LordJashin Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Take your vote. Should guns be banned for civilians and most, tentatively. And confiscated? Its Rights + protection versus possible danger/abuse of guns. ....Today in U.S.A if you've heard, 28 died at an Elementary School shooting... You're vote here is anonymous Edited December 14, 2012 by LordJashin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bixby Sayz Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) No need to be anonymous. It's the same old tired argument. Those in favor of abolishing guns fail to recognize that guy would have simply found a different weapon of choice had a gun not been available. Banning the gun solves nothing. Taking away the gun does not solve the underlying cause: an unstable individual. Makes for good politics when you're trying to drum up votes by being seen as being tough on crime, but that is about it. Edited December 15, 2012 by Bixby Sayz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clickhere Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 agreed^ but things like snipers and machine guns should be banned lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby1 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) Always after a shooting spree they want to take the guns of the law abiding citizens. No they shouldent. Edited December 16, 2012 by Toby1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHannes Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Don't ban guns... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Seriously though, if you want to ban guns to stop crime, you should also ban knives, hammers, plastic bags, ropes, ... essentially anything someone can use to kill with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordJashin Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) There is problems, and some of this might be "going to far" for some. My point is... its to easy to get guns, then go to a public place and go on a killing spree. And as long as its "to easy to get guns", killing sprees will keep happening. I bet if you stopped some guns from selling, Years later it could save lives in the long run. Even if its hard to "get guns" e.g. having to get a license, etc. The person can still flip out later and go on a killing spree. So, if you just banned the gun totally from selling that would be the only way to totally prevent it. Take a look on wikipedia about U.K.: In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law, and while there is opposition to existing legislation from shooting organisations[citation needed], there is little wider political debate, and public opinion favours stronger control. [1] The British Shooting Sports Council now believes that the law needs to be consolidated but it does not call for a review. [2] The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 and to Germany's 0.21.[3] With the exception of Northern Ireland, most police personnel in the United Kingdom do not routinely carry firearms. [4][5] Despite police being unarmed, shooting fatalities of members of the police are extremely rare; there were three in England in Wales in the eleven-year period from 2000/01 to 2010/11. [6] About 7,000 police personnel have received firearms training [5][7][7]. Standard police firearms include semi-automatic carbines, and pistols, such as the Heckler & Koch MP5SF, and Glock 17. [8] And apparently, according to that same wikipedia page. The U.K. has had "few" rampage killings. Not taking them as an example, just trying to show how better "gun control" could save lives. Crime rate is totally different from this, so do not bring it up. Crime can include - all sorts of stuff. I also think, if the educational systems for schools in Europe and America were overall better. This might help.... Edited December 16, 2012 by LordJashin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanted Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 No need to be anonymous. It's the same old tired argument. Those in favor of abolishing guns fail to recognize that guy would have simply found a different weapon of choice had a gun not been available. Banning the gun solves nothing. Taking away the gun does not solve the underlying cause: an unstable individual. Makes for good politics when you're trying to drum up votes by being seen as being tough on crime, but that is about it. Don't ban guns... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Seriously though, if you want to ban guns to stop crime, you should also ban knives, hammers, plastic bags, ropes, ... essentially anything someone can use to kill with. This^ And lol at the idea like it's possible to ban guns in the first place. Underground, smuggling, independently made, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordJashin Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 It depends on how smart the insane person wants to be...to go that far as to smuggle/make one. IMO most wouldn't... other countries have banned *some or a lot* of guns and do better then here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanted Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Guarantee if there was a confiscation coming there would be millions of guns being buried and hidden. Wouldn't be hard at all to obtain firearms after a ban, maybe even easier because it would be unregulated and in demand creating a whole new industry for example drugs, moonshine, contraband etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordJashin Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 Guarantee if there was a confiscation coming there would be millions of guns being buried and hidden. Wouldn't be hard at all to obtain firearms after a ban, maybe even easier because it would be unregulated and in demand creating a whole new industry for example drugs, moonshine, contraband etc. Why would people want them so badly? Its not a drug or pleasure really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanted Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Why would people want them so badly? Its not a drug or pleasure really. Self protection, collective protection against external threats like animals, wars, governments etc.,,,, uses for crime robbery gang activity, martial law. Hunting, target practice, obsessions, sentimental value. Plenty of valid reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordJashin Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Self protection, collective protection against external threats like animals, wars, governments etc.,,,, uses for crime robbery gang activity, martial law. Hunting, target practice, obsessions, sentimental value. Plenty of valid reasons. obsessions and other stuff aside, you could have one set gun for hunting and maybe a handgun for protection. I don't see why you would need a shotgun. Animal hunting doesn't need that. Or an automatic weapon. No use except for "having it and obsess", and maybe you think the end of the world is coming or get attacked by a group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bixby Sayz Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Banning guns do not solve the problem. Here in Canada we have stricter controls on guns and yet there is an increasing problem in Urban centers with violent crimes committed with handguns, usually illegal guns smuggled in from the US. An outright ban on guns would have how much impact in this case? Zero. And yet every time there is a gun related crime in the news the knee jerk reaction is "let's ban guns". It does not stop the fact that a seriously disturbed