Pro Gun Anti-Gun

[Umon Daisuke]

A better question would be whether guns should be relatively easily accessible to civilians, and I don't believe they should unless their occupation requires them to have one. Banning is simply unrealistic. If history has taught us anything, it's that banning, whether justified or not, simply does not work and simply sparks an impulse to seek them. It's just human nature for better or worse.

Gun control would be best in my view. Even educating people in their teens just to get it out of their system if you will. They're weapons after all, lethal projectile ones mind you, but still weapons in the same league as a folded sword, hunting knives and whatnot.

That's speaking in general terms. As others mentioned, some individuals will acquire gun or any lethal weapons one way or another. Take Canada for example, we have gun control here, but gun violence still exists.

 

[drapture17]

A better question would be whether guns should be relatively easily accessible to civilians, and I don't believe they should unless their occupation requires them to have one. Banning is simply unrealistic. If history has taught us anything, it's that banning, whether justified or not, simply does not work and simply sparks an impulse to seek them. It's just human nature for better or worse.

Gun control would be best in my view. Even educating people in their teens just to get it out of their system if you will. They're weapons after all, lethal projectile ones mind you, but still weapons in the same league as a folded sword, hunting knives and whatnot.

That's speaking in general terms. As others mentioned, some individuals will acquire gun or any lethal weapons one way or another. Take Canada for example, we have gun control here, but gun violence still exists.

Exactly, in a perfect world, only those that truly need them would have them, but the problem with that is that you can only repossess the guns that have been legally purchased and registered. What this means is that only responsible gun-owners will have their guns taken away, this gives the thugs a nice defenseless target. I'd love to go back to being able to leave my door open and not have to worry about 3 or 4 dudes marching right into my house and doing whatever they please. My house was burglarized last yr while my pregnant wife was supposed to be home. Alarm company never called the cops and when we called them it took them about 10mins to get to my house (the police station is about 10mins WALKING distance from my house). At the end of the day, we have to adapt to the changing times even if that means doing things we're not quite comfortable with. If we ban all guns, something else will take its place, we're extremely good as a species at adapting, and if history has shown us anything is that the guy with the biggest stick calls the shot...we all like to call the shot.

 

[Eks]

A better question would be whether guns should be relatively easily accessible to civilians, and I don't believe they should unless their occupation requires them to have one. Banning is simply unrealistic. If history has taught us anything, it's that banning, whether justified or not, simply does not work and simply sparks an impulse to seek them. It's just human nature for better or worse.

Gun control would be best in my view. Even educating people in their teens just to get it out of their system if you will. They're weapons after all, lethal projectile ones mind you, but still weapons in the same league as a folded sword, hunting knives and whatnot.

That's speaking in general terms. As others mentioned, some individuals will acquire gun or any lethal weapons one way or another. Take Canada for example, we have gun control here, but gun violence still exists.

If you're an idiot who thinks using a gun for profit is a good/acceptable idea, then yeah, **** you. But I can't agree with the idea of penalizing the majority because of the actions of a few.

 

[FlawlessVictor]

If you're an idiot who thinks using a gun for profit is a good/acceptable idea, then yeah, **** you. But I can't agree with the idea of penalizing the majority because of the actions of a few.

Gun control is doesn't always mean guns ownership is banned altogether. It just means restricting their distribution and how easily they are acquired.

 

[Eks]

Gun control is doesn't always mean guns ownership is banned altogether. It just means restricting their distribution and how easily they are acquired.

He also said that he doesn't think civilians should have them unless they need them for work, so I'm not really sure to what extent he thinks guns should be "regulated".

 

[Jade]

While I can agree household objects can be dangerous depending on it's use. I remember a news report of a person who bludgeoned a cop with a can of soda. However, a gun's tactical advantage of range is nothing to sneeze at. A person who is proficient with a gun can control a lot of space, and take down foes more easily than someone with a melee weapon. If guns were not efficient at disabling foes, it would not be used by the military or any other profession that uses weapons.

What about someone who can throw a huge knife straight across an area right into your head?

I get that guns have power, range and speed but anything can have those attributes, if the person knows how to do it right.

