Do you think guns should be banned?
- Thread starter Sicatiff
- Start date
Tensu
Senior Member
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.
Last edited:
Cory
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Posts
- 6,442
- Bells
- 271
- Love Tokens
- 0
- Cupid Coins
- 0
- Heart Dust
- 0
- Switch
- 4803-6658-3883
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. 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 *****
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
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.
Last edited:
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.
Celestefey
どうでもいい
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.