individual intent on doing harm to others will find a way to do harm to others. If it is not a gun it will be something else, as Freddy pointed out. Imagine if the guy in the news had gone on his spree with an axe. Would there have been less deaths? I doubt it. Likely more since the other areas of the school would not have been alerted by the sound of gunfire. And it would have been very very bloody and messy. This guy was disturbed. He was intent on doing harm to others. This is the key point no one wants to recognize. The lack of access to a gun would not have stopped this from happening. Stop pretending it might be otherwise. On a side note: Our politicians' solution to the problem of crimes committed using illegal handguns in Urban centers was particularly "genius": Require owners of hunting rifles in Rural areas to register their guns. Genius! For the life of me I cannot figure out the logic that led to that conclusion. Oh wait, it gained those same politicians votes for being seen as being tough and crime and "doing something" about the problem. Now I understand... Edited December 17, 2012 by Bixby Sayz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordJashin Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) You have a point. I think a human hell bent on killing could do that. But I also think that a gun is a more "easy way out of it" for those insane people. Its just point and shoot, and only later after some insane madness did the guy finally decide to kill himself. If you think about it, other weapons couldn't kill as many in most situations. Like the Norway incident with the guns. There he couldn't just get an axe and kill everyone it would be much harder and after 20 or so people everyone would know about it. If i remember he was at a campsite/campout with a gun and killed like 54 people? Let this not drift into schools and protection there. Just in general...someone without a gun couldn't kill as many as some one with one because unlike a gun you can stop the person usually if they don't have one. Or call the police/scream before you die or someone else does w/e... This would help, and if it caused more people to do shootings like in Canada, that would suck. But I haven't seen a "20 dead in Canada from shooting" headline anywhere. So obviously it must be helping more than hurting maybe? Tell me what you think on that.... So overall. The gun control + more security at schools DEFINITELY. Would probably help more than cause any damage. You would also have to analyze the gun holders in America and their audience. Maybe gun control would really cause a stir there. So yeah the axe thing, there wouldn't be any GUN FIRE. So also, "if" people heard screaming they could run to the rescue. And it would be like 100x for the killer to really do damage. People could run away, or fight back. The school scenario though your right. But I'm talking just in general. In any other public place like a Movie theater. Edited December 17, 2012 by LordJashin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanted Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 obsessions and other stuff aside, you could have one set gun for hunting and maybe a handgun for protection. I don't see why you would need a shotgun. Animal hunting doesn't need that. Or an automatic weapon. No use except for "having it and obsess", and maybe you think the end of the world is coming or get attacked by a group Still.. you've completely stayed from the point and are now agreeing with me which is Guns are necessary and irremovable from people by any force. Trying to do so would be futile and end up creating more problems than it would solve (if any). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plaah007 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Here where I live guns are banned, smugling is almost impossible. And there's been a few school shooting... So it doesn't help the way you'd hope. But in the US normal citizen has way more firepower than the damn military here does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seafight17 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 For me (as greek) Its correct to bann guns from citizen..But I think that its not guns but the "opinion" "WHY I HAVE A GUN?" I use it to protect myself or to kill?The nation know that the citizen tthat will take the gun is degarous r not or just give guns to make "rich" the creators?(mean udtestry ) .Maybe thst should be done is to make stricter the rules of taking gun.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby1 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Take a look on wikipedia about U.K.: And apparently, according to that same wikipedia page. The U.K. has had "few" rampage killings. Not taking them as an example, just trying to show how better "gun control" could save lives. Crime rate is totally different from this, so do not bring it up. Crime can include - all sorts of stuff. I also think, if the educational systems for schools in Europe and America were overall better. This might help.... That is anti-gun propaganda! I live in the UK and if someone is shot it will be broadcasted for days(even if it was not a fatality). However, in London alone there is a stabbing every 6 hours! and many people die from knife violence in the UK that it would only make the local news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix_Teh_Cat Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Ban Idiots, Not guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modnick Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 simply "banning guns" is fucking retarded, there is still the black market and gun dealers. people that support this have simply...... just... given up on life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix_Teh_Cat Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Not to sure if you guys can view this. But this is a great video concerning gun control. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=137459203099547 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberleaf Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Take a look on wikipedia about U.K.: And apparently, according to that same wikipedia page. The U.K. has had "few" rampage killings. Not taking them as an example, just trying to show how better "gun control" could save lives. Crime rate is totally different from this, so do not bring it up. Crime can include - all sorts of stuff. You should never take anything wikipedia publishes seriously. I live about a 100 miles from London in what's known as the east midlands in England within the UK and it's riddled with crime from the bottom up, everyone's got their finger in someone else's pie from the politicians right down to the unemployed thugs on the streets. But in typical British style we lie through our teethes to keep face with the rest of the world. You want rampages? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/18/police-officers-gun-grenade-attack You want mental people without guns? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293284/Toby-Hayden-spared-jail-beating-Loretta-Butterworth-card-declined-cash-machine.html Here's what happens around our schools, this is the level of education... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293417/Shocking-moment-30-drug-addicts-run-dealers-car-pulls-playground.html This is nothing compared to what really goes on behind closed doors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberleaf Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 p.s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
