soot Sprite (Aug 6, 2016)

The problem with gun laws, or any laws really, is that someone is _always_ going to break them. Whether or not guns laws are stricter or guns are banned altogether won't stop all gun violence, a lot of the time guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally. If someone is going to break the law with a gun a gun law isn't going to stop them from doing that; they're going to break the law either way, how they get a gun isn't going to matter to them. 

Should guns be harder to get legally? Yes, of course. Everyone is entitled to be able to protect themselves, but there are probably better and less lethal ways to do that. Guns are the same as drugs, even if they're made illegal that doesn't mean people won't still have or use them.


----------



## Tensu (Aug 6, 2016)

Honestly no. But extremely strict gun laws should be enforced to make sure they are not misused.


----------



## Licorice (Aug 6, 2016)

Absolutely not.

Criminals are going to get their hands on guns regardless so why take away our chance to defend ourselves? I don't think citizens should be allowed assault rifles and stuff like that but handguns and guns for hunting should be legal.


----------



## Heyden (Aug 6, 2016)

theyre banned where i live and imo it wouldn't be a bad idea to do so in the US bc of all the recent events and w/e but a full on ban will take years to go through imo bc its not like people are gonna hand in their guns so. ik it's not 100% 'the gun', but the fact that its so easy to get a hold of one is insane tbh


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 6, 2016)

FleshyBro said:


> Recently in the UK, A man entered someone's home and shot a one year old child with an airgun. Before this incident (and still currently), the UK laws on airguns and similar weapons was rather relaxed (anyone over 18 could purchase an air rifle as long as it delivered less than 16.2 joules of energy). Due to this event and a few other events, new legislations are coming into place, tightening the laws on such weapons (this law was first mentioned back in July 2015). Also in the UK, 1996, the Dunblane school shooting took place, this incident led to the UK having one of the strictest anti-gun legislation in the world, as before that the gun laws were more relaxed. Since this law was implemented, there has been 0 school shooting related deaths in the UK, unlike American where there has been 112 school shooting related deaths, (64 school shootings in 2015 alone) since 2010 (according to Wikipedia).
> 
> The point I'm making is, when something terrible happens, you make clear that you don't want it to happen again. If your child hurts another child badly using something, say a BB gun, you discipline them strongly and take away their BB gun to show that you don't agree with that type of behavior, it doesn't mean they won't do it again, but it means you aren't condoning it, you have clearly shown, by your actions, that you don't want it to happen again. By not banning guns (or at least making some sort of attempt to) America are being complacent to all the gun related deaths, they are not showing that they don't want it to happen again. (of course people who shoot other people are punished, but they are allowing it to happen again by still allowing guns). To me Sandy Hook was the turning point, the minute you see 20 very young children being shot and don't think that calls for a serious change, that's when you're well and truly ****ed. That's when you are showing that you allow this, and that is disgusting.
> 
> ...



The Dunblane school shooting was an horrific "inspiration" for the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania, Australia, which occurred 6 weeks later.

"It became the worst single-person mass shooting in Australia’s history; and is still the third worst recorded worldwide." - according to this artcle from March 15th 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...lia-made-gun-control-happen-after-port-arthur

The political climate made gun reform laws an impossible ask prior to the tragedy, as the gun lobby had such an entrenched hold in key areas. But as more and more details of the massacre were revealed to the public, the sway of public sentiment turned completely against the gun lobbiests - 12 people were murdered in 15 seconds, 35 people died and 23 were wounded in just over 30 minutes, hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition were found amongst the items discarded by the shooter as he went on his murderous spree.. and then the more personal details emerged, about how individual people died protecting others or trying to assist the dead and dying. The most haunting thing for me, amongst a sea of terrifying anecdotes, is that he chased a 6 year old child down to where she had hidden behind a tree and killed her. She had run away after seeing her mama and her 3 year old sister be shot dead. I will never forget seeing her daddy sob in a tv interview as he tried to explain how his wife, Nanette Mikac, begged the shooter to spare their 2 daughters, even as she knew she was about to die. Madeline was 3 and Alannah was 6. I was not far off my 13th birthday and my youngest sister had turned 3 the week before the massacre. To say this tragedy had an impact on me would be an understatement.

