This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!'... and Gon's Balls will whisper 'First... comes... rock!' Hah!  Made you stare at Naruto's Marshmallow!  Pushing the logo off-center to drive TheOcean insane.  
 
HomeEpisodesStoreForumiTunes Chat

Go Back   Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series > Forum Community > Serious Discussions



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 12-22-2012
Fat1Fared's Avatar
Fat1Fared Fat1Fared is offline
Chumba Wumba
 
Gender: Male
Location: The Ministry of Evil
Blurb: What is a blurb?
Posts: 9,458
Default Gun laws?

I decided to wait a few days before posting this because I realise that respect for those harmed is more important than my person aims. However, I was wondering what peoples' thoughts on the criminalisation/legislation of guns were/are?

I think most know my very anti-gun stance so for now I will keep quiet. I more interested in others' thoughts.

Last edited by Fat1Fared; 12-24-2012 at 05:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-22-2012
GcarOatmealRaisinCookies's Avatar
GcarOatmealRaisinCookies GcarOatmealRaisinCookies is offline
Closet Trekkie
 
Gender: Male
Location: HarryOatmeal's bed
Blurb: I am Lorde, Ya Ya Ya
Posts: 23,144
Send a message via MSN to GcarOatmealRaisinCookies Send a message via Skype™ to GcarOatmealRaisinCookies
Default

I'm not against the 2nd amendment and the right to bare arms. Let's put it this way, after the recent school shooting in Connecticut, which do we prefer more dead kids or tougher gun laws? IMHO, I'd prefer tougher gun laws... but that's me.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2012
Fenrir502's Avatar
Fenrir502 Fenrir502 is offline
 
Gender: Kroze
Posts: 11,659
Send a message via MSN to Fenrir502
Default

As far as I can tell, there is literally nothing you can do with a gun except hurt and kill. The arguments I've heard have roughly been: "Even if you get rid of guns, criminals will still have them" and "even if there are no guns, people will just use other weapons like knives"

In response to the first point, there is a remarkable difference between the number of murders with guns in countries with control over them and countries without.

In response to the second, knives are far more useful as tools than as weapons. We cook with them and eat with them; they're much more than just instruments of murder. It's also a lot harder to hurt someone badly with a knife compared to a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Yes, guns kill.
Yes, guns were originally designed for killing.
Yes, people being killed by guns (or in fact in any way) is always tragic and terrible.
But banning guns is not the solution. Nor is the NRA's solution of giving everyone guns.

I enjoy sport shooting, and I take part in clay pigeon and rifle target shooting fairly regularly. I have no intentions of hurting anything more than a piece of grass. Is it fair for me to loose that entertainment, simply because a mentally disturbed maniac decided to shoot up a school?

Yes, something has to be done, but is going for a "Ban all of X things" solution really going to work?

There are better ways to spend time and money to stop things like this from happening. We just need to sit down and talk rationally and throw ideas around, rather than shouting blame at anything and everything vaguely connected to it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2012
Fat1Fared's Avatar
Fat1Fared Fat1Fared is offline
Chumba Wumba
 
Gender: Male
Location: The Ministry of Evil
Blurb: What is a blurb?
Posts: 9,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcar90 View Post
I'm not against the 2nd amendment and the right to bare arms. Let's put it this way, after the recent school shooting in Connecticut, which do we prefer more dead kids or tougher gun laws? IMHO, I'd prefer tougher gun laws... but that's me.
(Add it can be argued throughout all of this as this academic opinion poorly submitted, not fact.)

Well the Second amendment had very little to nothing to do with private citizens owning guns, it was actually a poorly written right to take up arms and rebel should a state of national crisis arise. Basically, the 'forefathers' did not want to openly promote the idea of rebellion, but they did like the idea of Citizens joining a public supported militias in order to stand against 'evil states'. Basically, they still wanted enshrined in the constitution the spirit of 'freedom fighting', so thus we end up with a piece of Constitution that makes the Dangerous Dog Act look inspired.

