More about gun laws

[Inventor2]

----

[Professional Russian]

Dont think like me youll never get anywhere here. look at me i have just about the whole forum argueing against me plus someone who made an account just argue with me.

[Christheman]

Gun laws can only go so far because of the 2nd ammendent Right to bear arms. The founder fathers created this just in case the government goes corrupt the people will have guns to uprise. So guns importance to me is for protection. But yes i agree with you 100%!

[Professional Russian]

Gun laws can only go so far because of the 2nd ammendent Right to bear arms. The founder fathers created this just in case the government goes corrupt the people will have guns to uprise. So guns importance to me is for protection. But yes i agree with you 100%!

The government is corrupt do you not see it?

[Christheman]

The government is corrupt do you not see it?

I do i never said they werent lol

[War-Is-Real]

Ok this bothers me because i am a respectful shooter. I do NOT want gun laws. People want to resrict them so criminals cant get them. WELL THINK OF THIS, a criminal can get a firearm ILLEGALY. So what are gun laws doing? Gun laws are restricting firearms to the general citizens of america from guns for the perpose of shooting for fun, sport, and hunting. Why should we let this happen? There are more stabings or chokings then there are shootings. GUNS ARE OK TO HAVE! Dont be affraid to talk to someone that has firearms. About 99% of people that have guns are very nice people and would never harm anyone. They also probly have a lot of experience and know how to safely opperate a firearm.
Also if u think of it, if more poeple would carry firearms there would be LESS crime as to the criminal would be out numbered and would surrender with out a fight.



SO WHO AGREES WITH ME!

Hell yeah! Illegalizing weapons would only help criminals.

[Professional Russian]

My Brain Washing, It Has Finally Worked MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I just had to say that it was in the moment.

[Inventor2]

Thank you alex! SEE WHAT I MEAN PEOPLE! Lol stick it to your russian ass:P my argument works!

[Professional Russian]

Thank you alex! SEE WHAT I MEAN PEOPLE! Lol stick it to your russian ass:P my argument works!

I have the same argument and it never works dont get your hopes up.

[Inventor2]

Yeh but im a hell of a speaker. Dont ruin my argument! I got 2 people

[TheBigUnit]

Gun laws can only go so far because of the 2nd ammendent Right to bear arms. The founder fathers created this just in case the government goes corrupt the people will have guns to uprise. So guns importance to me is for protection. But yes i agree with you 100%!


Actually not at all, I forget why exactly tho..... But yea I agree that we should bear arms

[Jess]

About 99% of people that have guns are very nice people and would never harm anyone. They also probly have a lot of experience and know how to safely opperate a firearm.

I think this statistic is totally wrong...99%? :/

[Inventor2]

Yes jess. It is wright. I have met THOUSANDS of people who beer arms and would p are very nice people.

[Professional Russian]

Yeh but im a hell of a speaker. Dont ruin my argument! I got 2 people

you have 2 people against a orum. asi said dont get your hopes up

[Jess]

but just because it's "thousands" doesn't mean it's 99% of people in the whole country. maybe you meant 99% of people you met.

[FunGuy-]

Gun laws will only hurt the average joe who wants to have a gun for legal and practical reasons like hunting and shooting

[Professional Russian]

Gun laws will only hurt the average joe who wants to have a gun for legal and practical reasons like hunting and shooting

Self defense

[huginnmuninn]

i think the others just aren't posting because they are tired of arguing about the same stuff... but i agree with you

[BrassMonkey]

Ok this bothers me because i am a respectful shooter. I do NOT want gun laws. People want to resrict them so criminals cant get them. WELL THINK OF THIS, a criminal can get a firearm ILLEGALY. So what are gun laws doing? Gun laws are restricting firearms to the general citizens of america from guns for the perpose of shooting for fun, sport, and hunting. Why should we let this happen? There are more stabings or chokings then there are shootings. GUNS ARE OK TO HAVE! Dont be affraid to talk to someone that has firearms. About 99% of people that have guns are very nice people and would never harm anyone. They also probly have a lot of experience and know how to safely opperate a firearm.
Also if u think of it, if more poeple would carry firearms there would be LESS crime as to the criminal would be out numbered and would surrender with out a fight.


SO WHO AGREES WITH ME!

I agree with you 100% Very well Said! If we had gun laws, the crimes will go way up because no one will be able to defend themselves. We have the right to Defend our Selves, and we shouldnt have that taken away!