My uncle was murdered (just after I turned 2) by a man who had a gun legally and was at my uncle's share house looking for a housemate who wasn't home. My understanding is my uncle had never seen the shooter before he opened the front door and was killed. The killer had extremely incapacitating mental health issues, from the preliminary hearings, which had been treated poorly if at all for some time prior to the incident. They, themselves, were largely incoherent so there was never any clear information as to why my uncle was shot, just that they didn't know each other. The shooter killed themselves during the coronial inquest into my uncle's death, leaving at least 2 families with nothing but questions and heartbreak. I don't know what happened to the man who was "meant" to be shot that day instead of my uncle. Hopefully he got any help he needed and moved on with his life.

At the time of that shooting, the gun could have been obtained legally. After the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, the shooter could not have obtained that particular weapon legally.

I have a cousin who owns a couple of rifles for hunting, mostly for culling introduced "pest" species during particular times of the year). My cousin and I share the same uncle, though my cousin was born several years too late to have met him. Whilst I don't *like* the fact that my cousin owns guns, I certainly respect his right to be a legal and responsible gun owner. I draw the line at seeing the guns, let alone touching them. But I'd be fine to sleep in the same house as them, personally. Even to take my nephew along under very strict conditions - which by law my cousin must adhere to at all times regardless of children being on the property or not, but I'm not risking my nephew or anyone else's life on just the hope that my cousin "does the right thing" (.. he would think poorly of anyone who *wouldn't* check the guns are secured, ammunition stored separately, etc, etc, in fact).

I'm in favour of strict gun regulations which aim to reduce crime, and death + injury counts where these occur.


----------



## cornimer (Aug 6, 2016)

Yes, guns should definitely banned to the public. No reason for having guns justifies all of the people that have been killed with them. If nobody can get their hands on weapons then they won't be needed for defense either. I think law enforcement officers should still be allowed to have them though.


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 6, 2016)

moonbunny said:


> If you find yourself in an environment with an active shooter -- and you have a gun on you, too -- you'll probably make things worse by using it. You may miss your target. You may not only miss your target, but accidentally shoot an innocent. And even if you hit your target, they may not actually be the shooter. They could be a random person trying to stop the shooter with their gun too. They could also mistakenly make YOU their target...


This. This is actually THE most likely outcome of armed "bystanders" trying to "help" during any situation involving someone brandishing a gun. Seriously. 

I didn't mention it in my earlier post as that covered quite a lot already, but my partner comes from a police and military family. He's in IT himself, but just about every member of his family actively served in some capacity, and that family is ****ing huge. His father was a key area manger for crisis situations for several decades, back when counselling was unheard of for military men or country "coppers" as police are known as around here. He has severe PTSD and a boatload of trauma he will take to his grave, but that's not the point. This is an entire family of country bumpkins who have served their country for generations (though have frequently been disinclined towards record keeping and occasionally due process, in that rough and ready way that doesn't fly today). They've worked in the most remote parts of Australia, in country towns, regional centres, the suburbs, and the inner city of Melbourne. The combined total of just my partner's dad and the dad's siblings (5? 6? I lose count.. And that's before the spouses..) was something like 250 years experience, counting only their own years working. And that was years ago now that we added it up. 

Guess what they think of the idea that random gun owners can help in a situation where there is an active shooter? Go on, really. Take a wild stab at how keen law enforcement are about having to walk in and clean up - literally - the aftermath. They have seen, time and time again how ****ing bad a situation turns when some ****ing moron with a gun thinks they can "help" stop/catch an armed bad guy.. I've seen these grown men with tears in their eyes as they ponder the lives lost in those situations. Police are TRAINED in this stuff, and it still goes wrong sometimes, despite the best efforts and procedures.

I've never been in an area where a gun has been shot. But I know literally dozens of people who've shot, been shot, and been called out to scenes after shots were fired. And as they are unanimous in their opinion that "guns = law enforcement, military, registered gun owners for particular purposes ONLY" - and have the horror stories to back up that stance... I'm going to side with them.

If anyone seriously thinks they or any other civilian is going to do more good than harm in a firefight.. They're either a ****ing moron, ignorant beyond belief, or.. they're one of those bad guys that I hope I never run into.