 

[drapture17]

What about someone who can throw a huge knife straight across an area right into your head?

I get that guns have power, range and speed but anything can have those attributes, if the person knows how to do it right.

This is what I've been trying to convey. In all my years around firearms, the quotidian gun owners that I have trained can not hit a 3ft target at 7yrds. I think movies have clouded our view of the attained skill required to be proficient with firearms, handguns more specifically. On the other hand, I witnessed someone throw a rock and hit someone in the head at 3 times that distance, resulting in the person being knocked to the ground only to be savagely slashed by a machete in the Dominican Republic. Also saw a guy with a pistol miss every shot only to be decapitated when he couldn't outrun his attacker.
At the end of the day, there is no feasible clear cut answer to topics such as these which is why they incite this level of passion and debate. Only by entertaining the infinite opinions on both sides can we meet at the gray line and come up with a type of regulation we can all agree with.

 

[mcgriffin]

This 'house-hold items can be dangerous too' argument is only viable in a world populated by one-eyed ninjas.

The fact is, a gun isn't just dangerous in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, but potentially more dangerous being used by somebody who isn't trained with one. Unlike a knife or an X-Box controller.

Let's face it, the odds are stacked the wrong way that if somebody has a firearm in their hand, whether they're malicious or just stupid, they're probably going to be using it improperly.

A lot of gun supporters show pride in the amount of intelligence and tactical thinking it takes to use a gun effectively in order to protect themselves and the people around them. I feel that for this reason, those same gun supporters need to make it harder for the less-enlightened to get ahold of them. I totally prefer a world where all the murderers are trying to throw knives at their targets, and all the good guys have firearms that they're experts with.

 

[FlawlessVictor]

What about someone who can throw a huge knife straight across an area right into your head?

I get that guns have power, range and speed but anything can have those attributes, if the person knows how to do it right.

I don't know, how many people can throw knives with a velocity, penetration, and accuracy that exceeds that of a modern gun? If they were more efficient than guns, the military would no longer have use for the latter.

 

[Jade]

A gun isn't as easy to use as people think.

 

[FlawlessVictor]

A gun isn't as easy to use as people think.

Neither is throwing a knife.

 

[Jade]

I never said it was put thank you for proving my earlier point =)

 

[drapture17]

A gun isn't as easy to use as people think.

The only way people realize this is when they first try to hit the intended object and fail miserably...all of a sudden they become enlightened and burst in laugh at how horrible they truly are with this really expensive hammer.

This 'house-hold items can be dangerous too' argument is only viable in a world populated by one-eyed ninjas.

The fact is, a gun isn't just dangerous in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, but potentially more dangerous being used by somebody who isn't trained with one. Unlike a knife or an X-Box controller.

Let's face it, the odds are stacked the wrong way that if somebody has a firearm in their hand, whether they're malicious or just stupid, they're probably going to be using it improperly.

A lot of gun supporters show pride in the amount of intelligence and tactical thinking it takes to use a gun effectively in order to protect themselves and the people around them. I feel that for this reason, those same gun supporters need to make it harder for the less-enlightened to get ahold of them. I totally prefer a world where all the murderers are trying to throw knives at their targets, and all the good guys have firearms that they're experts with.

I agree with your latter statements, but your opening sentence outlines the lack of knowledge the general population has regarding chemical weapons. Although I will not go into details regarding the methodology, given the proper knowledge nowadays floating around the internet one can make the very same gases used in executions and the extremely potent poisons used by many assassins during the cold war.
Given by your last statement, it doesn't appear to me that you've ever seen a fatality caused by blunt force trauma or blades.

This all comes back to what Jade and I were saying earlier in this thread. If its not a gun, its going to be something else. If we start banning objects based on the stupidity and irresponsibility of the few, I fear we're going to be rolling naked in giant plastic balls...oh no wait...someone might forget the breathing hole.

 

[FlawlessVictor]

I never said it was put thank you for proving my earlier point =)

I never said guns don't require training. That doesn't take away from their effectiveness when used properly. Their use in warfare would cease to continue if they haven't proven themselves in a time of plate armor, spears, and even other projectile weapons such as bows and crossbows.