[WaffleSingSong]

I think we should have more restrictions on guns, but I do not believe in completely banning them. I do not mind having hunting rifles/shotguns or pistols for hunting and sport, but I really do not think you need an automatic rifle or a combat shotgun. And, no, do not say so because its "fun" as that is not a very good argument because it's something that you really do not need.

And, no one actually think that I do not like guns, because I hunt a lot. Again, I want to kill a deer. Not destroy it from existence with a 50.cal

[Inventor2]

Now think about this, people do not need a $100,000 car. So why isnt that illegal? Or what about cigarettes? Cigarettes kill people everyday... Why arent they illegal? Teenagers of age get them because they are "fun" but again they are legal. So why should some firearms be illegal?

[WaffleSingSong]

Now think about this, people do not need a $100,000 car. So why isnt that illegal? Or what about cigarettes? Cigarettes kill people everyday... Why arent they illegal? Teenagers of age get them because they are "fun" but again they are legal. So why should some firearms be illegal?

Sure, But cars are used for transportation. Something that affects us EVERYDAY.

Cigs are not Illegal, but are coming to be. Besides, it's still frowned apon now and days.

[blaaaahblah]

I go both ways...

The constitution gives us the right to "bear arms"

However, some gun laws make sense, some don't.

You also have to remember how different the guns were back during when the constitution was written....


Either way, I have a right to own a gun.

[Professional Russian]

Read this (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=147621)

[Inventor2]

Sure, But cars are used for transportation. Something that affects us EVERYDAY.

Cigs are not Illegal, but are coming to be. Besides, it's still frowned apon now and days.

Well what if i told you i shoot every day? That affects my life... I use it to make my skill better, and to have some alone time with my dad and grandfather. So if you think about it, whether its a car or a gun, it dosnt make sense.

@Tree96


Give me ONE gun law that makes sense. None of them do. let me tell you this... Vermont does not have ANY gun laws at all. And you NEVER hear about something going wrong there... So what does this tell you?

Do not double post, next time please just edit your first post. ~Mirage

[Professional Russian]

@Tree96


Give me ONE gun law that makes sense. None of them do. let me tell you this... Vermont does not have ANY gun laws at all. And you NEVER hear about something going wrong there... So what does this tell you?

THere is one that is logical. The conceal and carry law which states that a person 21 years or older can go to their sheriff and apply for a conceal and permit. and can carry it anywhere in the commonwealth(state)

[Jess]

you haven't explained where you got the 99%......

[huginnmuninn]

there are gun laws that make sense i don't want a convicted felon who has killed people before to go around carrying guns it just doesn't make any sense.

[Gordo]

Well what if i told you i shoot every day? That affects my life... I use it to make my skill better, and to have some alone time with my dad and grandfather. So if you think about it, whether its a car or a gun, it dosnt make sense.

@Tree96


Give me ONE gun law that makes sense. None of them do. let me tell you this... Vermont does not have ANY gun laws at all. And you NEVER hear about something going wrong there... So what does this tell you?

Do not double post, next time please just edit your first post. ~Mirage



The county just north of me, Forsythe County has a law that requires that every homeowner own a gun. So there's one law you might like.

[Inventor2]

When i say i dont want gun laws, i mean make it so anyone with a CLEAR backround can carry or posses a firearm.

Jess, when i say 99% im just making up a number that shows most everyone that ownes a firearm uses it respectfully. It might not be true, but it shows my point.

[Professional Russian]

When i say i dont want gun laws, i mean make it so anyone with a CLEAR backround can carry or posses a firearm.

Jess, when i say 99% im just making up a number that shows most everyone that ownes a firearm uses it respectfully. It might not be true, but it shows my point.

source please

[Gordo]

source please

he has since stated that he meant "most".

[Professional Russian]

he has since stated that he meant "most".

THats not a creditable source give me a link to prove and ill believe you

[Inventor2]

Wtf? Didnt i say "im just making up a number" ? The "source" is my head.


For everyone, use some common sense here please. For example the person who said he dosnt want murderers walking around whith guns... Like seriously? I mean no shit, i dont want that either,

[Professional Russian]

Wtf? Didnt i say "im just making up a number" ? The "source" is my head.