It should be noted the 'forefathers' actually banned the ownership of guns for almost all private citizens because far from wanting gun ownership,they wanted militias. This is why many legal historians now agree they actually just wanted to pay homage to the idea of the common man taking up arms to fight injustice. Notice the Constitution says "a militia necessary to the security of a free state" and 'keep and bear' arms, not own them. Necessary, Keep and Bear are key words to any lawyer who cares to actually read the Constitution as it was intended and not as those with vested interests want it to be read. Taken as it is written, the Constitution gives you no more right to own a gun as normal citizen than it does give you rights to own a tank.

However, in the 1980's Lobbiest groups began promoting the idea of this amendment as a right to basically own a gun no matter what in order to gain national support for their aims to loosen the surprisingly strong gun laws of the time.

Last edited by Fat1Fared; 12-24-2012 at 05:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat1Fared View Post
Taken as it is written, the Constitution gives you no more right to own a gun than it does give you rights to own a tank.
 


#Humour over

Agreed the constitution has a lot of ambiguity that people take for granted.

However I fall very wary of the "the founding fathers believed X", as without reanimating them and asking their opinions on a talk show, I don't think it's right to say that we know they believed in anything. For all I know Churchill believed in dragons, I'll never be able to prove it though.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-22-2012
GcarOatmealRaisinCookies's Avatar
GcarOatmealRaisinCookies GcarOatmealRaisinCookies is offline
Closet Trekkie
 
Gender: Male
Location: HarryOatmeal's bed
Blurb: I am Lorde, Ya Ya Ya
Posts: 23,144
Send a message via MSN to GcarOatmealRaisinCookies Send a message via Skype™ to GcarOatmealRaisinCookies
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat1Fared View Post
Well the Second amendment had very little to nothing to do with private citizens owning guns, it was actually a poorly written right to take up arms and rebel should a state of national crisis arise. Basically, the 'forefathers' did not want to openly promote the idea of rebellion, but they did like the idea of Citizens joining a public supported militias in order to stand against 'evil states'. Basically, they still wanted enshrined in the constitution the spirit of 'freedom fighting', so thus we end up with a piece of Constitution that makes the Dangerous Dog Act look inspired.

It should be noted the 'forefathers' actually banned the ownership of guns for almost all private citizens because far from wanting gun ownership,they wanted militias. This is why many legal historians now agree they actually just wanted to pay homage to the idea of the common man taking up arms to fight injustice. Notice the Constitution says "a militia necessary to the security of a free state" and 'keep and bear' arms, not own them. Necessary, Keep and Bear are key words to any lawyer who cares to actually read the Constitution as it was intended and not as those with vested interests want it to be read. Taken as it is written, the Constitution gives you no more right to own a gun as normal citizen than it does give you rights to own a tank.

However, in the 1980's Lobbiest groups began promoting the idea of this amendment as a right to basically own a gun no matter what in order to gain national support for their aims to loosen the surprisingly strong gun laws of the time.
perhaps the amendment should be amended.
I mean the NRA nuts are acting like the government wants to remove guns from everybody, because of a few bad apples are ruining things and /responsible/ gun owners don't want to lose their precious weapons.

Perhaps the Amendment should be changed that a person can only own a gun, if they pass physical and mental examinations, as well as a gun safety course, along with a waiting period before a person can be given a permit to own a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-22-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Jheez, that'd be stricter than the UK.

Over here you supply your GP's details, and then they contact the GP and check your medical history.

