Do you think guns should be banned?
- Thread starter Sicatiff
- Start date
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
guns are made to kill. trucks, knives, baseball bats etc are not.
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
no one said that lmao
but ppl get up on their own and shoot other ppl with the help of guns
seliph
free palestine
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.
Last edited:
nintendofan85
Good grief.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Posts
- 21,234
- Bells
- 2,179
- Love Tokens
- 0
- Cupid Coins
- 0
- Heart Dust
- 0
- Switch
- 7144-2399-2801
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
On-and-off member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
- Posts
- 4,924
- Bells
- 15,734
- Love Tokens
- 0
- Cupid Coins
- 0
- Heart Dust
- 0
- Switch
- 2020-8332-2456
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.
Last edited:
Soot Sprite
~dirty~
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.
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.
Last edited:
Licorice
heh heh horf
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Posts
- 5,120
- Bells
- 9
- Love Tokens
- 0
- Cupid Coins
- 0
- Heart Dust
- 0
- Switch
- 5714-2655-1799
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.
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.
Last edited:
Heyden
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
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.
Last edited:
cornimer
grab acorns 'til you're delirious
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.
Last edited:
amanda1983
Senior Member
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
On-and-off member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
- Posts
- 4,924
- Bells
- 15,734
- Love Tokens
- 0
- Cupid Coins
- 0
- Heart Dust
- 0
- Switch
- 2020-8332-2456
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.
Last edited:
seliph
free palestine
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.
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
i love cats
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.
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.
Last edited:
Miii
Senior Member
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.