For everyone, use some common sense here please. For example the person who said he dosnt want murderers walking around whith guns... Like seriously? I mean no shit, i dont want that either,

Your arguement is invalid then

[Inventor2]

Its not fuckin invalid. I was simply stating a number that would grab attention. Why are you arguing? ITS A DAMN NUMBER! GET OVER IT

[Professional Russian]

Its not fuckin invalid. I was simply stating a number that would grab attention. Why are you arguing? ITS A DAMN NUMBER! GET OVER IT

I Give numbers too look at my arguments from the past from what i have been told your arguement is invalid till proven. Prove it and ill believe you

[Inventor2]

I dont need you to believe me. So stop spamming my thread

[Professional Russian]

I dont need you to believe me. So stop spamming my thread

Im not spamming im giveing you a chance to prove your facts. its not spam its debateing. its what i get everytime as i said in the PM i sent you

[Inventor2]

Well your not doing anything, so its spam. Its unrellivent to my thread and i dont need anyone to try and make me prove something i said.

[Professional Russian]

Well your not doing anything, so its spam. Its unrellivent to my thread and i dont need anyone to try and make me prove something i said.

Yes you do. you have to prove it or its irrelevant have you not read any other threads. until proven its irrelevant the rest of the Debaters will agree with me on what im saying. You need to give sources saying its out of your is not a source and its not valid until proven. <---Im pretty sure someone told that exact same thing... not sure who though

[Inventor2]

Can you please just leave me alone

[Professional Russian]

Can you please just leave me alone

Its simple debateing. If your going to be in ROTW get used to it. And i shit you not when i say that. look at every other debate you must provide a source with your "Facts"

[WaffleSingSong]

Gun Nuts fighting each other? Com'on, you got a Socialist Muslim to impeach XD

[Puma_concolor]

We need a link to your sources with the statistics you use.

Professional Russian, your arguments are consistently flawed and you assume reading about firearms online makes you some kind of expert on the matter.

[Professional Russian]

We need a link to your sources with the statistics you use.

Professional Russian, your arguments are consistently flawed and you assume reading about firearms online makes you some kind of expert on the matter.

I never stated i was a fucking expert i know enough to know what im talking. shut the fuck up already why every time you say something my name is with it? I think your main goal is too piss me off and try to fucking humiliate me. Just go the fuck away and leave me alone.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Gun laws should restrict guns that have a chance of harming the user. As well I firmly believe in licensing to own guns. These hopefully state that the user can shoot but only in self defense or for hunting purposes.

[Gigablue]

I don't see why people need guns. Having more guns is correlated with more crime. In Canada, where I live, we have much tighter regulations for guns, and don't have the right to bear arms in our constitution. As a result, gun crime is much lower. According to the RCMP, the USA has 8.1 times more homicides per capita using firearms and 15.3 times more using handguns. If the total number of guns goes down, gun crime will go down. Therefore it's not really necessary to have guns for self defense.

There should be a way for people to have guns for hunting and sport, but this should be tightly regulated.

Source: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm

[Puma_concolor]

I don't see why people need guns. Having more guns is correlated with more crime. In Canada, where I live, we have much tighter regulations for guns, and don't have the right to bear arms in our constitution. As a result, gun crime is much lower. According to the RCMP, the USA has 8.1 times more homicides per capita using firearms and 15.3 times more using handguns. If the total number of guns goes down, gun crime will go down. Therefore it's not really necessary to have guns for self defense.

There should be a way for people to have guns for hunting and sport, but this should be tightly regulated.

Source: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm

Guns are not correlated with crime, it's the other way around. Guns are a tool that can be used in many ways, criminal activities included. You cannot compare gun violence in Canada to gun violence in the United States. For one, the poverty rate is higher in the US; crime occurs more frequently in impoverished areas. Then you have to take into consideration how many more gangs there are in the US, and our proximity to Mexico from which some crime flows over from.

How do we know which victims are actually innocent and how many are associated with criminals? How many prostitutes, drug dealers, contraband smugglers, gang members, illegal immigrants, etc. contribute to those statistics? I'm not saying they deserve to die, but realistically they have a higher chance of being killed due to the increased interaction with criminals.

Oh yeah, a handgun is a firearm.

[Gigablue]

Guns are not correlated with crime, it's the other way around. Guns are a tool that can be used in many ways, criminal activities included.

Guns are correlated with crime, the USA has more guns than most countries and more crime. Areas with more crime also have more guns.

Guns can be used for self defense and other non criminal activities, but can also be used for crime. If you decrease the number of guns with tighter regulations, the need to have them for self defense will decrease. There can be exceptions for activities like hunting, but the guns can be well controlled and accounted for.