Maybe better investment in medical support would be more effective?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-22-2012
Ishikawa Oshro's Avatar
Ishikawa Oshro Ishikawa Oshro is offline
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: in your back pocket. Have a friend get me out plox
Blurb: If I save time, when do I get it back?
Posts: 3,802
Default

My argument for the whole gun law's propoganda is simple. Anyone with no knowledge of the power of a gun would want them blatently banned. Which would be the best route to go if our world could afford to love without them.
We live in a day and age where power is everything. And seeing as nuclear bombs have not become household commodities yet, guns will have to do. The power of a gun was simply made to do a simple job. Equalize the battle field and to take a life. That is the simple use of a gun and the reason it was made.
But if you look deeper into the power of a gun in the small man's world. A gun is treasure that can kill and save lives.

Now in all these shootings one thing is clear. the shooter clearly has a motive and executes it in the safest place where there is no means for retalitation. Gun's in america are banned in just about everyschool that adhere's to state laws. And most private functions ban them because it does not promote a "learning" environment if you have worry if there is a loose cannon in your class packing heat.

Go back a few years to september 2001. Since then all airplanes have been allowed to bear arms. And to a popular success. A lot of high-jackings have gone down since. Seeing as you never know which person has a gun on them it's not worth the risk.
There have been smaller stories about gunmen about to shoot up a mall but a pedestrian saves the day by either disarming the villian or making it known he also has a firearm.

Now to make another point be clear. As fared has said. Guns are VERY important in keeping the goverment in check. The second amendment exists simply so another britan does not happen in america. Now it is a very farfetched thing to happen but IF it were to happen the people would be able to retaliate.

So in closing I think the solution is very simple. We as a people must arm more people with these guns. Rent a cops must be certified. More armed security in schools. And station these rent a cops all over town. Now granted money does not allot for security and police officers to be EVERYWHERE seeing as most states are already trimming the hedges with their police. But I do believe we cannot go backward. It just is not a rational thought. We must progress on to the next step and simply arm more people with proper training.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2012
grimfang999's Avatar
grimfang999 grimfang999 is offline
Sex-Administrator
 
Gender: Neither
Location: This is where I live
Blurb: This is a Blurb
Posts: 9,868
Default

Fair point ishi, however while reading something did occur to me. Lets say you gave everyone guns (I know you werenot saying that but still) and they were allowed to carry them around sure you have made the country more secure, but is it more liberated?


Granted society is built on trust, in some ways even if you hada gun yourself you still dont know if the people around you are about to snap and attack you. Without a gun, they probably couldnt do serious damage before being stopped. With a gun they could kill you more easilly. Sure, it will act as a deterent for any sane person, but at the same time it may also reduce trust between people, making society more divided than it is now. Should we be safe from very rare occurences, or be kept with a fear that someone has the capacity to kill us if they really wanted to, and would we have the time to respond if they did?

Likewise, the killers motivation was no a sane one. He was a suicidal sociopath who wanted to die but also leave a mark on society to be remembered by, even negative.

However, I would agree for the time being we do need an increase in armed, fully trained security. However, this is a capitalist society, money comes first over the people. I agree however that we cannot fully ban guns, but rather tighten the laws on getting or owning guns. Likewise, we need to improve access to health systems especially psychotherapy (not like we're short on psychology majors), so people can be helped if they need it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-23-2012
killshot's Avatar
killshot killshot is offline
Whiskey Icarus
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Red Neckington
Blurb: Yet another 5 star post
Posts: 2,439
Default

I'd like to provide some perspective if I may. If I'm not mistaken, the proposed law is ban assault weapons, correct? That sounds reasonable. What would a regular person need with an assault rifle? But do any of you actually know what an assault weapon is? When does a hunting rifle become an assault rifle?

From what I can tell, ammo capacity seems to be the deciding factor which determines if a weapon is designed for hunting or high school massacres. But you can buy extended magazines for almost any weapon. I can make my .227 hunting rifle my grandfather left me look like an AK-47 with the right attachments. So essentially what they will be doing is banning scary looking guns. Who is going to determine how many bullets your gun can hold before it becomes an assault rifle?

