gun debate in america

Jstar1 · Post by **Jstar1** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm

ok so im doing an english project on gun control in america and I'm wondering what you guys think about the gun laws here. I'm sure most of the rest of the world thinks gun control is neccessary but what is your opinion?

I am for gun cuntrol but I think that the issue is more complicated than black and white. First america has a lot of people of different races, backgrounds, etc. compared to other countries. I think that the racial and religious tensions cause people to kill each other with guns.

but I think that gun control is necessary because any other country with strong gun laws has very very few deaths from guns

Vibrator · Post by **Vibrator** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:11 pm

I think every kid should have a gun. Then they would be safe in school.

FireJammerXR · Post by **FireJammerXR** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:15 pm

Vibrator wrote:I think every kid should have a gun. Then they would be safe in school.

Thats a good oint but then it would come down to which kid would have the best gun and they'd fight over that. It could definitely solve our population problems

Disconn3cted · Post by **Disconn3cted** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:27 pm

copy what other countries are doing im sure it works better than whatever we do :roll:

i know nothing about this btw

Reise · Post by **Reise** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:29 pm

Control doesn't = ban. We already have gun control. Hell there's even bans in some states anyway. For instance in California and NY and Mass and some other states, you can't own most weapons legally.

Mcclane · Post by **Mcclane** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:29 pm

should have a IQ test

Website · Post by **satman83** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:39 pm

They have to do one of three things.

1= Tighten gun control.

2= Make the ownership of a firearms illegal.

3= Increase firearms waiting time and introduce background checks on all
those who try to buy guns.

Reise · Post by **Reise** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:40 pm

Fireman?

Anyway legal sellers already have to do background checks on anyone that buys a firearm.

Website · Post by **satman83** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:42 pm

Reise wrote:Fireman?

Anyway legal sellers already have to do background checks on anyone that buys a firearm.

firemen dont use guns? or do they?

and i say they should make the background checks more detailed.

Ell · Post by **Ell** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:44 pm

satman83 wrote:
2= Make the ownership of a fireman illegal.

3= Increase fireman waiting time and introduce background checks on all
those who try to buy guns.

What?

Reise · Post by **Reise** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:46 pm

lol I dunno, if I was a fireman I'd probably be happy with just the axe and fire hose. Don't really need a gun lol.

Sharp324 · Post by **Sharp324** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:46 pm

Meh just tighten it up on people who can own them but would be hard, personally i have a lot of guns, in my moms name atm since im not 18 but being signed over to me when i turn. Some states are strict, Mass. is very strict on it, but where i live you can get what you want, excluding automatic assault rifles and SMGs. Its a hard issues to hit, gl with it.

Vibrator · Post by **Vibrator** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:47 pm

Ell wrote:
satman83 wrote:
2= Make the ownership of a fireman illegal.

3= Increase fireman waiting time and introduce background checks on all
those who try to buy guns.

What?

Think he means firearm

Website · Post by **satman83** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:48 pm

Vibrator wrote:
Ell wrote:
satman83 wrote:
2= Make the ownership of a fireman illegal.

3= Increase fireman waiting time and introduce background checks on all
those who try to buy guns.

What?

Think he means firearm

which is what i said :wink:

Reise · Post by **Reise** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:53 pm

Sharp324 wrote:Meh just tighten it up on people who can own them but would be hard, personally i have a lot of guns, in my moms name atm since im not 18 but being signed over to me when i turn. Some states are strict, Mass. is very strict on it, but where i live you can get what you want, excluding automatic assault rifles and SMGs. Its a hard issues to hit, gl with it.

Yeap, states all have varying laws regarding the subject. Some are more strict and specific than others. Luckily in Maine where I live their laws aren't very strict at all. But the basic stuff is still there, like background checks and can't purchase weapons and ammo together, and stuff like that.

redneck · Post by **redneck** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:57 pm

I think that the racial and religious tensions cause people to kill each other with guns.

Are you joking?

and btw its not the guns that kill people its the people that kill people..

Reise · Post by **Reise** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:01 am

Fact is, you can ban guns all you want, people will still get a hold of them and use them to kill others. Just like people still drank during the prohibition, and people still do illegal drugs.

It's probably also difficult to put new laws on firearms since so many people already own them. It's a very complicated and difficult situation that I'm sure people would rather just leave alone.

Sharp324 · Post by **Sharp324** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:17 am

Reise wrote:Fact is, you can ban guns all you want, people will still get a hold of them and use them to kill others. Just like people still drank during the prohibition, and people still do illegal drugs.

It's probably also difficult to put new laws on firearms since so many people already own them. It's a very complicated and difficult situation that I'm sure people would rather just leave alone.