You cannot compare gun violence in Canada to gun violence in the United States. For one, the poverty rate is higher in the US; crime occurs more frequently in impoverished areas. Then you have to take into consideration how many more gangs there are in the US, and our proximity to Mexico from which some crime flows over from.

Can you provide a source for the statement that poverty is higher? All the sources I found said it was comparable. There are ore gangs in the US, but it has a much bigger population as well. While there is more crime in areas close to the Mexican border, there is still a lot of gun crime in states far from Mexico.

How do we know which victims are actually innocent and how many are associated with criminals? How many prostitutes, drug dealers, contraband smugglers, gang members, illegal immigrants, etc. contribute to those statistics? I'm not saying they deserve to die, but realistically they have a higher chance of being killed due to the increased interaction with criminals.

Regardless, we shouldn't have them die. If people commit a crime, they should be tried in accordance the law, not murdered by criminals. There are also bystanders who just happen to be unlucky and haven't done anything wrong.

Oh yeah, a handgun is a firearm.

I don't think I said it wasn't. I just included the handgun statistic to show that handguns are correlated with crime more than guns in general.

[Puma_concolor]

Guns are correlated with crime, the USA has more guns than most countries and more crime. Areas with more crime also have more guns.

No, areas in which criminals have access to guns have a higher rate of guns assisting in crime. The crimes will still occur, just without the guns.

Guns can be used for self defense and other non criminal activities, but can also be used for crime. If you decrease the number of guns with tighter regulations, the need to have them for self defense will decrease.

It's cliche, but it especially makes sense in this case: cars can be used for harmless transportation, but they can also be used for crime. If you decrease the number of guns with tighter regulations, it just makes it easier to track the guns that are registered, what good does that do? Let's use a hypothetical situation: The US is completely free of all guns, none at all. Instead of carrying around Hi-Point's and Taurus', criminals are now carrying Bowie and combat knives. Citizens also acquire knives for self-defense, resulting in hand-to-hand street fighting, which is arguably way more badass, but the cycle continues.

There can be exceptions for activities like hunting, but the guns can be well controlled and accounted for.

See, that's funny, because legally, guns theoretically should be well accounted for, but those damn criminals man, for some reason they don't follow the law.

Can you provide a source for the statement that poverty is higher? All the sources I found said it was comparable. There are ore gangs in the US, but it has a much bigger population as well. While there is more crime in areas close to the Mexican border, there is still a lot of gun crime in states far from Mexico.

When I refuted your post, I had taken population difference into account. Gangs are more frequent in impoverished areas, so one can assume there are more gangs in the United States, resulting in more crime from gang members interacting with other gang members. If we want to eliminate gun violence, we need to eliminate the activities which cause it, poverty being one of them. Guns do not cause the crime, they assist in carrying it out.

Regardless, we shouldn't have them die. If people commit a crime, they should be tried in accordance the law, not murdered by criminals. There are also bystanders who just happen to be unlucky and haven't done anything wrong.

Refer to my last response about eliminating crime.

I don't think I said it wasn't. I just included the handgun statistic to show that handguns are correlated with crime more than guns in general.

the USA has 8.1 times more homicides per capita using firearms and 15.3 times more using handguns

SOURCES:

Poverty in United States: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2
Poverty in Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0917-e.htm#a1

[Gigablue]

No, areas in which criminals have access to guns have a higher rate of guns assisting in crime. The crimes will still occur, just without the guns.

Even if that is true, which I don't think it is, then by having guns, the crimes are more lethal. A crime committed with a gun is more likely to be fatal than one committed without one.

It's cliche, but it especially makes sense in this case: cars can be used for harmless transportation, but they can also be used for crime. If you decrease the number of guns with tighter regulations, it just makes it easier to track the guns that are registered, what good does that do? Let's use a hypothetical situation: The US is completely free of all guns, none at all. Instead of carrying around Hi-Point's and Taurus', criminals are now carrying Bowie and combat knives. Citizens also acquire knives for self-defense, resulting in hand-to-hand street fighting, which is arguably way more badass, but the cycle continues.

It's harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. I'm not saying that getting rid of guns is the solution to all crime, just that it would help. Also, the car-gun analogy isn't accurate. Cars are mostly used for transportation, while guns are used more often for crime. The benefits of cars far outweigh the potential for crime. Guns really aren't useful, therefore the benefit is small if there is one at all. The potential for guns to be used in crime is great.

