PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control



leo3375
04-20-2007, 08:52 AM
So, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the gun-sontrol debate has inevitably resurfaced.

Some are arguing that the school's sweeping firearm ban prevented students and faculty from being able to defend themselves and take out the gunman, thereby preventing a lot of the deaths. Others are calling for tighter restrictions on firearms on college campuses. There is also the question of why someone who was briefly institutionalized was allowed to buy a gun, and there are calls to close the loophole that allows private person-to-person gun sales to bypass the background check. And some extremists want to ban handguns altogether.

This has been a very lively debate on other message boards that I frequent. And the big question is this: what do you think would be a logical solution to keeping criminals and the mentally unstable from obtaining firearms without punishing law-abiding citizens in the process, and what sort of gun-control measures would you support without compromising the Second Amendment (an armed populace helps deter crime and keeps the government in check)?

Bazza
04-20-2007, 08:59 AM
From what I read in the newspapers, the VT shooter managed to obtain a weapon by simply checking the no box for whether he had any mental illness or history of mental illness on the application form. If someone wants to obtain a gun licence for a shotgun in the UK they have to go through a series of police checks and applications stages, which can take upwards of two years to complete. I find it amazing that in the USA it can take as little as 30minutes to obtain an easily concealable firearm.

wheelchairman
04-20-2007, 09:08 AM
Gun control would do nothing to change the sitaution. And I really just don't think gun control is practical in a nation like the US. What works in Europe doesn't always work in America.

Bazza
04-20-2007, 09:12 AM
Gun control would do nothing to change the sitaution. And I really just don't think gun control is practical in a nation like the US. What works in Europe doesn't always work in America.

I'd agree that it wouldn't work in America simply because they've gone too far down the gun ownership path. Even before banning handguns in the UK they weren't that prevalent so it wasn't such an issue when it happened.

Although I don't think an introduction of laws allowing students to carry weapons in class would work as levels of paranoia about other students could eventually lead to accidents happening.

Sin Studly
04-20-2007, 10:45 AM
I think they should only let white people own guns.

0r4ng3
04-20-2007, 10:57 AM
Why, so only white people can shoot up the schools?

Sin Studly
04-20-2007, 11:32 AM
Yes .

Markus
04-20-2007, 11:54 PM
I think they should only let white people own guns.

Not gonna lie, I agree with ya. It should be law that all white people have to be armed.

BurningSnake
04-21-2007, 05:48 AM
They should yknow give those gun owner wannabe a test to prove their still healty in my and body

so that theres no maniac shooting down their least favorite classmate in campus

khaaaaan
04-21-2007, 09:49 AM
I Denmark, you are not allowed to carry a concealed or unconcealed firearm as a civilian. Not unless you hunt as a sport or practice shooting in clubs. If you do either of the two, it will still take you up to 2 years to get a gun. You obviously go through rigorous police checking and testing and first then will you get your gun. When you finally receive your gun, you must keep the gun and the ammunition in two different vaults bolted to your house walls.

I don't think there's ever been a school shooting in Denmark:cool: But then again, it IS half the size of Manhattan.

F@ BANKZ
04-22-2007, 10:20 AM
Not gonna lie, I agree with ya. It should be law that all white people have to be armed.

Sounds like you're just looking for an alternative to fox hunting to me.

2_pints_of _larger
04-23-2007, 04:28 AM
the only reason you lot have guns is to stop us english invading witch we realy cant be botherd to do anyway so i dont see the point in you having them hehe

in england we are alowes to carry longbows woot and there some crazy laws letting us shoot welsh scottish and french pepol at differant times in differant cittys


on sec i see a french man whered i out that bow.......................:D

Bazza
04-23-2007, 09:19 AM
the only reason you lot have guns is to stop us english invading witch we realy cant be botherd to do anyway so i dont see the point in you having them hehe

in england we are alowes to carry longbows woot and there some crazy laws letting us shoot welsh scottish and french pepol at differant times in differant cittys

on sec i see a french man whered i out that bow.......................:D

Please learn to spell, it's a disgrace to our nation.

Lodat225
04-23-2007, 11:42 AM
Gun control won't do anything as long as the news keep injecting fear into everybody.

Llamas
04-23-2007, 02:42 PM
Suddenly having a gun ban would be horrible. It has to be slow. They just need to slowly make it harder and harder to get guns. Make it take longer, make it cost more, make the process of getting one harder... etc.

