# "Gun Control"?



## Priva (Mar 6, 2013)

Do you think all weapons should be legal to own? Do you think some weapons should be banned from use? Do you think all weapons should be banned from use? Do you think banning weapons is useless, or do you think it is helpful?


----------



## noname42 (Mar 8, 2013)

*Do you think banning weapons is useless, or do you think it is helpful?*

I think it is useless because you can now easily make homemade weapons, using simple machines (although they are shitty weapons)*

Do you think some weapons should be banned from use?*

Yes, allowing any simple weapons will restrict the use just for protection and low level crime.


*The Government should issue weapons licensee under very strict regulations with a thorough background check.*

I know its hard living with these conditions, I mean its nice cruising with my AK-47 and killing all the people I hate and all the corrupt and evil guys. Unfortunately, this anarchy will cause a huge mess and our lives will be like the African Savannah. As enjoyable and adventurous as it seems, I think we will regret it at the end


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

Statistics show that cities and states with stricter gun laws have exponentially higher rates of gun violence and gun-related crime. Texas, which has the loosest laws and allows concealed carry, has the lowest rate of violence and unlicensed ownership. BOOM.


----------



## that (May 22, 2012)

I think that strict gun laws are a good and bad thing. It's good because they discourage casual violence, and I can't just go out and buy a gun willy-nilly and shoot up a bunch of people. But it's also bad because it means that the professional criminals are the only ones with guns. They are still getting their handguns and automatic weapons through the black market, while we have to sit and spend a whole day jumping through hoops just to buy a bolt-action rifle. 

Either way, you lose, I think the only way to solve the problem is to do what Australia did, melt down all the guns in the country and turn them into things that are actually useful. That way you don't have any left, and anybody who has a gun is automatically known as a criminal.


----------



## JamesSteal (Apr 14, 2013)

_"Here, take away these possessions I paid for because you think they are wrong and dangerous." _


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Priva said:


> Do you think all weapons should be legal to own? Do you think some weapons should be banned from use?


No I don't think *all* weapons should be legal. That would mean it would be legal to maintain a nuclear arsenal or have rocket launchers. Those sort of things should be illegal. Now in regards to firearms, besides fully automatic weapons, I don't see a reason to ban anything.



> Do you think banning weapons is useless, or do you think it is helpful?


[/quote]

For the most part it is. There will be a black market for these weapons and criminals will ultimately get the weapons. I do believe more needs to be done to control ownership of the weapons, but do see bans as counterproductive. I personally think a gun should be titled like a car and a background check should take place, as well as title transfer, on any transfer of ownership. Any possession of a non-titled gun should have severe consequences. Beyond that, let people own what they want.



DrJakeyll said:


> Statistics show that cities and states with stricter gun laws have exponentially higher rates of gun violence and gun-related crime. Texas, which has the loosest laws and allows concealed carry, has the lowest rate of violence and unlicensed ownership. BOOM.


Every state but Illinois allows conceal and carry. The reason why cities like Chicago have higher gun crime rates with stricter law is outside their boundaries, it's easy to get a gun. Indiana is only an hour's drive from Chicago and the gun laws are very lenient compared to Chicago. People just buy them elsewhere and "import" them into the city.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

Please don't ban my baseball bat and wasp spray! And, for pity's sake, can I have my ballpoint pen back?


----------



## intjonn (Apr 20, 2013)

'gun kuntrol' is hitting ur fuking targut.......





_*<<<<========take it frum a koon!*_


----------



## HippoHunter94 (Jan 19, 2012)

Gun control is silly when a simple Google search can find you directions so you can make napalm from the stuff underneath your kitchen sink.


----------



## CaptSwan (Mar 31, 2013)

I think certain guns should be kept by statute out of the public's reach; like automatic sub-machineguns; assault rifles, etc. Those should be regulated heavily. Now, things like handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles should remain available to the public; but the knowledge of their operation and effect should be made aware of. The more you know about a firearm and how it operates (the do's and don'ts); the least likely it is for an "accident" to occur.


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

"Every state but Illinois allows conceal and carry. The reason why cities like Chicago have higher gun crime rates with stricter law is outside their boundaries, it's easy to get a gun. Indiana is only an hour's drive from Chicago and the gun laws are very lenient compared to Chicago. People just buy them elsewhere and "import" them into the city."

Facts are correct, but the drawn conclusion is clearly illogical. But why would that INCREASE gun violence? Since other states are more lenient, they would clearly have higher gun violence rates, by your logic.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

DrJakeyll said:


> Facts are correct, but the drawn conclusion is clearly illogical. But why would that INCREASE gun violence? Since other states are more lenient, they would clearly have higher gun violence rates, by your logic.