 

[mcgriffin]

This all comes back to what Jade and I were saying earlier in this thread. If its not a gun, its going to be something else. If we start banning objects based on the stupidity and irresponsibility of the few, I fear we're going to be rolling naked in giant plastic balls...oh no wait...someone might forget the breathing hole.

But you're basing this on the general intelligence of murderers. You have to know what you're doing to make chemical weapons, or kill someone with an object. Guns are point and click. So maybe I should have said 'one eyed ninjas and anarchist cookbook owners.'

By way of example, I couldn't, and have no interest in killing somebody with a bomb. I don't know how to make a bomb. I don't know how to throw a knife. I couldn't effectively kill anybody with either implement had I access to them while in a huff. I do know how to shoot a gun though, and if I had a gun, unlike the bombs and the knives, I don't need to know how to use it to kill you. I've been clay-pigeon shooting before, and nobody had to show me how to do it. I just had to take the safety off, understand the reloading mechanism, and I was ready to go. I've never had any training on safety or whatever outside of 'don't aim this at people' and I nailed my target only 4 out of 8 times, but you'll probably be a lot closer, slower and larger than a clay pigeon, and I'd probably have a lot of ammo if I decided to turn it on you. I wouldn't have to put much thought into it at all. And people don't.

 

[Ricochetmatt]

If they're wanting to kill you, they're gonna use whatever they can to do so, so yeah, people WILL find any means to kill others with. It's human nature.

Think about this: knives are designed for stabbing and cutting meat, but they're used to kill people, too. If some maniac had one held high with a crazed look in his eye, your chances are also very slim, but knives are generally used for better purposes. Same thing it true for guns. Most of us don't abuse them, and that the big difference.

Families don't need guns to cut their food. Guns serve no purpose in someone's house.

And if guns aren't sold to the average Joe, the chances of someone breaking into your house and threatening to shoot you goes down drastically.

Do you know how many unstable people are roaming the streets with guns on them? It's frightening.

Riccochet, I normally agree with you, but your logic is not quite on point on that last statement. I happen to be a doctor specializing in a "different" kind of discipline and I can assure you there are much easier and lethal ways to kill someone than with a gun. You assume that a blunt object can't kill or incite fear in you as much as something that yields a projectile. Remember, the tool is only as lethal as the expertise of the individual yielding it. If you don't believe me, I guess we need to have you visit the autopsy room on a particular busy night and have you be the judge of what a person with "a crazy look in his eye" can do...even with a hair brush. I wonder what you'd think if you saw me walking towards you with a small container of baby powder...i mean, thats a lot less intimidating than a videogame controller.

Gun - Point and shoot.

Blunt object - Beat a person to death (or get one really good shot in) and hope they don't fight back.

The blunt object is a more difficult killing weapon. A lanky inexperienced teenage girl can pick up a gun and kill someone without much of a challenge. That same girl can pick up a hammer or something, get a few good swings in and give the guy a splitting headache at best.

Children who find their parent's gun will put themselves at risk more so than if they picked up their big brother's Xbox controller.

I'm not saying people don't die from blunt objects... I mean, I'm not stupid. But come on... Guns are far more dangerous and likely to kill someone than a ****ing Xbox controller.

Gangs don't drive through the city with hammers held high. They've got their gun and they're not afraid to shoot it. Which is what guns are for. Shooting. Maiming. Killing.

Are they the number one cause of death or whatever? Probably not. But that's not a reason to sell them.

Should we put the Ebola virus on the market as well?

 

[drapture17]

But you're basing this on the general intelligence of murderers. You have to know what you're doing to make chemical weapons, or kill someone with an object. Guns are point and click. So maybe I should have said 'one eyed ninjas and anarchist cookbook owners.'

By way of example, I couldn't, and have no interest in killing somebody with a bomb. I don't know how to make a bomb. I don't know how to throw a knife. I couldn't effectively kill anybody with either implement had I access to them while in a huff. I do know how to shoot a gun though, and if I had a gun, unlike the bombs and the knives, I don't need to know how to use it to kill you. I've been clay-pigeon shooting before, and nobody had to show me how to do it. I just had to take the safety off, understand the reloading mechanism, and I was ready to go. I've never had any training on safety or whatever outside of 'don't aim this at people' and I nailed my target only 4 out of 8 times, but you'll probably be a lot closer, slower and larger than a clay pigeon, and I'd probably have a lot of ammo if I decided to turn it on you. I wouldn't have to put much thought into it at all. And people don't.