There are a lot of problems with implementing gun control. Even if they banned the sale of guns entirely, there are still roughly 270 million guns privately owned in the United States. Are people supposed to give them back? Who's going to take them back? I know several otherwise law abiding rednecks who would kill for their right to own guns. Taking them back at this point is not a possibility.

So where does that leave us? Banning the sale of guns is only going to punish law abiding citizens who enjoy shooting in a safe, responsible way. Its too late to get rid of the guns that are already here. To me, the only appropriate response is to stop blaming everything except for the real problem. And that problem is America isn't willing help people until they do something drastic.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killshot View Post
I'd like to provide some perspective if I may. If I'm not mistaken, the proposed law is ban assault weapons, correct? That sounds reasonable. What would a regular person need with an assault rifle? But do any of you actually know what an assault weapon is? When does a hunting rifle become an assault rifle?

From what I can tell, ammo capacity seems to be the deciding factor which determines if a weapon is designed for hunting or high school massacres. But you can buy extended magazines for almost any weapon. I can make my .227 hunting rifle my grandfather left me look like an AK-47 with the right attachments. So essentially what they will be doing is banning scary looking guns. Who is going to determine how many bullets your gun can hold before it becomes an assault rifle?

There are a lot of problems with implementing gun control. Even if they banned the sale of guns entirely, there are still roughly 270 million guns privately owned in the United States. Are people supposed to give them back? Who's going to take them back? I know several otherwise law abiding rednecks who would kill for their right to own guns. Taking them back at this point is not a possibility.

So where does that leave us? Banning the sale of guns is only going to punish law abiding citizens who enjoy shooting in a safe, responsible way. Its too late to get rid of the guns that are already here. To me, the only appropriate response is to stop blaming everything except for the real problem. And that problem is America isn't willing help people until they do something drastic.
^mostly this

Show someone a black AR-15 rifle and they'll immediately think death and destruction.
Paint it pink or orange, and suddenly it looks like a toy and nobody cares.
Trying to ban, restrict or remove guns that are already there will be a waste of time, money and manpower.
Concentrating on helping the people in other ways is the way forward, and always has been.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-23-2012
SailorAthena's Avatar
SailorAthena SailorAthena is offline
 
Gender: Female
Location: New Zealand
Blurb: Sailor says....NYEH!
Posts: 680
Default

I'm definately for tougher gun laws and teachers not bringing guns to school as has been suggested by the NRA or whatever it's called. The answer is not more guns ._. Doesn't willing to murder just to keep your gun mean that you shouldn't have guns in the first place? o.o And also about people wanting to shoot in the safest place....aren't they the ones to usually take themselves out? I think instead of looking for a safe place they're looking to cause more shock then anything. And what about that kid who's mother told him to take a gun to school for protection and he ended up threatening to murder a classmate with it? o.o More guns wont make it safer, it just means there are gonna be more deaths, more accidents and more mass shootings. Even if there was someone armed at that school o.o I'm not sure it would have been enough to put the guy off, probably the same with pretty much any mass shooting. Also the fact that mass shootings are done by mostly licensed gun owners is proof that there needs to be tougher laws ._. Yes people could still get guns illegally but atm those people were able to just go and get one from a gun store ._. having to go get a gun illegally which would be a lot harder to do then going to a gun store could actually help to put people off (at least kids anyway). Part of what cause these mass shootings is probably how available guns are, it's so easy to get them apparently. If they have no conscience what's stopping them? For example why was that kids mother allowed 12 guns? She had guns to defend herself but wasn't able to, instead all those guns were used at an elementary school. I'm sure a lot of people are responsible with guns but atm the law lets people get a gun way too easily. Other countries that have stricter gun laws have less mass shootings. I don't think there would be the same amount of mass killings if there was only knives