See, that's funny, because legally, guns theoretically should be well accounted for, but those damn criminals man, for some reason they don't follow the law.

If you decrease the number of guns and make it more difficult to acquire one, it will affect criminals as well. I'm not saying criminals should be expected to follow the law.

When I refuted your post, I had taken population difference into account. Gangs are more frequent in impoverished areas, so one can assume there are more gangs in the United States, resulting in more crime from gang members interacting with other gang members. If we want to eliminate gun violence, we need to eliminate the activities which cause it, poverty being one of them. Guns do not cause the crime, they assist in carrying it out.

The problem with poverty won't be fixed by getting rid of guns, but the number of deaths can be reduced. If we want to eliminate gun violence, we need to reduce the number of guns.

[Puma_concolor]

Even if that is true, which I don't think it is, then by having guns, the crimes are more lethal. A crime committed with a gun is more likely to be fatal than one committed without one.



It's harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. I'm not saying that getting rid of guns is the solution to all crime, just that it would help. Also, the car-gun analogy isn't accurate. Cars are mostly used for transportation, while guns are used more often for crime. The benefits of cars far outweigh the potential for crime. Guns really aren't useful, therefore the benefit is small if there is one at all. The potential for guns to be used in crime is great.



If you decrease the number of guns and make it more difficult to acquire one, it will affect criminals as well. I'm not saying criminals should be expected to follow the law.



The problem with poverty won't be fixed by getting rid of guns, but the number of deaths can be reduced. If we want to eliminate gun violence, we need to reduce the number of guns.

I'm on my phone but when I get on a computer I'll respond.

[Scarface]

Alright, you guys need to simmer down, I don't see it necessary to get all bunged up and fight, if you cannot conduct yourself and debate in a manner that is constructive and passive, then don't post in ramblings of the wise.

[Cicero]

Well your not doing anything, so its spam. Its unrellivent to my thread and i dont need anyone to try and make me prove something i said.

Thats what you do in ROTW, you say something, and then give evidence. You cannot just say something and expect people to believe it without any proof. You also cannot really tell anyone to leave your thread, because its open to everyone. You obviously do not know how to debate, if your unwilling to provide proof or evidence...

[root]

Even if that is true, which I don't think it is, then by having guns, the crimes are more lethal. A crime committed with a gun is more likely to be fatal than one committed without one.



It's harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. I'm not saying that getting rid of guns is the solution to all crime, just that it would help. Also, the car-gun analogy isn't accurate. Cars are mostly used for transportation, while guns are used more often for crime. The benefits of cars far outweigh the potential for crime. Guns really aren't useful, therefore the benefit is small if there is one at all. The potential for guns to be used in crime is great.



If you decrease the number of guns and make it more difficult to acquire one, it will affect criminals as well. I'm not saying criminals should be expected to follow the law.



The problem with poverty won't be fixed by getting rid of guns, but the number of deaths can be reduced. If we want to eliminate gun violence, we need to reduce the number of guns.


That's not necessarily true. People just prefer to kill with guns cause it's a bit less personal and you can get more kills. (References: Call of Duty)

If you're talking about killing just one person, then no...you can easily kill one person with a knife. And it'd be more convenient too because there's no problem of a giant bang (even if you do use a silencer) and no problem of gunpowder residue. YOu could just jump the guy and stab him or whatever. (Reference: Hollywood movies)

do you remember what happened when they banned alcohol? crime rate went up sky-high. If they made it harder to get guns, liberals will be protesting in the streets for like months. There would be more smuggling of firearms from offshore countries.

no, you're wrong. poverty is not linked to having guns...at least not direct enough that controlling guns will control poverty. poverty is an effect of a poor economy and educational system that does not work. Crime is a result of a mistake made by society. if people say you are a criminal, then you start to become one because you start to believe it.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

That's not necessarily true. People just prefer to kill with guns cause it's a bit less personal and you can get more kills. (References: Call of Duty)

If you're talking about killing just one person, then no...you can easily kill one person with a knife. And it'd be more convenient too because there's no problem of a giant bang (even if you do use a silencer) and no problem of gunpowder residue. YOu could just jump the guy and stab him or whatever. (Reference: Hollywood movies)

do you remember what happened when they banned alcohol? crime rate went up sky-high. If they made it harder to get guns, liberals will be protesting in the streets for like months. There would be more smuggling of firearms from offshore countries.

no, you're wrong. poverty is not linked to having guns...at least not direct enough that controlling guns will control poverty. poverty is an effect of a poor economy and educational system that does not work. Crime is a result of a mistake made by society. if people say you are a criminal, then you start to become one because you start to believe it.
Those aren't real life.