You make a great point, but remember not too long ago, nobody knew how to make crystal meth and now you have the avg joe making it out of a coke bottle. Let me tell you, the most difficult thing to do in pharmacological research is make something that doesn't kill the patient. You also have a bunch of guys in the desert that can make a remotely activated bomb with less than $5 US dollars worth of materials! If there is a will, there is a way.
Also, let me post you this scenario, how do you think you'll do if I wake up you at 4am by breaking down the door, in the dark and ask you to shoot at those clays again while the clays shoot back? And how do you do this while making sure your ammo doesn't hit your loved ones or your neighbors.
You see what I mean though? you are one of the anti-gun ownership individuals that have a very valid point and I'm not saying that you're wrong, because you're not. Its all about the individual circumstances, how do you tell a hardworking single mother of 2 that lives in the ghetto and has to walk home from her 2nd job at 3am in the morning that she can't have a gun to defend herself?

 

[drapture17]

Families don't need guns to cut their food. Guns serve no purpose in someone's house.

And if guns aren't sold to the average Joe, the chances of someone breaking into your house and threatening to shoot you goes down drastically.

Do you know how many unstable people are roaming the streets with guns on them? It's frightening.



Gun - Point and shoot.

Blunt object - Beat a person to death (or get one really good shot in) and hope they don't fight back.

The blunt object is a more difficult killing weapon. A lanky inexperienced teenage girl can pick up a gun and kill someone without much of a challenge. That same girl can pick up a hammer or something, get a few good swings in and give the guy a splitting headache at best.

Children who find their parent's gun will put themselves at risk more so than if they picked up their big brother's Xbox controller.

I'm not saying people don't die from blunt objects... I mean, I'm not stupid. But come on... Guns are far more dangerous and likely to kill someone than a ****ing Xbox controller.

Gangs don't drive through the city with hammers held high. They've got their gun and they're not afraid to shoot it. Which is what guns are for. Shooting. Maiming. Killing.

Are they the number one cause of death or whatever? Probably not. But that's not a reason to sell them.

Should we put the Ebola virus on the market as well?

Right, the point is that they are already out there and its absolutely impossible to get all of them back. How do we assure the world that every single gun produced is destroyed? I used to live in Manhattan in the late 80s and early 90s, we moved because some my father almost got shot because he witnessed a murder by a group of thugs on his way to work, my mother survived countless shootouts at her job in 168th and Broadway, but lost 2 brothers in the process and my brother and I survived a point blank flurry of fire from a guy that had just finished killing some dude simply because we were outside playing and saw him do it.
In this point in society, I feel that most people have guns to keep them safer from those that do. Its something we can't take back and nobody can guarantee you that the MS-13, Crips, Bloods or whatever flavor of thugs you have in your neighborhood won't hit your house next. You're right, some homes don't need a gun, but unfortunately the vast majority don't have the privilege of living in that home.

 

[CrimsonMadCow]

No, that isn't what I was implying whatsoever.

There have always been messed up people in this world, but, people now are way worse than they have been in a while (since I have been alive). I have always lived in the city and, when I was a kid, we used to be able to leave our front door open without worrying about it. We closed the screen door, went in the basement, went in the backyard, whatever, and we didn't have to watch the door. The entire street was like that. Do that now and see how much furniture you have left. People have gotten more violent than they have been in the last 20 years.

I suppose that's true. My friend got mugged last year, and it was pretty traumatic for him. What freaked me out was that it was within walking distance from my house, and I thought I lived in a good neighborhood.

 

[Jade]

That must have been scary!

I used to walk around the city all hours of the night but I wouldn't dare do it now. I mean, I go out there sometimes if I HAVE to but no 3am walks like in high school, hell, no. 5'2", 105lbs, perfect invite for rape, haha.