Mota Boy
04-23-2007, 03:15 PM
My personal opinion is that the only guns allowed for private use should be handguns, hunting rifles and hunting shotguns, with significant hurdles for those wishing to purchase guns for use against large game (such as bears, moose, etc.). There should be extensive background checks for gun owners and sales at gun shows or over the internet should be abolished entirely. However, I don't mind concealed carrier laws for licensed handguns.

Personally, the most interesting scenario I can imagine in regards to gun laws is one in which some Muslim dude mows down people in a shopping mall with an AK-47. Pitting the gun nuts against those conservatives terrified of terrorism would be fascinating to watch play out, though such a scenario might result in the right intensifying the demonization of Muslims to refocus blame.

Llamas
04-23-2007, 03:22 PM
Personally, the most interesting scenario I can imagine in regards to gun laws is one in which some Muslim dude mows down people in a shopping mall with an AK-47. Pitting the gun nuts against those conservatives terrified of terrorism would be fascinating to watch play out, though such a scenario might result in the right intensifying the demonization of Muslims to refocus blame.

I really enjoy the thoughts of the results of such an idea, but unfortunately, I think you might be right about the Muslim focus... ugh.

leo3375
04-23-2007, 05:08 PM
There are two giant-gaping loopholes in the US' gun-control system: a check on mental health history and a lack of mandatory background checks for private sales.

If I were to buy a gun directly from my neighbor, I can do it very easily. This is a major problem. I would like to see a system put in place similar to deed transferral of motor vehicles. When someone wants to buy a firearm either via the Internet or other private sale, paperwork must be obtained and presented. Once the paperwork is filled out it's sent or brought to the nearest shop where a background check can be performed. If it comes back clean, the transaction is complete. If there is a violent criminal history in the background check, the transaction is null and void, and the firearms transfer cannot go through.

A mental-health check would be difficult to do and presents an ethical quandary. On the one hand, someone with a history of dangerous mental problems and/or who has ever been institutionalized for any period of time, voluntary or involuntary, should not be allowed to get a firearm. But the medical field is not likely to disclose information on its patients, even for background checks for a firearms purchase. It does present a slippery-slope argument that if hospitals and doctors are required to give this information to the government, what other health information might they be required to disclose?

And I feel that before anyone can buy a gun, they have to get licensed. To do that, safety training and marksman classes should be required. Upon completion of the course and a clean record, a license is granted that has to be renewed in a similar manner to a driver's license. The only difference should be the renewal would include a brief safety and marksman exam. The license could also be a conceal-carry permit. Now that the classes are complete and someone is certified to own a firearm, they are also certified to carry it on their person at any time.

Bazza
04-23-2007, 05:14 PM
Typically eligibility test:
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm

Applicant answers no to all questions and gets a licence, simple and doesn't require backup or referals. So quite simply anyone can get a permit.

Llamas
04-23-2007, 05:34 PM
Looks like it's harder to get a gun in Minnesota than in Virginia:

There are two* options for individuals wishing to purchase or transfer a handgun. They are outlined below.

1. You may apply for a permit to purchase/transfer a handgun in Minnesota. Click on the link below to fill out the purchase/transfer application.

Click here to download or print a copy of the MINNESOTA UNIFORM FIREARM APPLICATION/RECEIPT (This is a .pdf document)

Once you have completed the application, you must submit it to your local police chief or the local sheriff if the municipality you live in does not have a police department. (Note: if you are applying for the permit to transfer, the law enforcement agency has seven (7) days from the time it receives your application to notify you of its status.) The law enforcement agency will conduct a series of background-related checks to assure you meet the eligibility requirements established in state law. Once those checks are complete, a permit will be issued that is valid for one year and may be used to purchase a handgun statewide.

2. If you agree to purchase a handgun from someone and you have not obtained a permit to purchase, the individual selling or transferring the handgun to you must report the potential transaction to either the local police department or the sheriff’s office if there is no police department in the municipality where you live. Once the law enforcement agency receives the transfer/purchase agreement, the agency has five days to determine whether you are eligible to possess a handgun.

3. If you want to make a one-time purchase of a handgun from a dealer, and you do not have a permit to purchase, you may apply directly at the gun shop where you will purchase the handgun. The gun shop will require you to complete a consent form that allows them to conduct a name and date-of-birth background check to determine your eligibility to purchase a gun. The gun shops are entitled to charge a fee for this service.



*apparently, they can't count.



The rules are still too lenient.