- - - Post Merge - - -

To be clear : the stories relate to times prior to the 1996 gun reform changes mentioned in my other post. If there were incidents after the laws changed, I'm not aware of them, though that doesn't mean none occurred.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 6, 2016)

amanda1983 said:


> This. This is actually THE most likely outcome of armed "bystanders" trying to "help" during any situation involving someone brandishing a gun. Seriously.
> 
> I didn't mention it in my earlier post as that covered quite a lot already, but my partner comes from a police and military family. He's in IT himself, but just about every member of his family actively served in some capacity, and that family is ****ing huge. His father was a key area manger for crisis situations for several decades, back when counselling was unheard of for military men or country "coppers" as police are known as around here. He has severe PTSD and a boatload of trauma he will take to his grave, but that's not the point. This is an entire family of country bumpkins who have served their country for generations (though have frequently been disinclined towards record keeping and occasionally due process, in that rough and ready way that doesn't fly today). They've worked in the most remote parts of Australia, in country towns, regional centres, the suburbs, and the inner city of Melbourne. The combined total of just my partner's dad and the dad's siblings (5? 6? I lose count.. And that's before the spouses..) was something like 250 years experience, counting only their own years working. And that was years ago now that we added it up.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately in America, we're inundated with movies where a guy is able to shoot a bunch of bad guys with military precision and avoid getting killed himself. I think people see these movies and think they'd be able to do the same thing if they were in a similar situation. Real life isn't the same as Hollywood though. Chances are that civilians with guns are likely to cause more chaos and casualties rather than be a hero. I wonder if movies in other countries are filled with guns and shooting scenes as much as they are in American movies, because I sure think that Hollywood has a lot to do with the American obsession with guns.


----------



## seliph (Aug 6, 2016)

I don't get the argument "criminals are going to get guns anyways" I always see in this kind of discussion. Like, okay? That's not a downside of banning guns.

People get killed anyways, should we legalize murder? People get robbed anyways, should we legalize theft? There's no downside to making it even a little more difficult for people to get their hands on weapons. Even if it has no affect at all, there's no downside to it.


----------



## Cariicarky (Aug 6, 2016)

the problem with banning guns is that law-following citizens won't have a way to defend themselves if someone who illegally got a gun tries to shoot them. i agree that guns shouldn't be sold at your local walmart and people who want to purchase a gun should receive background checks, but i don't think they should be banned from all citizens.

edit: also, citizens shouldn't be allowed to purchase assault rifles no problem. a citizen possesing a handgun as self-defense makes much more sense than a citizen owning an assault rifle designed to shoot multiple people in the blink of an eye.


----------



## Miii (Aug 6, 2016)

nvll said:


> I don't get the argument "criminals are going to get guns anyways" I always see in this kind of discussion. Like, okay? That's not a downside of banning guns.
> 
> People get killed anyways, should we legalize murder? People get robbed anyways, should we legalize theft? There's no downside to making it even a little more difficult for people to get their hands on weapons. Even if it has no affect at all, there's no downside to it.



There's absolutely a downside to banning guns. It takes away the right of home owners to defend themselves against intruders. You still have to wait for police officers to arrive when you call 911 (especially if you live in a small town with a small police force), and hiding isn't guaranteed to work. There's also the fact that no country is willing to invade the US by land because there's likely to be a gun behind every door. And then there's the reason the founding fathers added the right to keep and bear arms to the American constitution in the first place: with guns, we have the power to rebel against tyranny, should our government become too big and too controlling.

Also, the "criminals will always have guns" argument is completely valid! They will always find a way to illegally purchase guns, and banning them for average citizens only makes normal people easier targets. Look at how many people in Orlando got shot, even though it's a gun free zone.


----------



## seliph (Aug 6, 2016)

Miii said:


> There's absolutely a downside to banning guns. It takes away the right of home owners to defend themselves against intruders. You still have to wait for police officers to arrive when you call 911 (especially if you live in a small town with a small police force), and hiding isn't guaranteed to work. There's also the fact that no country is willing to invade the US by land because there's likely to be a gun behind every door. And then there's the reason the founding fathers added the right to keep and bear arms to the American constitution in the first place: with guns, we have the power to rebel against tyranny, should our government become too big and too controlling.
> 
> Also, the "criminals will always have guns" argument is completely valid! They will always find a way to illegally purchase guns, and banning them for average citizens only makes normal people easier targets. Look at how many people in Orlando got shot, even though it's a gun free zone.