[Professional Russian]

Ive said this 100 times and ill say it again. you can not take guns. it will not make the problem better it will make it worse. if you take guns from the average person they will not have anything to defend them selves with. but the bad guys will always get guns. Theres organized crime everywhere and they do do illegal gun trade. if you ban guns it will be like drugs they're illegal put people will still get them. Its no that hard to understand i dont know why liberals dont want too.

[level_up]

There's a very strong correlation between amount of homicides per year and rates of gun ownership. The US has one of the highest homicide rates, and highest gun ownership rates in the civilized world. Europe by contrast has far lower rates of both. So there is little doubt that more people owning guns would make this country more dangerous, not less so.

If you just think about it, you will see it's sensible. Think of how many stupid, impulsive people are out there - now imagine them all armed with guns. Now everytime someone is drunk or really angry, they have an easy way to go out and cause some damage. Psychos like Jared Loughner will have an easier time massacring people. And suicides are likely to go way up as well.

No one suggetss taking away guns totally, but I am in favor of tougher laws that standardize the rules for buying guns across all the states. There should be mandatory background checks and waiting periods, and you should have to be 21 or something before even buying one. Also, only people with special licenses provided by courts should be able to have fully automatic weapons like AKs and that kind of thing because seriously, no one needs that for hunting.

[Professional Russian]

No one suggetss taking away guns totally, but I am in favor of tougher laws that standardize the rules for buying guns across all the states. There should be mandatory background checks and waiting periods, and you should have to be 21 or something before even buying one. Also, only people with special licenses provided by courts should be able to have fully automatic weapons like AKs and that kind of thing because seriously, no one needs that for hunting.

any automatic rifles/pistols/sbs/sbr/AOWs go through the ATF and its alot of time alot money and alot of background checks. THere are some people out there on this forum that think that the only people that should have guns a re mil/police. there is a waiting period. it varys by state. you have to be 18 for a rifle 21 for a handgun. and there are background checks that take place when purchasing a firearm.

[level_up]

I agree with you 100% Very well Said! If we had gun laws, the crimes will go way up because no one will be able to defend themselves. We have the right to Defend our Selves, and we shouldnt have that taken away!

How many people do you think defend themselves with the guns they own personally? Do you actually think that guns are a good deterrent for house burglars and ppl like that? The police are the ones who defend us; citizens very rarely defend themselves.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

How many people do you think defend themselves with the guns they own personally? Do you actually think that guns are a good deterrent for house burglars and ppl like that? The police are the ones who defend us; citizens very rarely defend themselves.

Yeah. Kinda obvious? Pessimism contribution on the guy you commented on part? These people don't know anything about this freaking topic. Except Level Up and Professional Russian and myself of course.
Guns are actually most often used in self defense unless people are such retards to wage war or commit murder with them.

[level_up]

Guns are not correlated with crime, it's the other way around. Guns are a tool that can be used in many ways, criminal activities included. You cannot compare gun violence in Canada to gun violence in the United States. For one, the poverty rate is higher in the US; crime occurs more frequently in impoverished areas. Then you have to take into consideration how many more gangs there are in the US, and our proximity to Mexico from which some crime flows over from.

How do we know which victims are actually innocent and how many are associated with criminals? How many prostitutes, drug dealers, contraband smugglers, gang members, illegal immigrants, etc. contribute to those statistics? I'm not saying they deserve to die, but realistically they have a higher chance of being killed due to the increased interaction with criminals.

Oh yeah, a handgun is a firearm.

You make good points, there are a lot of other factors that contribute to the high homicide rate here, but that doesn't change the fact that higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. If guns were more restricted here, the homicide rate would still drop.

[Professional Russian]

How many people do you think defend themselves with the guns they own personally? Do you actually think that guns are a good deterrent for house burglars and ppl like that? The police are the ones who defend us; citizens very rarely defend themselves.

When your stairing down the barrel of a .44 Mag. your scared shitless. that will scare anyone. and i mean anyone.


You make good points, there are a lot of other factors that contribute to the high homicide rate here, but that doesn't change the fact that higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. If guns were more restricted here, the homicide rate would still drop.

I dont think your understanding. restricting/banning guns wont do shit.