JohnnyNemesis
04-23-2007, 05:39 PM
Pitting the gun nuts against those conservatives terrified of terrorism would be fascinating to watch play out, though such a scenario might result in the right intensifying the demonization of Muslims to refocus blame.

There's no "might" about it. I'm about a million percent absolutely positive that they would do exactly that. That's there style and has been for awhile: shift even the mere possibility of blame elsewhere at all costs.

wheelchairman
04-23-2007, 05:54 PM
It's disgusting though isn't it? All these spin doctors, lobbies etc. Created to mislead the voter. Makes you wish people were pissed off about it. It's almost worth the naivism of 19th century rhetoric about the informed citizenry.

leo3375
04-23-2007, 06:02 PM
Looks like it's harder to get a gun in Minnesota than in Virginia:

…The rules are still too lenient.

Wow! I didn't realize that my state had these requirements already! But even though the paperwork is required for private sales/transfers, it's still really easy to bypass it.

JohnnyNemesis
04-23-2007, 06:04 PM
It's disgusting though isn't it?

It's fucking despicable and infuriating.

Speakeasy
05-02-2007, 10:18 PM
Without guns the King of England would just waltz in here and start pushing you around. All those felons who can't vote anymore would have their guns taken away and they'd be all like, "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!" and stuff and the king would be like, "ESS TEE EFF YOU! LOLL!"

endlesst0m
05-03-2007, 10:34 PM
Gun control means usin' both hands.


YEEEHAW!

Sin Studly
05-04-2007, 12:25 AM
Without guns the King of England would just waltz in here and start pushing you around.

Wasn't that from South Park or the Simpsons or something? You're fucking pathetic.

F@ BANKZ
05-04-2007, 01:29 AM
The Simpsons I think.

JoY
05-04-2007, 02:41 AM
I don't know if gun control would work in the U.S.A., because practically seeing, it's people who are nuts. McDonalds, tobacco products, video games, porn, television, guns, you can blame the whole lot for what people do with it. but it's created BY people, for people. so duh, they are going to take advantage of the opportunities they get & use/abuse those products.

the mentally unstable will possibly lose themselves in a world with so many opportunities, hell, even the mentally stable do. but it's something we've been taking for granted a looong time to ensure ourselves of comfort & in our search to supposed individual freedom, while ironically we're caged by that same individualism. whatta paradox. "freedom" of what we eat, if we smoke, what we play, what we watch & who we shoot. we all collectively care about what we individually want. you can't expect that to work & think it won't clash.

so in America people have been given the "freedom" to own a gun. Jesus, freedom is a fucking myth. in reality it always turns out that one man's freedom is another man's cage. it's a word & we invented it. & sell it. like guns, porn, tobacco products, fast food & violent videogames. that should say enough. all that we humans come up with is destined to be full of human flaws. words' definitions are what we make of it, what we want them to be (because what we want is all that counts, right?), creating one big world of misunderstandings. what we see as comfort is not the same as freedom, it's just being goddamn lazy. getting what you want when you want it (if you have the money) isn't freedom, it's being spoiled.

freedom is something more internalised, a peaceful acceptance of what you can't have & what you can never do. you don't get it from external factors & products. life's limited in literally every single way, so why demand & try to reach out for more means, products & services from others, trying to stretch rules, laws, definitions, morals & life expectancy, to turn it around? just accept it, because if it's not injustice, it's a limitation & you can't get out of the fact you & your life are ALWAYS going to be limited. people should stop wanting & demanding so much, because all they've became is a product of their own will.

if most of the American population wasn't so damn comfortable with & used to being demanding, spoiled & lazy already, maybe gun control could work. everyone's already way too caged by their own will.

JoY
05-04-2007, 04:09 AM
I Denmark, you are not allowed to carry a concealed or unconcealed firearm as a civilian. Not unless you hunt as a sport or practice shooting in clubs. If you do either of the two, it will still take you up to 2 years to get a gun. You obviously go through rigorous police checking and testing and first then will you get your gun. When you finally receive your gun, you must keep the gun and the ammunition in two different vaults bolted to your house walls.

I don't think there's ever been a school shooting in Denmark:cool: But then again, it IS half the size of Manhattan.

it's the exact same here.
my boyfriend is a hunter, but also a student. where he lives & studies (in Amsterdam) isn't where he hunts (obviously), but you must keep your gun inside your house in a vault bolted to the wall, according to the law. in practice that would mean, every time he goes to his parents' to hunt, he has to walk around with his rifle on the two hour trip by train to home. since that's not exactly an option, his rifle is under his father's name. but his two brothers are also students in another city & like to hunt, his father hunts aswell & you're only allowed to have two guns/rifles under your name. ugh. it's all so complicated. it took him ages to legally settle stuff.

wheelchairman
05-04-2007, 07:57 AM
It's also a right to own a gun Joy. You have to understand that America isn't a European nation, but a former colony. Guns were actually used to liberate us.