Also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZOPp9jKeHE

Last edited by SailorAthena; 12-23-2012 at 11:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorAthena View Post
I'm definately for tougher gun laws and teachers not bringing guns to school as has been suggested by the NRA or whatever it's called. The answer is not more guns ._. Doesn't willing to murder just to keep your gun mean that you shouldn't have guns in the first place? o.o And also about people wanting to shoot in the safest place....aren't they the ones to usually take themselves out? I think instead of looking for a safe place they're looking to cause more shock then anything. And what about that kid who's mother told him to take a gun to school for protection and he ended up threatening to murder a classmate with it? o.o More guns wont make it safer, it just means there are gonna be more deaths, more accidents and more mass shootings. Even if there was someone armed at that school o.o I'm not sure it would have been enough to put the guy off, probably the same with pretty much any mass shooting. Also the fact that mass shootings are done by mostly licensed gun owners is proof that there needs to be tougher laws ._. Yes people could still get guns illegally but atm those people were able to just go and get one from a gun store ._. having to go get a gun illegally which would be a lot harder to do then going to a gun store could actually help to put people off (at least kids anyway). Part of what cause these mass shootings is probably how available guns are, it's so easy to get them apparently. If they have no conscience what's stopping them? For example why was that kids mother allowed 12 guns? She had guns to defend herself but wasn't able to, instead all those guns were used at an elementary school. I'm sure a lot of people are responsible with guns but atm the law lets people get a gun way too easily. Other countries that have stricter gun laws have less mass shootings. I don't think there would be the same amount of mass killings if there was only knives

Also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZOPp9jKeHE
much of what you say is somewhat true. I agree that throwing guns into every situation does not make things automatically safer or better. But banning them outright will not help either.
Even in the UK, once you get past the initial stage of owning a firearms license, the police rarely care much what you do with it. They don't monitor how many or of what you buy.
Neither banning nor arming everyone is the answer. We need to concentrate more on the real problem, humans.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-23-2012
Ishikawa Oshro's Avatar
Ishikawa Oshro Ishikawa Oshro is offline
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: in your back pocket. Have a friend get me out plox
Blurb: If I save time, when do I get it back?
Posts: 3,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killshot View Post
I'd like to provide some perspective if I may. If I'm not mistaken, the proposed law is ban assault weapons, correct? That sounds reasonable. What would a regular person need with an assault rifle? But do any of you actually know what an assault weapon is? When does a hunting rifle become an assault rifle?

From what I can tell, ammo capacity seems to be the deciding factor which determines if a weapon is designed for hunting or high school massacres. But you can buy extended magazines for almost any weapon. I can make my .227 hunting rifle my grandfather left me look like an AK-47 with the right attachments. So essentially what they will be doing is banning scary looking guns. Who is going to determine how many bullets your gun can hold before it becomes an assault rifle?

There are a lot of problems with implementing gun control. Even if they banned the sale of guns entirely, there are still roughly 270 million guns privately owned in the United States. Are people supposed to give them back? Who's going to take them back? I know several otherwise law abiding rednecks who would kill for their right to own guns. Taking them back at this point is not a possibility.

So where does that leave us? Banning the sale of guns is only going to punish law abiding citizens who enjoy shooting in a safe, responsible way. Its too late to get rid of the guns that are already here. To me, the only appropriate response is to stop blaming everything except for the real problem. And that problem is America isn't willing help people until they do something drastic.
That's why the best possible solution would be to arm more people.
It is no secret guns may begin crime but they also stop crime.

I cannot see any rewriting of the second amendment going over well with the american people. I know I for one would be quite upset. and I do not even own a gun.
I just know that if a situation were to arise and crime were to rise in my neighborhood. A household gun would be my best protection over ADT or a phone call to the police. Response is slow anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishikawa Oshro View Post
That's why the best possible solution would be to arm more people.
It is no secret guns may begin crime but they also stop crime.