Oh yeah, if you want to go kill someone you can go get them easily. So many people think you cant get automatic rifles, but this drug dealer i know has several fully auto AK-47s and M15s

†erminal · Post by **†erminal** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:18 am

We don't need gun control, we need bullet control.-Chris Rock

Vibrator · Post by **Vibrator** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:26 am

†erminal wrote:We don't need gun control, we need bullet control.-Chris Rock

Lol i love that one. If ia buyllet cost 1000$ dollars people would be crazy.

" I would shoot you if i could afford a bullet!

Once theysh oot someone they would be like " Gimme back my bullet"

Jstar1 · Post by **Jstar1** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:27 am

redneck wrote:
I think that the racial and religious tensions cause people to kill each other with guns.

Are you joking?

and btw its not the guns that kill people its the people that kill people..

no Im not joking. I see it very clearly that the ethnic and religious differences (including black and white tensions) that cause trouble. Other countries have smaller populations and more homogenic society than america.

And its the guns that kill people. I know I know some people say that strict gun laws won't do anything but the results are already clear with other countries. I know Japan you can't own any kind of weapon without some extreme special permit. No wonder why people think Japan is one of the safer countries.

gun deaths will still happen, but we can prevent many of them. For example Cho's killing spree at VT. the judge said that he was mental yet wimpy virginia gun laws let him get 2 guns

Reise · Post by **Reise** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:49 am

Ok, that's one instance where it MAY have changed things. Most likely it would've just delayed the incident.

Now what about everything else? The people who already illegally own and sell fully automatic weapons? People that smuggle in banned weapons from other countries who somehow still get them regardless of laws overseas?

I wouldn't go and punish the entire population for something you really have no control over. At best, even if guns were 100% illegal in the US, people would still get them. Just like anything else that's illegal still happens.

People don't close stores because some fool can just walk in and steal their stuff, it doesn't help anyone and I'm sure it wouldn't stop theft. So I wouldn't just ban guns entirely because somebody can get one and use it to kill people. I think the only thing it would do is get people to understand that changing gun laws like that really has no effect.

CrimsonNuker · Post by **CrimsonNuker** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:34 am

You should have done it on tasers lol and feature that 'DONT TASE ME BRO' video.

avanti42 · Post by **avanti42** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:21 am

2nd ammendment

fena · Post by **fena** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:31 am

Disregarding what everyone else has said, I don't think banning guns would work too well for a couple of points.

First off, that would be in a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights - as American citizens, we ALL have the right to bear arms, most importantly to protect ourselves.
To protect ourselves from who?

The criminals, of course.
Just like America saw during the times of Prohibition, banning or controlling firearms does not lead to their disappearance. If anything, only the innocent would be harmed because criminals would have an easier time to gain access to what would be illegal firearms than normal citizens. Thus, crime would be more rampant, as the criminals with the weapons could almost certainly be sure that in the house they're robbing or whatever crime they're pulling, there will most likely be no firearm. Nowadays, novice burglars usually think twice - is the inhabitant of the house they're about to rob some crazy redneck with a sawed-off underneath his pillow?

And when it comes to organized crime like the Mafia and shit, banning guns and controlling them won't do shit. So like I stated above, only the innocent people would be harmed, as they would virtually have no form of self defense. Even in a fight with an ancient revolver versus a guy with only a kitchen knife... well, you know who would most likely win.

Did that make any sense?

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:36 am

2nd amendment doesnt do much for this argument, mostly because it is one of the most widely debated and controversial amendments. Its impossible to know what the framers had intended by the law, and a 300 year difference in times doesnt make determining that intention any easier.

avanti42 · Post by **avanti42** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:13 am

Vindicator wrote:2nd amendment doesnt do much for this argument, mostly because it is one of the most widely debated and controversial amendments. Its impossible to know what the framers had intended by the law, and a 300 year difference in times doesnt make determining that intention any easier.

it means every American citizen has the right to own a firearm

†erminal · Post by **†erminal** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:20 am

You guys know what happened when they banned alcohol right?...

Disconn3cted · Post by **Disconn3cted** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:24 am

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

there are two ways to interpret this

1: it says there will be a militia

2: it says although there is a militia the right of the people to bear arms shall no be infringed

if it was the second it would most likely be because they had to war with their old government to gain their freedom and wanted the same thing to be possible in the future if the government was out of control (you know like it is now only a little worse)

Jstar1 · Post by **Jstar1** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:27 am

avanti42 wrote:
Vindicator wrote:2nd amendment doesnt do much for this argument, mostly because it is one of the most widely debated and controversial amendments. Its impossible to know what the framers had intended by the law, and a 300 year difference in times doesnt make determining that intention any easier.

it means every American citizen has the right to own a firearm

yeah but it doesn't mean they can bring a truckload of AK-47s into a workplace or office, as the NRA suggests. A sensible gun law doesn't hurt at all.

@fena and others
My point is not a complete ban of guns, thats ridiculous. I'm saying that we should have just have stronger gun laws