Perhaps a discussion of gun control in America should remain to people who have been to, or know things about America...

JoY
05-04-2007, 08:29 AM
what are you talking about? I have been to America & half of my family is American. I understand there's a difference between the American mentality & the European mentality (oh hell yes), but you're acting like Americans aren't like normal fucking people. like it should be seen as this very, very exclusive breed of human kind.

& "liberate us"? from what? the country that originally tied its nationality to its colony, because that's where the colonists originally came from? so guns = freedom? fuck no. besides, guns were used for many more purposes in America & they weren't all exactly liberating. certainly not for everyone.

the point I was trying to make is more a philosophical point. less rights don't necessarily mean less freedom & more rights don't necessarily result in more freedom. if you view limitations by law, physics, morals, whatever, purely as a violation of your right to freedom, basically as a form of injustice, then you're a lifelong victim. if you allow limitations to decrease your personal sense of freedom, then you'll always be caged.

we're fighting every law, every boundary, everything, just to be able to do more & have more, whatever the hell we want, because that's supposed to be freedom & that's your "right". but although the word is the same, rights aren't necessarily right. it's your right to protect yourself, your loved ones & your possessions, it never necessarily had to be with a gun. personally I think it'd be very healthy if America had some form of gun control. it's probably too late now & I don't see a way how these days it can be done, except for making laws concerning gun possession a bit more strict, but saying now you might aswell keep the situation the way it is, doesn't mean it's any good.

Sin Studly
05-04-2007, 08:33 AM
American gun nuts are scary, but the average European opinions on gun control are fucking ridiculous, though. I heard farmers "don't need" guns in Europe, and they ring for a veterinarian whenever an animal needs putting down. What faggotry is this?

wheelchairman
05-04-2007, 08:46 AM
what are you talking about? I have been to America & half of my family is American. I understand there's a difference between the American mentality & the European mentality (oh hell yes), but you're acting like Americans aren't like normal fucking people. like it should be seen as this very, very exclusive breed of human kind.
No, I'm just saying you can't make judgements on American life because you know nothing about it. Not exactly an unreasonable thing to say, and it doesn't single you out as a European either.



& "liberate us"? from what? the country that originally tied its nationality to its colony, because that's where the colonists originally came from? so guns = freedom? fuck no. besides, guns were used for many more purposes in America & they weren't all exactly liberating. certainly not for everyone.
Huh? I have no idea what you mean with the first sentence. Do you know how colonialism works? There's a reason why colonies didn't like being colonies and colonizers liked being colonizers...
And if you want to nitpick, let's say it was very liberating by 18th century standards. It did turn it into the freest country in the world at the time.



the point I was trying to make is more a philosophical point. less rights don't necessarily mean less freedom & more rights don't necessarily result in more freedom. if you view limitations by law, physics, morals, whatever, purely as a violation of your right to freedom, basically as a form of injustice, then you're a lifelong victim. if you allow limitations to decrease your personal sense of freedom, then you'll always be caged.
What is this? "People are free as long as they imagine they are free?". That's so retarded. wtf? Guns are seen as a form of self defence, especially in the red neck community. And this makes sense, since you know, for some of these people the nearest cop is about as far away as the Eastern and Western borders of Holland.



we're fighting every law, every boundary, everything, just to be able to do more & have more, whatever the hell we want, because that's supposed to be freedom & that's your "right". but although the word is the same, rights aren't necessarily right. it's your right to protect yourself, your loved ones & your possessions, it never necessarily had to be with a gun. personally I think it'd be very healthy if America had some form of gun control. it's probably too late now & I don't see a way how these days it can be done, except for making laws concerning gun possession a bit more strict, but saying now you might aswell keep the situation the way it is, doesn't mean it's any good.
And I really don't see what's wrong with it. I know you don't like it. But I can't see a reason why.