This is what i said earlier:

Ive said this 100 times and ill say it again. you can not take guns. it will not make the problem better it will make it worse. if you take guns from the average person they will not have anything to defend them selves with. but the bad guys will always get guns. Theres organized crime everywhere and they do do illegal gun trade. if you ban guns it will be like drugs they're illegal put people will still get them. Its no that hard to understand i dont know why liberals dont want too.

[level_up]

When your stairing down the barrel of a .44 Mag. your scared shitless. that will scare anyone. and i mean anyone.




I dont think your understanding. restricting/banning guns wont do shit.

This is what i said earlier:

I don't understand the first part of what you said, but ok. I'm aware that organized criminals will get guns on the black market no matter what, but so what? They will be more expensive, and so they will have less of them at least.

Restricting guns is a great idea, because hunters will still be able to hunt, and people who want to have guns in the home will still be able to have them, but it will be much harder for mentally ill people intent on killing to get them, or emo hs kids, minor criminals, etc. It will be a safer country, and violence/homicides will decrease.

You and some other people are overestimating how big a role guns play in self-defense; that's what the problem is. Every time I turn on the local news and hear about a shooting it's not someone defending their home, but someone getting shot themselves but some petty thief or mugger or something like that. They don't act as deterrent for b&e because crooks expect people to either be unarmed, out of their homes, or sleeping. So in other words, they don't keep people safe.

[Professional Russian]

I don't understand the first part of what you said, but ok.

You said about a deterrent. stairing down the berrel of my .44 is a good fucking deterrent

I'm aware that organized criminals will get guns on the black market no matter what, but so what? They will be more expensive, and so they will have less of them at least.

THey arent expensive as you think. they cost about as much as a gun you can buy at a store

Restricting guns is a great idea, because hunters will still be able to hunt, and people who want to have guns in the home will still be able to have them, but it will be much harder for mentally ill people intent on killing to get them, or emo hs kids, minor criminals, etc. It will be a safer country, and violence/homicides will decrease.

No it wont be safer and then i wouldnt be able to do This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QNoX_s22xs&feature=g-upl)

You and some other people are overestimating how big a role guns play in self-defense; that's what the problem is. Every time I turn on the local news and hear about a shooting it's not someone defending their home, but someone getting shot themselves but some petty thief or mugger or something like that. They don't act as deterrent for b&e because crooks expect people to either be unarmed, out of their homes, or sleeping. So in other words, they don't keep people safe.


They do keep people safe if someone breaks in my house im not waiting for cops to came and then take him to court and let him walk and if hes there to kill me or anyone else i will fire back and i will kill him. that is justice at its best too. getting rid of criminals will make this country safer not getting rid of guns.

[level_up]

You said about a deterrent. stairing down the berrel of my .44 is a good fucking deterrent



THey arent expensive as you think. they cost about as much as a gun you can buy at a store



No it wont be safer and then i wouldnt be able to do This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QNoX_s22xs&feature=g-upl)




They do keep people safe if someone breaks in my house im not waiting for cops to came and then take him to court and let him walk and if hes there to kill me or anyone else i will fire back and i will kill him. that is justice at its best too. getting rid of criminals will make this country safer not getting rid of guns.

deterrent is at the heart of this whole argument really, but you're just wrong about it. This isn't the wild west, and average citizens don't go around fending off banditos with six shooters anymore. You have this romantic fantasy in your head of killing robbers who break into your house, but robbers are not dumb. They will come to your house when you are asleep or at work, and before you ever see them they will have already looted you. You won't have the chance to brandish your gun. Very few people have permits to carry their guns around in public, so obviously muggers and rapists aren't going to have to be afraid of it, The probability of you ever shooting anyone with one is extremely low.

On the other hand, by restricting/banning guns, many criminals and psychos will be cut off or at least unable to easily procure a firearm. Common people won't be sitting their naked and defenseless, because their guns never protected them in the first place and if you'd just think logically you'd understand that. This country is weirdly violent and obsessed with guns.

[Professional Russian]

deterrent is at the heart of this whole argument really, but you're just wrong about it. This isn't the wild west, and average citizens don't go around fending off banditos with six shooters anymore. You have this romantic fantasy in your head of killing robbers who break into your house, but robbers are not dumb. They will come to your house when you are asleep or at work, and before you ever see them they will have already looted you. You won't have the chance to brandish your gun. Very few people have permits to carry their guns around in public, so obviously muggers and rapists aren't going to have to be afraid of it, The probability of you ever shooting anyone with one is extremely low.

