195 replies to this topic

[Wolf the Widowmaker]

thats why we have bigger rocks, and more of them. hopefully nobodys stupid enough to start throwing rocks.

But there WILL be a day when someone's kid is tempted into pushing the dreaded Big Red Button, thus releasing all the neighbourhood's stones at the other kids which respond in the same manner.

Everybody dies

[Doctorworm32]

Hmm.
I'm sorry.
When I think of it, the Cold War wasn't so bad.
Not a violent war, it made a huge technological impact - and basically, it helped a lot.
But yeah, still a war nonetheless.
I don't really know why I put it in here, but it just jumped to my mind.

I think to our parents, they hated it. You are from Isreal, so you probably weren't as impacted. But going through each day thinking a nuke war could be started, dayum. Especially the Cuban Missle Crisis.

[Thendens]

VT murders, are going to have a huge effect on the future of Guns in this country.
I for one am all for guns not existing.

[Pawnator]

VT murders, are going to have a huge effect on the future of Guns in this country.
I for one am all for guns not existing.

Me too, then we could use swords and crossbows and lasers and high-oscillation projectile emitters.

[frie2]

I think the problem with gun control is that a few things have changed since the 2nd amendment was written and ever since then it's had to be interpreted to apply to today's society, namely the fact that the U.S. now has a standing army (which I'm told started sometime after Eisenhower). At any rate, at sometime before that we had militias, which were normal citizens that mobilized in times of war. Normal people needed the right to bear arms so they could be mobilized quickly in time of war. Besides, all guns at the time could be used for hunting (there were no semi-autos, etc.). A gun was a gun. You could hunt with it, you could fight invaders with it.

Now we have a standing army. Big change. All the sudden there's a body of people with access to guns that are directly (to some extent) under the control of the government. Now it becomes a question of: If the government has an army, with guns, the rest of us better damn well be able to have them too just in case the govt. decides to use it's army against us.

Then come automatic weapons. The army has access to them, the rest of us don't...should we? I don't know. I say yes, 'cause I think they're cool, and yes, if a govt. army or (faction within) tried to force my state/city into obedience, I'd have more of a fighting chance. Should we be able to buy rocket launchers, machineguns, grenades, etc? Well, that sounds a little ludicrous, but still, the army has them, right?

These, I think, are the main issues when it comes to gun control. Criminal violence and the right to defend yourself are more a by-product of this discussion than the heart of the issue.

As for me, yeah, I'm against gun-control mainly for the 'keep govt. in check' idea and the fact that I, as a law-abiding citizen, shouldn't be victim to an un-law-abiding criminal who has (illegal) access to guns...It's a sticky subject, though, especially in the advances in weaponry since the 2nd amendment was written.

Brandon

I could not have said that any better myself. Now, in much thanks, I can goto bed much earlier. Good work!

[Shadowstar]

VT murders, are going to have a huge effect on the future of Guns in this country.
I for one am all for guns not existing.

Too bad they will still exist. Honestly I think nothing will really change because there will always be the group who wants to keep them.

[TheShadowNinja]

From now on, only revolvers shall be sold.
No more crazy ass massacres. You shoot, and then in the minutes it takes a gun noobie to reload, police kill you!
(Tubby said something similar in the VT thread....I think....)

[Shadowstar]

From now on, only revolvers shall be sold.
No more crazy ass massacres. You shoot, and then in the minutes it takes a gun noobie to reload, police kill you!
(Tubby said something similar in the VT thread)

Yeah even though the revolver was the only handgun for the longest time.

[TheShadowNinja]

Yeah even though the revolver was the only handgun for the longest time.

And? My point still stands....

[Shadowstar]

And? My point still stands....

The gun is not that slow...

[viper88]

I feel for all the students who fell in the senseless massacre at Virginia Tech. The events will probly have an unfortunate side effect of some kind of restriction on .22 semi-auto pistols such as the walther p22. I dont think they can really make it too much harder to get a glock without making honest citizens angry so it probly wont affect those as much. I would offer though that if possibly some of the students (aged 21+) or maybe the proffessors, had been concealed carrying, this couldn't have happened. Not, at least to the extent that it did (i.e. 10 people dead before being taken out by a responsible carrier). Police can only respond to that kind of situation so fast, and if more people carried and could hit their target, psychos like this would cease to cause so much damage. I dont have all the answers, we dont (and wont) live in a perfect world, but I think that some of our problems could be solved by making it easier for a law abiding citizen to own and carry a firearm, greatest deterrent to crime imho is criminals not ever knowing if the person they are trying to assault (mug, rape, murder) is carrying a gun. Anyway just some of my thoughts.

[PwnDaddy123]

I don't know if anyone posted this already but whatever....

Guns don't kill me people, People kill People....

[The B.I.V.]