JoY
05-04-2007, 09:16 AM
about the American life; yes, I agree. I can't make proper judgements on American life, it's true. I can't even make proper judgements on European life, because it'd be way too subjective (& too diverse, but let's not get into that). & on the subject of America I'm not particularly subjective (though you can't help but just BE subjective), but just not involved enough. meaning in the end your judgements are never going to be completely free from stains.

about colonialism; then.. who do you consider "us"?
& yeah yeah, I know how it works.

I already said there are more things than just guns you could use to defend yourself.

you twisted what I said into something I wasn't saying at ALL. imagining you're free would indeed be incredibly retarded & I seriously don't get how you could read it that way. you just don't have to get/do every-fucking-thing you want, because not everything you want is good to have/do.

by your definition of freedom, freedom doesn't exist. kind of sad for such a fantastic word to be so empty & go to waste. but sure, see it the way you want & try to get it by spending your life getting everything you want to have. I hope it makes you feel "free". but if I were you, I'd just reach out for whatever makes you happy.

JoY
05-04-2007, 09:39 AM
I forgot: if there were less guns going around in America, it'd be, let's say, a whole lot easier to defend yourself without a gun.

I never answered this:


And I really don't see what's wrong with it. I know you don't like it. But I can't see a reason why.


we all collectively care about what we individually want. you can't expect that to work & think it won't clash.


meaning in the end your judgements are never going to be completely free from stains.


it's for the reasons behind these statements & the information that people are arrogant, selfish scumbags, who think their judgement is the only correct judgement.

see? well damn, that must mean I'm one of them, too.

I don't have much faith in people. I'm not really as negative as this makes me sound, but overal I just have a strong feeling we're full of flaws & full of shit.

wheelchairman
05-04-2007, 09:39 AM
about colonialism; then.. who do you consider "us"?
& yeah yeah, I know how it works.
Obviously not Europeans in this instance. :p



I already said there are more things than just guns you could use to defend yourself.
Yes but a gun is the only one you wouldn't actually need to use, if you wanted to defend yourself.




by your definition of freedom, freedom doesn't exist. kind of sad for such a fantastic word to be so empty & go to waste. but sure, see it the way you want & try to get it by spending your life getting everything you want to have. I hope it makes you feel "free". but if I were you, I'd just reach out for whatever makes you happy.
I haven't given a definition of freedom. I haven't talked about freedom at all. I've talked about rights, and to some degree, liberation. Although what I've always hated are people who never seek to improve things but search for things to make them content in their own miserable situation. It's so fucking... protestant.

JoY
05-04-2007, 10:03 AM
Obviously not Europeans in this instance. :p

Yes but a gun is the only one you wouldn't actually need to use, if you wanted to defend yourself.

I haven't given a definition of freedom. I haven't talked about freedom at all. I've talked about rights, and to some degree, liberation. Although what I've always hated are people who never seek to improve things but search for things to make them content in their own miserable situation. It's so fucking... protestant.

so if I was raised as the granddaughter of a priest, I would decorate any miserable situation with stolen gold? ;p

I'm studying with the intention to become a doctor. do you really think I don't believe in improving a situation, but would rather just accept the rotten way it is? two aspects in that sentence alone suggest that's not true. but that doesn't take away, that sometimes you can't improve a situation, sometimes it's just impossible to do anything about a situation, & if you don't accept it then, you're going to feel miserable for the rest of your life. I could name a few examples, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

anyway, I don't see how this changed to improvements. I clearly feel like legalising fireweapons is in no way an improvement for anyone & that doing & getting whatever the hell we want isn't a form of improvement, either, for reasons mentioned.

our laws on gun possession exist for multiple reasons. not anything religious (hah), but logical, valid reasons. my boyfriend, for instance, who owns a rifle is seriously restricted by those laws, but he accepts them & doesn't let them bother him, because he realises what they are for & that they're for his protection & safety. because, no, the streets of Amsterdam wouldn't be safe, if it was possible to legally get a gun in this city. for example.

Duskygrin
05-04-2007, 03:12 PM
A gun in my possession for self-defense would indeed be a handy thing to have.

A girl in my residence got massacred, I'm just told.

& no, I don't live in the ghetto. I don't even live in a "dodgy" place. Normal residence, normal neighbourhood. Go figure.

wheelchairman
05-04-2007, 11:03 PM
so if I was raised as the granddaughter of a priest, I would decorate any miserable situation with stolen gold? ;p
Nah you would probably be doing drugs and having lots of kinky sex.