MY house is small so i would be able to here and i do know where every gun in the house is because i put them all there. My dad has a CCW so he carry anything he wants as long as its concealed. at the moment he carry's a Ruger LCP .380 Auto. Hes going to get the judge. I know the probability of me shooting any one is small i don't want to be put in that situation. Trust me a .44 works as a very good deterrent. thats if you can out run the bullet though.

On the other hand, by restricting/banning guns, many criminals and psychos will be cut off or at least unable to easily procure a firearm. Common people won't be sitting their naked and defenseless, because their guns never protected them in the first place and if you'd just think logically you'd understand that. This country is weirdly violent and obsessed with guns.

It wont be harder for criminals to get guns. as i said before illegal gun trade would be like drug trade and drugs are very easy to get.

[huginnmuninn]

A gun is a deterrent. If i have a gun people won't try to break into my home while I'm there. When I'm not there I have two trained rottweilers to scare them away

[Professional Russian]

A gun is a deterrent. If i have a gun people won't try to break into my home while I'm there. When I'm not there I have two trained rottweilers to scare them away

God if i saw to rottweilers gun or not i wouldnt go near that place. id be scared shitless. those dogs are trained to protect and theyll do anything to protect what needs protected.

[Inventor2]

I think i am going to have a Mod lock this post, getting to be to much

[Cicero]

I think i am going to have a Mod lock this post, getting to be to much

Welcome to the debate forums, the word in the name "debate forums" is about debating. Thats what everyone is doing, you should stick in the nondebate forums.

[Inventor2]

I know, but i think this was a bad topic because people can really get mad about this.


Also my Reputation got slammed for posting this and it was really mean what they said. I dont understand why people cant be nice:/

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I know, but i think this was a bad topic because people can really get mad about this.


Also my Reputation got slammed for posting this and it was really mean what they said. I dont understand why people cant be nice:/
IKR people slam on my Rep for no reason. They called a simple statement a hate speech OMFG REALLY?

[Professional Russian]

I know, but i think this was a bad topic because people can really get mad about this.


Also my Reputation got slammed for posting this and it was really mean what they said. I dont understand why people cant be nice:/

Fuck my rep 46 at the beginning of the last gun laws thread and its 25 dont complain about rep it means nothing

[Bluesman]

Ok this bothers me because i am a respectful shooter. I do NOT want gun laws. People want to resrict them so criminals cant get them. WELL THINK OF THIS, a criminal can get a firearm ILLEGALY. So what are gun laws doing? Gun laws are restricting firearms to the general citizens of america from guns for the perpose of shooting for protection, sport, and hunting. Why should we let this happen? There are more stabings or chokings then there are shootings. GUNS ARE OK TO HAVE! Dont be affraid to talk to someone that has firearms. About 99% of people that have guns are very nice people and would never harm anyone. They also probly have a lot of experience and know how to safely opperate a firearm.
Also if u think of it, if more poeple would carry firearms there would be LESS crime as to the criminal would be out numbered and would surrender with out a fight.

I mostly agree with you. Gun's should NEVER be made illegal. However we cannot do away with gun laws. Imagine what this country would be if I (a 15 year old guy) could go to my local Walmart and buy an AK-47. A lot of people in the country, especially those around our age, are very irresponsible. The restrictions on the sale of fully automatic weapons and the age limit of 18 to purchase a firearm are examples of good gun laws. We need laws to somewhat restrict the sale and possession of guns, but we need to make sure we don't make them illegal or inaccessible to those who will use them responsibly, and for their intended purposes. Personally, I am probably soon going to start hunting. Not for the trophy, but for delicious meat. Without a gun, this would be impossible. Guns are NEEDED for hunting. When I turn 18, I plan on applying for a concealed carry permit. I want to have the ability to carry a small pistol at all times, for self defense. If I should wind up in a situation like the recent tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, I do not, under any circumstances, want to be caught unarmed. I want to be able to defend myself against those who intend to do me harm, even when a police officer or such isn't around to do it for me. Basic point of my argument: NEVER make guns illegal, however make sure that guns are kept in the hands of respectful, responsible shooters, and not in the hands of criminals. Yes, a criminal will still get a gun illegally, I get it. The last thing we want to do though is help them out.

[Magus]

What the fuck is this? More gun lubbers? Where are the hippies at?