My conclusion was even with super strict laws, they are easily circumvented and essentially useless, because criminals can easily get the guns anyway by just going across the border. My conclusion was these laws are pretty much useless and with them, it allows crime to perpetuate since it deters law abiding citizens from having guns. If the criminals have easy access to guns and law abiding citizens don't, it basically allows the criminal to think their victims are going to be unarmed.


----------



## Calvin (Jun 21, 2012)

Gun control works great for state-orchestrated genocide. Just ask any North Korean.


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

Oh! Right, sorry, didn't get that from the first post. Yes, I agree though.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

DrJakeyll said:


> Oh! Right, sorry, didn't get that from the first post. Yes, I agree though.


It's like say you live in a state on the border of Colorado or Washington. Just how effective you are marijuana drug laws on supplies when you can easily cross the border and get it legally and then bring it back?


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

Yeah, I agree that gun laws are pointless; but are you saying EVERY state should have stricter gun laws?


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

DrJakeyll said:


> Yeah, I agree that gun laws are pointless; but are you saying EVERY state should have stricter gun laws?


It depends on the laws. I don't think they are pointless. The whole, "well criminals aren't going to follow the laws so we shouldn't have laws," is such flawed logic. Basically if I said, "Well alcoholics are going to drive drunk anyway so there's no point in having drunk driving laws because it infringes on a person's rights to have 2-3 beers without worrying about repercussions."

I think guns should be titled like cars. To transfer ownership it has to go through a background check process by a licensed firearms dealer to make sure the parties can legally transfer the guns. Anyone caught with an untitled gun will be in deep trouble. In regards to restrictions, I don't really believe beyond fully automatic or things like grenade launchers, there shouldn't be restrictions as long as you can pass a background check. I also believe in concealed carry after an extensive training class and proof you can actually hit a target.


----------



## Espiculeas (Sep 4, 2009)

There is one problem with any type of control, as prohibition and slavery (should have) taught us well (in actuality it showed us a problem, nothing seems to have been done to address that problem, still hoping though) you can't have a law unless you have everyone willing to support it. In order for gun control to work, you would need to be very very strict, and the people would have to at-least 80% agree with it (you probably could get away with 65% but then crime would still be rampant). The easiest way is for everyone to be provided a cheap handgun, and taught to use it. If everyone had a weapon then people would be less likely to start shooting for fear of being shot back. Still cheaper then trying to control it, but people still freak out about everyone owning guns (find maybe not everyone, you still need limits, but owning a gun should be like owning a car). 

Try anything else and it won't work. Texas should be a good model for this. 

If everyone has access to ultimate power, people soon lose interest in abusing that power for now everyone has it.


----------



## scamper_22 (Jul 9, 2012)

Priva said:


> Do you think all weapons should be legal to own? Do you think some weapons should be banned from use? Do you think all weapons should be banned from use? Do you think banning weapons is useless, or do you think it is helpful?



I don't think all weapons should be legal to own. I certainly don't want to risk a mentally disturbed psychopath can order a nuclear bomb off e-bay and nuke the world.

So I think you need to consider a few things.
1. Just how destructive is the weapon
2. How difficult is it to actually control the spread of the weapon

So for most guns, I think it clear to me that they should be fully legal and banning them is pretty pointless.
1. They are not really that destructive. Even if the gun obsessed USA, life still goes on as usual...
2. It is pretty much impossible to control the spread of such arms. Heck, I'm in Canada and the criminals that want guns seem to be able to get them. That's pretty much true across the world. Throw in 3d printing and it is made even easier. Even if you are successful at banning commercial guns, its pretty easy to make a gun at a metal work shop.

And there are of course benefits to people having guns. There are going to be times it will save someone's life, be able to kill a mass-murderer before they kill me, act as deterrent...


While not guns, the same is true of most drugs. They are not that destructive to society. And you cannot really control them. People will sniff gasoline, house hold cleaning products... whatever to get high. You can't ban them.

In both cases, it is far better to focus on making better people who don't want to destroy their life with drugs or go out there and kill people. I don't know about you, but what stop me from being a junkie or people a mass murderer is not that they are banned. It is because I have no inclination to live such a destructive life. That is the case with most people.
It is why many parts of the US are safe even with high gun ownership rates. The same is true for switzerland, finland... even parts of Canada.

When it comes to larger weapons (nuclear bombs, tanks, fighter jets...), they can be immensely destructive and they can in fact be 'somewhat' controlled. You would need a large factory to build many of these... I can tell they're somewhat successful at it because I don't know anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who get get such items. The same cannot be said to be true for guns or drugs.

Now some might say... well just because we can't control it, shouldn't we still ban it?
My answer to that is two fold.

1. Owning a weapon or drug is a victimless crime. As a matter of freedom, I am careful when I advocate infringing on that.
2. As a matter of governance, it can waste resources and starve other areas. Evidence seems to back this up. The war on drugs continues because drugs are illegal and other avenues (public health, rehab, street police...) are starved of funding.


----------

