|
|
| montie |
well theres already a load posted here, but hey i gotta throw my 2 cents in also.
I'm all for stricter regulations on guns, but I don't think these regulations will cause a drastic and immidiate drop in crime.
First of all there is absolutly no need for citizens to have hand guns or automatic weapons.
protection? bah. from what. In case the germans come? or even worse those evil neighbors to the north, the Canadians, WHAT IF THEY ATTACK?
Please. the sad thing is there are actually militias out there that train in case of certain events.
now being less sarcastic. if someone is so worried about an intruder entering their home or is so scared to walk down the street, they can get some pepper spray or a tazer. If everyone had a gun to protect themselves there would be much more accidents than actual events where the gun is used to protect someone in a life threatening encounter. Besides, someone who is entering your home to just steal your belongings, as horrible as that is, does not deserve to be killed. Police in England don't have guns for self protection and they get along pretty well (any people out there in england want to prove me wrong go ahead, im not too knowledgeable in english crime).
Now I do believe guns do have some uses. Huntings guns should be available for those who are properly liscenced.
For those who really like guns like handguns and automatic weapons and want to shoot them, they should have gun clubs where they can go and use AK47's, colt AR 15's, uzi's, 9mm and whatever else type of gun that was made to kill people, to shoot at targets. The guns would not be allowed to leave the location.
Now back to my previous statement. I don't think regulations like this would immidietly cause a sudden and drastic decrease in crime in America. For crime to get as low as other countries, it will take alot more change in American culture and an end to many social problems here such as poverty, the drug war, our "culture of fear" etc..
I do think these regulations would save lives though. (don't you think it would be worth it to give up your gun if it could save the life of one innocent person? You don't need them that badly). Regulations such as these would be a good compramise for those who really want to hold on to their guns. And they would be a start at lowering our high murder rate. |
|
|
| montie |
Also
It's absolutly ridiculous that I at 18 am legally able to go buy a an assault rifle, but yet am not legally able to buy a pint of beer at a bar or pub.
The logic behind that is absurd. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
Also
It's absolutly ridiculous that I at 18 am legally able to go buy a an assault rifle, but yet am not legally able to buy a pint of beer at a bar or pub.
The logic behind that is absurd. |
It's also absurd how you can vote for our elected officials at 18, and drive at 16, yet not drink until 21. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's also absurd how you can vote for our elected officials at 18, and drive at 16, yet not drink until 21. |
I find that rediculous as well....:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Ok, even if handguns become illegal to have, what about hunting rifles? You can kill someone with those just as easily as you can kill anyone with a regular gun.
But in my opinion, the problem is that american laws are too indifferent on who gets to own a gun. If there would be extensive psychological examination before giving a gun to someone, it would insure people who are not capable of wielding a gun won't have one and still the person's right to defend would not be violated. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Ok, even if handguns become illegal to have, what about hunting rifles? You can kill someone with those just as easily as you can kill anyone with a regular gun.
|
I think that it would be a lot harder for someone to carry around a hunting rifle to committ a crime and certainly a lot more conspicuous. I don't think gang members would start walking around DC with hunting rifles and if they did it would be a lot easier for the cops to identify them. I know that if I DID see a criminal walking around the streets with a hunting rifle, I would realize that he was a criminal and run away. However you don't know that someone is carrying a handgun and is about to rob you until it happens. |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | | Police in England don't have guns for self protection and they get along pretty well (any people out there in england want to prove me wrong go ahead, im not too knowledgeable in english crime). |
Well its quite odd with the cops here, If you said that about two years ago you'd be bang on right however With the rise in gun related murders in the UK I think if it keeps the same way for another year or two the cops will get given guns at the moment however, your normal cop who patrols won't have a gun, however one out of 4 or 5 police cars that patrol is a gun car, which has two armed police (SWAT officers) their used as quick response units to bank robberies so on here, their both officers per gun car, an MP5 sub machine gun and a Pump action shotgun, Then theres the actual SWAT Teams who of course are armed to the teeth, then last flying squad dectectives who investigate serious crimes are armed with handguns.
I agree with the idea as in the states it will be so hard to get everyone to give over weapons, but some form on strict checks on people buying firearms, like criminal records, psychological evaluations etc would stop a lot of nuts getting their hands on guns, especially as someone pointed out these militia's in states like Montana and Idaho who have this paranoid lifestyle that everyone is out to get them, their more like private armies, because their so well armed, and with 100s of acres of land they can train very easily and hide stuff easily. |
|
|
| Nalin |
I don't understand some of you people. I'll repeat a statement made earlier: the intent of a gun is to maim or kill. And I agree with this.
It is obvious that a gun can be used for 2 and only 2 reasons:
(A) to main or kill
(B) personal enjoyment, protection, etc
So the question is is the risk of (A) worth the practice of (B). Honestly, who can say it is? Out of all the leisure activities on this planet, are you going to tell me that shooting a gun at a ranch is so damn essential. And there are plenty of ways you can protect your home or anything else besides using a gun that has far less potential of being used inapropriately.
The only thing I agree with is strict (VERY STRICT) laws on owning rifles say for hunting. |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