The "heroic random citizen" is a fantasy that not only I have pointed out to you several times before but the posts above mine have already addressed it as well.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 6, 2016)

Miii said:


> There's absolutely a downside to banning guns. It takes away the right of home owners to defend themselves against intruders. You still have to wait for police officers to arrive when you call 911 (especially if you live in a small town with a small police force), and hiding isn't guaranteed to work. There's also the fact that no country is willing to invade the US by land because there's likely to be a gun behind every door. And then there's the reason the founding fathers added the right to keep and bear arms to the American constitution in the first place: with guns, we have the power to rebel against tyranny, should our government become too big and too controlling.
> 
> Also, the "criminals will always have guns" argument is completely valid! They will always find a way to illegally purchase guns, and banning them for average citizens only makes normal people easier targets. Look at how many people in Orlando got shot, even though it's a gun free zone.



I can understand having a gun to protect your house, but let's not kid ourselves with the citizen militia thing. Other countries don't invade us because of the strength of our military as well as the fact that there are only two countries which share a border with the U.S. If the government becomes too autocratic, do you really think ordinary people with pistols and shotguns are going to stop a well-trained military with tanks, helicopters, jets, bombs, missiles, machine guns, body armor, and other goodies that we don't even know about?


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 6, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> Unfortunately in America, we're inundated with movies where a guy is able to shoot a bunch of bad guys with military precision and avoid getting killed himself. I think people see these movies and think they'd be able to do the same thing if they were in a similar situation. Real life isn't the same as Hollywood though. Chances are that civilians with guns are likely to cause more chaos and casualties rather than be a hero. I wonder if movies in other countries are filled with guns and shooting scenes as much as they are in American movies, because I sure think that Hollywood has a lot to do with the American obsession with guns.




This is a really good point that I hadn't considered when I wrote my comment, thank you! I agree completely, these fantastical movies feed directly into the obsession with guns. Hollywood makes gunfights seem unhealthily romantic and .. survivable. The idea that some hero can pull a gun and "save the day" is very appealing psychologically. It's also almost entirely fiction. The times in RL this kind of thing DOESN'T end in tragedy make the news *because* it was so statistically unlikely to end well. Around here, this reporting also includes warnings from law enforcement that this kind of thing is NOT encouraged, and everyone was very lucky to come out alive (assuming they did), but that crimes need to be left to law enforcement to deal with - not civilians.

Those same rubbish Hollywood popcorn movies and tv shows are shown in Australia and are fairly widespread worldwide. It's all so romanticised, so fictionalised. It boggles my mind that people seem to think these stories are realistic - it's like thinking superhero movies are documentaries. A nice fantasy.

In real life, guns are ****ing DEAFENING, aiming and shooting is very difficult on the move even for experienced personal who have trained for years in this. Most civilians practice on targets or hunting, and neither of these scenarios is adequate preparation for trying to shoot the "bad guy" during a crime without shooting or injuring any bystanders (ricochet is deadly, which Hollywood only remembers when it looks good on screen). 

The very worst thing that could happen in an armed robbery of a shop is that some hero thinks they can save the day and stop the bad guy. That automatically escalates the situation, raising the stakes. The criminal had a gun out, sure, but exactly what is gained by someone pulling another gun out? Call me crazy but that would make me feel less safe, as statistically I would be MUCH more likely to die or be seriously injured in that case than just a random lone gunman robbing the store I'm inside. I knew this before I was old enough to watch any of the dozens of US crime scene procedurals that clogged our tv channels (I'm sure they still do but I don't watch commercial tv anymore). There is so much information available on how and why "every civilian should be armed if they want" doesn't work, on how and why crisis situations aren't improved in the slightest by random civilians being armed.. I just don't get it. It's not rational in my opinion to claim that guns protect people. It is illogical to think that being armed yourself as a citizen with no specialised training can possibly help save people in the event of a crisis.. It actually worries me that people who don't seem to have a firm grasp of the complex dynamics at play here are allowed to buy, own, and use guns at all.