I cannot see any rewriting of the second amendment going over well with the american people. I know I for one would be quite upset. and I do not even own a gun.
I just know that if a situation were to arise and crime were to rise in my neighborhood. A household gun would be my best protection over ADT or a phone call to the police. Response is slow anyway.
There is a difference between allowing people to defend themselves, and forcing protection upon people who may not want it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-23-2012
SailorAthena's Avatar
SailorAthena SailorAthena is offline
 
Gender: Female
Location: New Zealand
Blurb: Sailor says....NYEH!
Posts: 680
Default

Outright banning would probably be a bad idea :o It kinda seems like people can buy a gun(s) and then just leave and do what they want which isn't good o.o But maybe some types of guns could be banned though? I have no idea about guns though but if guns with lots of bullets and shoot really fast are legal they shouldn't be. Most of what I know about guns comes from video games ._.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorAthena View Post
Outright banning would probably be a bad idea :o It kinda seems like people can buy a gun(s) and then just leave and do what they want which isn't good o.o But maybe some types of guns could be banned though? I have no idea about guns though but if guns with lots of bullets and shoot really fast are legal they shouldn't be. Most of what I know about guns comes from video games ._.
Basing it on video games is a bad idea, they are far more unrealistic than you think.
In reality, for an assault rifle full auto is useless. It makes your aim worse and wastes bullets so fast it's crazy. A modern assault rifle can empty a 30 round magazine in 2-4 seconds, and all that recoil means maybe 1 or 2 hit the target you wanted.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-23-2012
SailorAthena's Avatar
SailorAthena SailorAthena is offline
 
Gender: Female
Location: New Zealand
Blurb: Sailor says....NYEH!
Posts: 680
Default

Yep it is a bad idea ._. What guns aren't banned that you guys think should be banned? Guns that would be useless unless it's for shooting all over the place or have lots of bullets are the only ones I can think of.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-23-2012
MrsSallyBakura's Avatar
MrsSallyBakura MrsSallyBakura is offline
Deputy Executive Assistant Moderator; Chimera Ant Queen; SallylamiGami; Leasee
 
Gender: Female
Location: Your mind
Blurb: Happily married since 10/19/2013
Posts: 30,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killshot View Post
I'd like to provide some perspective if I may. If I'm not mistaken, the proposed law is ban assault weapons, correct? That sounds reasonable. What would a regular person need with an assault rifle? But do any of you actually know what an assault weapon is? When does a hunting rifle become an assault rifle?

From what I can tell, ammo capacity seems to be the deciding factor which determines if a weapon is designed for hunting or high school massacres. But you can buy extended magazines for almost any weapon. I can make my .227 hunting rifle my grandfather left me look like an AK-47 with the right attachments. So essentially what they will be doing is banning scary looking guns. Who is going to determine how many bullets your gun can hold before it becomes an assault rifle?

There are a lot of problems with implementing gun control. Even if they banned the sale of guns entirely, there are still roughly 270 million guns privately owned in the United States. Are people supposed to give them back? Who's going to take them back? I know several otherwise law abiding rednecks who would kill for their right to own guns. Taking them back at this point is not a possibility.

So where does that leave us? Banning the sale of guns is only going to punish law abiding citizens who enjoy shooting in a safe, responsible way. Its too late to get rid of the guns that are already here. To me, the only appropriate response is to stop blaming everything except for the real problem. And that problem is America isn't willing help people until they do something drastic.
This this this.

Listen, if I think that it would work, I would be all for tighter gun-control laws if it meant that it would be saving more lives (or preventing unlawful killings, more like). But realistically, I am uncertain if making a brash law against guns at this point is going to help anyone.

Someone on Facebook I remember made a status saying that in Japan, people have to go through rigorous background checks and mental tests to make sure that you are able to own a gun. The problem in this situation? The shooter in Connecticut did not own the guns that he shot with. They belonged to his mother, who was a lawful gun collector. And the people in the shooters life all claimed that they never expected him to do what he did, ever. Most people don't expect that sort of thing from the people that they love.