I'm studying with the intention to become a doctor. do you really think I don't believe in improving a situation, but would rather just accept the rotten way it is? two aspects in that sentence alone suggest that's not true. but that doesn't take away, that sometimes you can't improve a situation, sometimes it's just impossible to do anything about a situation, & if you don't accept it then, you're going to feel miserable for the rest of your life. I could name a few examples, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
While I agree with you that certain things are definitely fixed. Certain things are not. Nothing politically is fixed for example. What I don't get is, what situation is there to improve? What's wrong with a lack of gun control in the United States? Oh wait, you answer this question in the next paragraph.


anyway, I don't see how this changed to improvements. I clearly feel like legalising fireweapons is in no way an improvement for anyone & that doing & getting whatever the hell we want isn't a form of improvement, either, for reasons mentioned.
Yes, but you actually haven't given a good reason why guns need to have stricter controls in America. Or be banned outright except for uses of hunting.



our laws on gun possession exist for multiple reasons. not anything religious (hah), but logical, valid reasons. my boyfriend, for instance, who owns a rifle is seriously restricted by those laws, but he accepts them & doesn't let them bother him, because he realises what they are for & that they're for his protection & safety. because, no, the streets of Amsterdam wouldn't be safe, if it was possible to legally get a gun in this city. for example.
That's great. That's really nice. This is Amsterdam though. And I can assure you that gun control laws are not religious in anyway over in the US as well. In fact there are many good reasons why Americans are allowed to have guns. It might be that Holland doesn't need guns. It is however a very different matter in the United States.

HornyPope
05-05-2007, 12:23 AM
12345penis

JoY
05-07-2007, 03:55 AM
Yes, but you actually haven't given a good reason why guns need to have stricter controls in America. Or be banned outright except for uses of hunting.

That's great. That's really nice. This is Amsterdam though. And I can assure you that gun control laws are not religious in anyway over in the US as well. In fact there are many good reasons why Americans are allowed to have guns. It might be that Holland doesn't need guns. It is however a very different matter in the United States.

the religious aspect was a joke in relation to protestantism you mentioned. ;p

a gun provides you with the control over someone else's life & no one other than that person should have that control. I don't think enough human beings are capable of making a proper judgement, when it comes to the moment of & reasons for firing a weapon.

it's a decision that involves another person, as soon as your weapon is aimed at one, & I think we can agree it's most certainly going to be without consent in the large majority of the cases. the combination of aiming it at somebody & fire it, who it is aimed at & when it is fired, is justified when the shooter believes it is. you can't undo that judgement & decision of it's very subjective character, when it does concern another human being.

owners of a gun have the opportunity to play their own judge. if humanity was to be trusted with a fireweapon (a weapon we designed & made, meaning nothing about it will be completely flawless), not so much would go wrong in cases & situations where they are.

Sin Studly
05-07-2007, 09:58 AM
You could say the same thing about a knife or a pair of fists. And I'd rather get into a gunfight with a home invader than a knifefight or fistfight. Only with guns would I have a chance to defend myself.

Seriously, would you rather take on an unarmed 120kg rapist with your fists, or shoot it out with an armed one?

JoY
05-07-2007, 10:07 AM
this is not about what I want, because of course I wouldn't stand a chance with just my two fists & would rather shoot the bastard, but this is about what I consider better & healthier for society.

Sin Studly
05-09-2007, 04:11 AM
Why is it better? Your only arguments have been "people can't be trusted with guns", and maybe you're right, but it's not like illegalising certain guns stops people from having them. It just stops law-abiding citzens from having them and leaves them in the hands of the least trustworthy. And there's that pretentious-assed quote that makes my point, "In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king."

Shit, if I owned a submachinegun in Britain, I could cut myself out a small fief and declare myself Warlord of Manchesta or something, and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it. What are the police gonna do, hit me with their batons?

JoY
05-11-2007, 07:23 AM
the least trustworthy would have less, aswell. now the "trustworthy" & the people you can't trust are able to get ahold of a gun. so? has it made society safer, or does it make society feel safer? whether you own a gun or not is not going to make any difference, when you're being shot. & I don't really trust the capability of the "trustworthy" to make a reasonable judgement when it comes to an adrenaline driven reaction to danger, either.

Alleviate
05-11-2007, 10:22 PM
It baffles many countries as to why Americans so passionately enforce there right to own a firearm. Nearly all the countries where people are not permitted guns without going through a licensing process have a much lesser crime rate than the U.S. You don't need guns to be safe. It is a simple but effective statement to make, that the only reason you need guns is because other people already have them. Get rid of them all except for police and the defence force, and you wont have need for a gun.