Those myths that "guns don't kill, people do" and "armed civilians can protect themselves and others" were all blown away by one lone gunman in my country in April of 1996. No one else being armed could do a ****ing thing to save all those people. In the most gun-happy state of Australia, not one shot was actually fired at the gunman by anyone except police. He killed people so quickly because he had guns that are intended to mow people down. In the heat of the moment, all that practice at a rifle range or duck hunting does sweet **** all when you walk into a room and see people being gunned down before your eyes. That is just not a situation civilians are mentally equipped to handle, actually. The human brain doesn't process the sensory input fast enough without intense training and conditioning. Adrenaline floods the body and survival instincts kick in, if they're lucky. In this situation, instincts played little part in who lived and who died. That was decided by the gunman with his bag of guns and ammunition.

Many of the people who died at Port Arthur in 1996 never even knew they were being shot. Of those that did know there was a gunman, they realised only after they were trapped with no hope of escape. Almost everyone else thought it was an historical reenactment until they either saw people falling and dying, or else were told it had been a real massacre later after they were rescued.


----------



## Miii (Aug 6, 2016)

nvll said:


> The "heroic random citizen" is a fantasy that not only I have pointed out to you several times before but the posts above mine have already addressed it as well.



So what about in the case of home invasion, or a business being robbed? Is there a better, more efficient non-gun related way of ensuring your safety? There are situations where you can't call the police right away (like if you're held at gunpoint or if you're being assaulted), and even when you can call them right away, they take time to get to you, especially if you live in a more rural area, which the US has a lot of. 

Farmers also use guns to protect their livestock and crops from things like coyotes, which are omnivorous, highly intelligent, will eat any smaller pets you might have in your back yard (even in urban areas) and are all over Texas and the rest of the US (they used to eat entire litters of kittens, chickens, sheep, deer, rabbits, small to medium sized dogs and all kinds of other things where I used to live, 5 miles from the nearest town). 

My point is guns are useful and banning them has consequences.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 6, 2016)

Miii said:


> So what about in the case of home invasion, or a business being robbed? Is there a better, more efficient non-gun related way of ensuring your safety? There are situations where you can't call the police right away (like if you're held at gunpoint or if you're being assaulted), and even when you can call them right away, they take time to get to you, especially if you live in a more rural area, which the US has a lot of.
> 
> Farmers also use guns to protect their livestock and crops from things like coyotes, which are omnivorous, highly intelligent, will eat any smaller pets you might have in your back yard (even in urban areas) and are all over Texas and the rest of the US (they used to eat entire litters of kittens, chickens, sheep, deer, rabbits, small to medium sized dogs and all kinds of other things where I used to live, 5 miles from the nearest town).
> 
> My point is guns are useful and banning them has consequences.



If only there was a thing you could put around your yard or farm to keep unwanted animals out so you wouldn't have to constantly sit outside with a gun and hope you can hit that animal. You know, something kind of similar to that thing your preferred candidate wants to build.


----------



## seliph (Aug 6, 2016)

Miii said:


> So what about in the case of home invasion, or a business being robbed? Is there a better, more efficient non-gun related way of ensuring your safety? There are situations where you can't call the police right away (like if you're held at gunpoint or if you're being assaulted), and even when you can call them right away, they take time to get to you, especially if you live in a more rural area, which the US has a lot of.
> 
> Farmers also use guns to protect their livestock and crops from things like coyotes, which are omnivorous, highly intelligent, will eat any smaller pets you might have in your back yard (even in urban areas) and are all over Texas and the rest of the US (they used to eat entire litters of kittens, chickens, sheep, deer, rabbits, small to medium sized dogs and all kinds of other things where I used to live, 5 miles from the nearest town).
> 
> My point is guns are useful and banning them has consequences.



Point out to me examples of when that has helped rather than caused more of a mess.

Aside from what Red Cat's already said, most places have hunting guns legalized. I don't really have much against them, but they should require a lengthy licensing process with thorough background checks and not just be chilling on the rack at Wal-Mart.


----------



## tae (Aug 6, 2016)

please look at Australia's gun laws and notice how well they've done with the heavy regulation / banning of firearms.