When the shooting in Connecticut happened, people immediately screamed about gun control. What people are ignoring is mental illness. There has to be more awareness, more treatment, and more love for the people who are more likely to harm us. We can't just pretend that some of these people don't have problems. We can't turn a blind eye on the dangers of certain people just because we know who they are. I'm not saying that they need to be isolated, discriminated against, or anything of the sort.

Rather, their needs, sometimes, are very different from our own needs. We shouldn't pretend that these people are exactly like us just because it's politically incorrect. I have a friend with bipolar disorder. She needs to be medicated, she needs to sleep for at least 8-9 hours every night, and she needs to eat a gluten-free and dairy-free diet in order to function normally. It's sad, but that's the reality. Aside from getting enough sleep (but even then I can live on 6 hours just fine), her needs are quite different from mine. And that's just the way life is. I am not discriminating against my friend by stating this. I think that while the sentiment of equality has good intentions, equality in every single literal sense is just impossible.

I read an article the other day written by a woman who has a son with a mental disorder. It's sad and terrifying what she has to go through every day. Here is the link, in case anyone wants to read it.

Believe me when I say that I wish that banning guns would solve these mass shootings. But if life were that simple, would we even be having mass shootings in the first place?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Hit the nail right on the head sally.

Idiots in the NRA coupled with scaremongers in the media and government don't help the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-23-2012
MrsSallyBakura's Avatar
MrsSallyBakura MrsSallyBakura is offline
Deputy Executive Assistant Moderator; Chimera Ant Queen; SallylamiGami; Leasee
 
Gender: Female
Location: Your mind
Blurb: Happily married since 10/19/2013
Posts: 30,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biggles1 View Post
Idiots in the NRA coupled with scaremongers in the media and government don't help the situation.
Not at all. Listening to the media about the whole thing is rather sickening. The Connecticut shooting should lead to more discussions than just gun-control laws.

What people who want tighter gun-control laws specifically to avoid mass shootings are attempting to put a band-aid on a problem that needs surgery.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

I've given up trying to talk to my mum on this subject. Every time I even hint that maybe outright banning every gun isn't a great solution she seem to think I want to give a mini gun to every kid on the high street.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-23-2012
Ishikawa Oshro's Avatar
Ishikawa Oshro Ishikawa Oshro is offline
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: in your back pocket. Have a friend get me out plox
Blurb: If I save time, when do I get it back?
Posts: 3,802
Default

Well the problem is that the people (majority) will not settle for a simple mental test or anything of the sort. and when the people pressure the government especially the current party in the house (obama who is already getting flack for the fiscal cliff). So some kind of gun laws will come into being.

Though you are correct sally. I believe in the majority of mass killings due to guns that have happened on american soil were a result of a firearm illegally claimed by a minor. Columbine, conneticut, and other shootings.

Well see what happens though. The people have a big impact on what get's concentrated on after big events. september 11 led to us going to Irac from president bush to save face. I believe healthcare was a result of the baby boomers. And etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

That's the problem. There are no simple mental health tests.
You'll probably never find a way to spot future psychopaths early on.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-23-2012
Ishikawa Oshro's Avatar
Ishikawa Oshro Ishikawa Oshro is offline
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: in your back pocket. Have a friend get me out plox
Blurb: If I save time, when do I get it back?
Posts: 3,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biggles1 View Post
That's the problem. There are no simple mental health tests.
You'll probably never find a way to spot future psychopaths early on.
pretty much this.
I'm sane now but who knows about tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-23-2012
SailorAthena's Avatar
SailorAthena SailorAthena is offline
 
Gender: Female
Location: New Zealand
Blurb: Sailor says....NYEH!
Posts: 680
Default