How 'bout guns don't kill people:

A. I do!

B. Bullets kill people.

Brandon

[ST1DinOH]

seems to me like more gun controll will give you more of these killings.

the fewer responsible people with guns the higher the ratio of criminals having guns : law abiding citizens with guns

all that will do is make things much, much worse.

look at the difference between road rage, home invasion, store robberies in a state like texas vs some liberal shit hole that bans guns.

the rates are MUCH higher in states that don't allow guns, because criminals know they have much less a chance of getting shotgunned in the face when they try to pull some stupid criminal shit.

bottom line is you can never "get rid of guns" there will always be guns.

we don't live in a magical fairy tale land of kittnes and unicorns...there's no magic wand to wave or spell to chant to "git rid of guns"

it'll never happen and it's just idiotic to try to take guns away from people who would follow the law.

if you can figure out a way where only the criminals will turn in guns (guns for crack?) then maybe we can try that...but for the most part gun controll = more gun related violence. think about it...it's not that hard to understand.

[PwnDaddy123]

I can easily kill someone with a Fork, why not ban forks then? I don't think there is anything wrong with guns, but there is something wrong with the person using them. I think that they shouldn't really "ban" guns. But make the selling of guns harder and not let a 17 year old kid be able to buy a gun, it has to be more secure then that. I have no problem with seeing a cop next to me with a gun, these are the kind of people you trust with guns. That's why when people are looking to buy a gun, they'll have to o through procedures...

I wouldn't completely ban guns from everyone, you saw what happened in the Simpson...

[Mkoll]

seems to me like more gun controll will give you more of these killings.

the fewer responsible people with guns the higher the ratio of criminals having guns : law abiding citizens with guns

all that will do is make things much, much worse.

look at the difference between road rage, home invasion, store robberies in a state like texas vs some liberal shit hole that bans guns.

the rates are MUCH higher in states that don't allow guns, because criminals know they have much less a chance of getting shotgunned in the face when they try to pull some stupid criminal shit.

bottom line is you can never "get rid of guns" there will always be guns.

we don't live in a magical fairy tale land of kittnes and unicorns...there's no magic wand to wave or spell to chant to "git rid of guns"

it'll never happen and it's just idiotic to try to take guns away from people who would follow the law.

if you can figure out a way where only the criminals will turn in guns (guns for crack?) then maybe we can try that...but for the most part gun controll = more gun related violence. think about it...it's not that hard to understand.

Usually, I'd completely disagree, but with the amount of guns in the US and that you're not an island, but rather you have 2 land neighbours, it'd just be too hard to get rid of enough guns to negate your argument.

After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australia, Australia really cracked down on gun crime and there has been significantly less gun deaths since then.

[ST1DinOH]

I can easily kill someone with a Fork, why not ban forks then? I don't think there is anything wrong with guns, but there is something wrong with the person using them. I think that they shouldn't really "ban" guns. But make the selling of guns harder and not let a 17 year old kid be able to buy a gun, it has to be more secure then that. I have no problem with seeing a cop next to me with a gun, these are the kind of people you trust with guns. That's why when people are looking to buy a gun, they'll have to o through procedures...

I wouldn't completely ban guns from everyone, you saw what happened in the Simpson...

QFT

i'm all for having the 10 day waiting period, and the background check, and the "no felons with guns" laws...

fine and dandy

and quite frankly i think there should be a class you have to take in order to buy a gun. you pass, you can own a gun, you fail, no gun for you.

but banning guns all together is just unrealistic, and inviting criminals to rape/rob/pilliage the country.

not a good idea...not at all.

i love my guns, and i'd happily dump a clip into someone trying to take them from me.

[The self-making Taco]

meh, it would be perfectly constitutional to own muzzle-loaders. PERFECTLY, because thats what the guns were at the time the 2nd amendment was written.

0.60 caliber bullets have quite a bit of stopping power, so you would still be packing some heat, but only a brief cooking session. of course, the modern version would have a rifled bore.

[ST1DinOH]

meh, it would be perfectly constitutional to own muzzle-loaders. PERFECTLY, because thats what the guns were at the time the 2nd amendment was written.

0.60 caliber bullets have quite a bit of stopping power, so you would still be packing some heat, but only a brief cooking session. of course, the modern version would have a rifled bore.

thats just silly.

if that were the case then the constitution would specificly say that it's ok for everyone to own guns so long as they are signifigantly underpowered and the government has better ones...

think about it.

if it was thier intent that citizens would be able to own something better than the current capacity/capability then they would have said so...

the intent is so that if things get out of control the citizens can take back the country, by force if bnecessary, from an unruly government agency/political force/religious leader.

if what you are saying is true and it was based on weapons of the day then the constitution would only allow for rocks best suited for throwing and spears.

it's quite clear that they knew and understood that weapons would improve, and that citizens should have access to these improvement in firearms as a means of preserving democracy.

it's the ultimate checks and balances...if the government taxes us too much we start shooting politicians.

[Muad'dib]

I kinda laugh at the argument that because its in the constitution, it means its right.

I've heard good arguments from both sides, but this is just not it. The founding fathers have been wrong before, and they'll be proven to be wrong again. This is why we have amendments.

On second thought, let me rephrase that. They are not necessarily wrong, but rather society has changed and evolved significantly enough so that changes to the constitution have been and will be necessary.