----------



## Miii (Aug 6, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I can understand having a gun to protect your house, but let's not kid ourselves with the citizen militia thing. Other countries don't invade us because of the strength of our military as well as the fact that there are only two countries which share a border with the U.S. If the government becomes too autocratic, do you really think ordinary people with pistols and shotguns are going to stop a well-trained military with tanks, helicopters, jets, bombs, missiles, machine guns, body armor, and other goodies that we don't even know about?



No, I don't think that average citizens would win against the US military if they went power crazy like North Korea, but if we didn't have guns at all, it would be so much easier for a dictatorship to arise in the future because there would be no fighting them at that point. If you look at dictatorships from the past, you'll see a pattern of disarmament then slaughter of unarmed citizens (Germany under the Nazi Party's rule, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, China under Mao Tse Tung, Uganda under Idi Amin etc.).

And for the record, a coyote can jump a 7 foot privacy fence and barely touch it.

- - - Post Merge - - -



nvll said:


> Point out to me examples of when that has helped rather than caused more of a mess.
> 
> Aside from what Red Cat's already said, most places have hunting guns legalized. I don't really have much against them, but they should require a lengthy licensing process with thorough background checks and not just be chilling on the rack at Wal-Mart.



Look at the case of Lavauntai Broadbent, the 16 year old that (with 3 accomplices) held two adults at gunpoint and was shot and killed by one of them, who had a concealed carry permit. The other 3 accomplices ran, and the two people that could have died to a kid involved in gang violence lived. One person died, two people lived.

And Walmart is actually pretty responsible about their gun sales. Only Walmarts licensed to sell firearms sell them, they require background checks for all employees selling or handling firearms, anyone purchasing a firearm is videotaped, and they've exceeded the federal government's requirements as licensed gun dealers since 2002 when they started refusing to make default proceed sales (where a gun retailer is allowed to sell a gun to a person if their NICS background check isn't completed within 3 business days) because a person is statistically something like 20 times more likely to be a prohibited gun buyer if their NICS background check takes longer than 24 hours.


----------



## KantoKraze (Aug 6, 2016)

yes. I despise violence of any kind, and guns promote that. Therefore, I despise guns as well.


----------



## Bellrich (Aug 7, 2016)

Its mixed for me. Law enforcement should have guns, and civilians should have a very deep check when purchasing them. Do guns count hunting rifles? Some people just need them for self defense.. ive been almost broken into (my house) twice and its scary af


----------



## Celestefey (Aug 7, 2016)

Miii said:


> Also, the "criminals will always have guns" argument is completely valid! They will always find a way to illegally purchase guns, and banning them for average citizens only makes normal people easier targets. Look at how many people in Orlando got shot, even though it's a gun free zone.



I am forever confused as to how you can say banning guns is a bad thing. That argument is totally invalid. Yes, people will always find a way to get around laws but that doesn't mean we shouldn't implement them anyway. Some countries ban drugs yet people will still find ways to obtain them. But it just means it's HARDER to get ahold of them, and so reduces the amount of people who would consume drugs. If it was more readily and easily available then more people would take them. I know guns and drugs are not exactly the same (ie: drugs harm the person taking them directly, whereas guns have the ability to harm others), but my point still stands. If you ban guns = harder to get ahold of them = less chance of attacks happening such as in Orlando. The attack in Orlando may have NEVER happened provided it was harder to get ahold of guns. Yes, Orlando is a gun-free zone, but even so it was probably easy for that criminal to obtain the gun, when practically the vast majority of other places in the US allow citizens to purchase guns with ease. If the rest of the US had banned guns, I'm sure it would have been MUCH harder for the culprit to get ahold of the weapon and so the chances are the attack may have never happened (I assume you're referring to the attack in the night club that happened a little while ago). In England, our gun control is much much stricter, so it's pretty rare for us to ever wake up and hear any news about people being shot or mass shootings occurring. When it does happen it's a shock to us. But it feels like when mass shootings occur in the US the vast majority of people don't even bat an eyelid and they get very protective over their weapons stating that they have the "right" to own a firearm because it's a "free country", or whatever other bs people may use to defend them.


----------



## seliph (Aug 7, 2016)

Can I ask the people who are against at least stricter gun control what exactly your solution is to your country's mass shootings that don't seem to be slowing down?