What about people who are simply just hateful though? Like that guy who shot a kid just cause he was black? I don't think people with disabilities are to blame. Some people are just full of hate and want to do bad things. You always here people say how normal the person was and how unexpected it is. I'm sure if the person had a disability it would have been pretty much the focus of the story but you don't often hear that. Even the mass shooter in Norway was declared sane. And I don't think the mother should have been a legal gun owner, maybe if the laws were stricter she wouldn't be, or at least wouldn't have had as many guns.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorAthena View Post
What about people who are simply just hateful though? Like that guy who shot a kid just cause he was black? I don't think people with disabilities are to blame. Some people are just full of hate and want to do bad things. You always here people say how normal the person was and how unexpected it is. I'm sure if the person had a disability it would have been pretty much the focus of the story but you don't often hear that. Even the mass shooter in Norway was declared sane. And I don't think the mother should have been a legal gun owner, maybe if the laws were stricter she wouldn't be, or at least wouldn't have had as many guns.
The KKK sure murdered a lot of people using rope.
The Nazi's killed millions with Gas.

Having or banning guns doesn't change the story a great deal. Someone who wants to say, set fire to a church, could easily kill a couple hundred pretty quickly. If they just used guns though, they likely wouldn't be able to kill them all before someone stopped them.

As has been said before. There will always be those who are silent time bombs. Those who one day suddenly snap and go on a rampage. Can you really justify taking away the freedom of millons just so we MIGHT have a few less deaths a few years later?
Any death is tragic, especially the death of children. But we have to ask ourselves, at what point do we stop and say, how far can we go before we get to the point of controlling everyone's lives to try and stop bad things happening? If you follow the same thinking we should limit all cars to 40mph to reduce the number of road deaths.

It all comes down to, where and when do the lines get drawn?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-23-2012
SailorAthena's Avatar
SailorAthena SailorAthena is offline
 
Gender: Female
Location: New Zealand
Blurb: Sailor says....NYEH!
Posts: 680
Default

The kkk and the nazi's had strength in numbers. Stricter laws isn't taking away the freedom of millions. Making a registry of the mentally ill instead of gun owners is only going to mean discrimination justified cause they're the ones to blame. And stricter laws does mean less mass shootings, at least in other countries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aclnzv_QD3Q Also if someone set fire to a church for people to die they would have to also stop the people from getting out, hard to do with just a lighter or match. And if the kkk, and nazi's only used guns I don't think that would have hindered them, with their large numbers. I don't see how you think someone would have been able to stop them if they decided to use guns, if anything it would have been a lot easier but the point was to make their death horrible.

Last edited by SailorAthena; 12-23-2012 at 09:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-23-2012
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,483
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorAthena View Post
The kkk and the nazi's had strength in numbers. Stricter laws isn't taking away the freedom of millions. Making a registry of the mentally ill instead of gun owners is only going to mean discrimination justified cause they're the ones to blame. And stricter laws does mean less mass shootings, at least in other countries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aclnzv_QD3Q
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that it can be done.

By "stricter laws" I meant outright banning of some or all weapons. Which would be removal of freedoms.

Exactly, and discriminating against them won't help anyones case really. In the UK there are some medical conditions that disallow you (regular seizures, and other muscle spasm/loss of control related things) as well as some mental ones (like depression and bipolar) that CAN limit you, at your GP's discretion. It works fairly well.

Stricter laws does not necessarily correlate directly with lower mass shootings. There are many, many other factors to take into account. Population, population distribution, education, medical, not even mentioning society's images as a whole. All of these and probably many many more can make serious impacts on the data. It's not fair to draw direct conclusions from say, the UK to the US, as there are multiple differences beyond the laws themselves. In fact, the US is very much in it's own bubble. There's no other country out there with similar laws, population, education and healthcare to compare it to. This is why statistics have to be looked at VERY carefully.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Yu-Gi-Oh is the property of Konami and Kazuki Takahashi. We are only a parody, we are not breaking any laws nor intend to. See our disclaimer and terms of use. You can also contact us. Maybe you even want to read our about us page. Smileys by David Lanham. Hosted by Cthulhu.... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.