----------



## Stalfos (Aug 7, 2016)

nvll said:


> Can I ask the people who are against at least stricter gun control what exactly your solution is to your country's mass shootings that don't seem to be slowing down?



Moor guns so we can shot teh badd gyus!!!111!!


----------



## seliph (Aug 7, 2016)

Stalfos said:


> Moor guns so we can shot teh badd gyus!!!111!!



It sure is working out well!! What do you mean 49 dead in Orlando? What do you mean 32 dead in Blacksburg? What do you mean 27 dead in Newtown? What do y


----------



## Antonio (Aug 7, 2016)

THEY WILL NEVER TAKE MY GUNS 



Spoiler



Who wants an anti-gun sticker! We'll think we're safe but in reality we are just more vulnerable. So get a sticker and support the anti-gun laws which will make are life span shorter and the population shorter....


----------



## Gregriii (Aug 7, 2016)

nvll said:


> Can I ask the people who are against at least stricter gun control what exactly your solution is to your country's mass shootings that don't seem to be slowing down?



dont ask that as if there was any solution to avoid shootings lmao, criminals will get guns if they want to 

but I agree guns should be banned

I mean if you want something to protect yourself get a taser or something like that cause it wont kill (I mean it's self defense you just want to immobilize them??


----------



## seliph (Aug 7, 2016)

Gregriii said:


> dont ask that as if there was any solution to avoid shootings lmao, criminals will get guns if they want to
> 
> but I agree guns should be banned
> 
> I mean if you want something to protect yourself get a taser or something like that cause it wont kill (I mean it's self defense you just want to immobilize them??



I've said it before and I'll say it again: "There's absolutely no way to prevent this" says the only nation where this regularly happens

Sure there's no permanent solution but you can cut the numbers drastically.


----------



## Draco (Aug 8, 2016)

Celestefey said:


> I am forever confused as to how you can say banning guns is a bad thing. That argument is totally invalid. Yes, people will always find a way to get around laws but that doesn't mean we shouldn't implement them anyway. Some countries ban drugs yet people will still find ways to obtain them. But it just means it's HARDER to get ahold of them, and so reduces the amount of people who would consume drugs. If it was more readily and easily available then more people would take them. I know guns and drugs are not exactly the same (ie: drugs harm the person taking them directly, whereas guns have the ability to harm others), but my point still stands. If you ban guns = harder to get ahold of them = less chance of attacks happening such as in Orlando. The attack in Orlando may have NEVER happened provided it was harder to get ahold of guns. Yes, Orlando is a gun-free zone, but even so it was probably easy for that criminal to obtain the gun, when practically the vast majority of other places in the US allow citizens to purchase guns with ease. If the rest of the US had banned guns, I'm sure it would have been MUCH harder for the culprit to get ahold of the weapon and so the chances are the attack may have never happened (I assume you're referring to the attack in the night club that happened a little while ago). In England, our gun control is much much stricter, so it's pretty rare for us to ever wake up and hear any news about people being shot or mass shootings occurring. When it does happen it's a shock to us. But it feels like when mass shootings occur in the US the vast majority of people don't even bat an eyelid and they get very protective over their weapons stating that they have the "right" to own a firearm because it's a "free country", or whatever other bs people may use to defend them.



this turned into a lively debate  and guns. As i have desided to remaining out of debate and over read or makenots about points tthat strike my notice i would say nice we can have this debate in a civil manner and not resort to name calling.


----------



## oath2order (Aug 8, 2016)

Shattered said:


> THEY WILL NEVER TAKE MY GUNS
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the misspellings here are intentional, then A+ job of acting like a paranoid gun-nut.


----------



## Psydye (Aug 8, 2016)

No I don't think they should be banned. I do believe people have a right to protect themselves. It's not complicated.


----------



## Sig (Aug 8, 2016)

yes, there shouldn't be deadly things that could murder me in anyones possesion unless we're in a war or its the 1700s again


----------



## Tensu (Aug 8, 2016)

sakura miku said:


> yes, there shouldn't be deadly things that could murder me in anyones possesion unless we're in a war or its the 1700s again



But what about stuff like knives, axes, or saws? These things have an important use, but can also kill people. We need knives to cut food, axes to cut trees, and saws to cut wood. I'm all for stricter gun laws, but I don't think that is realistic or even possible.


----------



## Cory (Aug 8, 2016)

People have probably said this but I'm not reading this ****.
1. You can't ban guns, some drugs are illegal and people still get them.
2. If there were no guns people would just use other weapons like swords and slingshots or some ****
3. Second amendment *****


----------



## Soraru (Aug 8, 2016)

yes. lets bring back medieval weapons. i dont wanna shoot anyone i just wanna whack em with my broadsword.


----------



## seliph (Aug 9, 2016)

Cory said:


> 2. If there were no guns people would just use other weapons like swords



Don't kid yourself Americans aren't that cool


----------



## oath2order (Aug 9, 2016)

Ban all ammunition.

The government says you get guns, not ammunition. Problem solved.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 9, 2016)

Cory said:


> People have probably said this but I'm not reading this ****.
> 1. You can't ban guns, some drugs are illegal and people still get them.
> 2. If there were no guns people would just use other weapons like swords and slingshots or some ****
> 3. Second amendment *****



1. By that logic, why make anything illegal?

2. I'd rather have someone try to hit me with a slingshot than with a gun.

3. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1791 when the best weapon available was a musket rifle that could fire one shot every fifteen seconds. I'm pretty sure if semi-automatic weapons existed back then, there would be no way in hell that it would be passed as it's currently written. So I think it makes more sense to interpret the second amendment as giving people the right to own bolt action firearms only instead of a blanket right to own any firearm based on the context in which the amendment was passed. The are already bans on owning things like RPGs and anti-aircraft weapons, so the second amendment is not absolute. So the second amendment argument for things like assault rifles is pretty flimsy at best.


----------



## vel (Aug 9, 2016)

the thing is i now feel violence would always be a thing. but guns promote violence, especially with the background checks these days. almost anyone can get a gun. although anything could harm someone, supposedly, guns shouldn't be easily accessible or plentiful. no matter what we do, or what we ban, something is always gonna happen, and people are going to want to go nuts. banning guns doesn't completely stop gun attacks, but it will lessen it. more of a background check would definitely help so not just everyone can get their hands on a gun. again, violence will still exist, people who break the rules will still break rules. we're just trying to help lessen all this fighting.


----------



## Blueskyy (Aug 9, 2016)

But then how will I hot glue things at work?


----------



## Celestefey (Aug 9, 2016)

Cory said:


> People have probably said this but I'm not reading this ****.
> 1. You can't ban guns, some drugs are illegal and people still get them.
> 2. If there were no guns people would just use other weapons like swords and slingshots or some ****
> 3. Second amendment *****



1) Well then why do we even have laws in the first place? Yes, some people will find any way around laws and people will still do illegal things and get away with it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws in the first place. At least if we ban guns then it will mean that less people will own them or have access to them so therefore lowering the chances of gun crime.

2) Okay, except they are significantly less dangerous and significantly less capable of causing widespread damage. Yes people can easily access other weapons such as a knife, for example, but a knife does not really have the same power to kill someone as easily as a gun. It's going to be hard to ever stop people who clearly have mental health issues and think it's okay to take the life of another person but at least we'd lower our chances.

I would comment on your last point but I'm not as educated on US history and politics as perhaps some people so I don't want to say an invalid point.


----------



## Stalfos (Aug 11, 2016)

Cory said:


> 3. Second amendment *****



Yeah, this is probably the biggest problem right here.


----------



## oath2order (Aug 11, 2016)

Cory said:


> People have probably said this but I'm not reading this ****.
> 1. You can't ban guns, some drugs are illegal and people still get them.
> 2. If there were no guns people would just use other weapons like swords and slingshots or some ****
> 3. Second amendment *****



The second amendment was written at a time where we could shoot one bullet, then reload with powder and ****. It's extremely outdated.


----------



## Cory (Aug 11, 2016)

Guns don't support violence. People support violence. 
#3 wasn't serious. I thought it was clear by the ***** at the end.


----------



## oath2order (Aug 11, 2016)

Cory said:


> Guns don't support violence. People support violence.
> #3 wasn't ser



Pulling the Trump card I see, backing away from criticism by calling it a joke.

Naturally.


----------

