Gun Control!

[Archer]

By that logic, we should ban all guns, knives, and any thing else that is easy to obtain and can be made a weapon. As far as dangerous and very easy to mishandle, knives are even easier to mishandle, but I dont see anyone saying we need stricter knife control laws.

[MARS]

Except for the fact that a gun is a lot more dangerous than a sharp object.

Guns are designed to kill. Knives are designed to cut. Sure, you can easily kill an unsuspecting person with a kitchen knife, but you have to intend to do that. A gun kills with a single squeeze of the trigger.

[Archer]

Once again, if you REALLY wanted to harm someone with a weapon, a law is not going to stop anyone.

On a different note, I have noticed that a lot of people think that we should ban or restrict semi-auto guns. What these people dont realize is that includes shotguns as well. Semi-automatic shotguns are extremely popular with the sport of skeet shooting, and any bird hunters often swear by them.

[House of the Wolf]

What's funny about this whole argument is this:

Germany and Japan both have among the highest populations in the world, yet the least amount of gun violence. Their constitutions outright ban gun possession. Guess who wrote their constitutions: we (the US) did. Irony? Nahh..

[Archer]

Well, we beat them down pretty good during WWII. I guess that is what gave us the right to do that.

[JockoBeans]

What's funny about this whole argument is this:

Germany and Japan both have among the highest populations in the world, yet the least amount of gun violence. Their constitutions outright ban gun possession. Guess who wrote their constitutions: we (the US) did. Irony? Nahh..

Yeah... that is called right of conquest liberation, but that point is moot. Germany got rid of all civilian firearms in the late 1930's when the Nazis banned ownership. The Shogun and the knightly Samurai class banned firearm ownership for the civilian population in circa 1608.

Your argument is a no go.

[Weasel]

Banning guns will never solve anything; it would just give the majority of them to people who were looking to hurt others eg gangsters and the mafia. Just how the many nations of the world refuse to be nuclear free, just because your doing it doesn't mean the big bad commies will do it too. (I don't hate communist just for the record)

If I was planning on killing someone, I'm going to kill them. I would hope if someone was going to kill me they would shoot me in the head instead of stabbing me, being stabbed hurts...a lot.

Criminalizing guns will just make everyday people with guns, who are protecting themselves with guns against criminals with guns, criminals.

Not to mention in America your infringing upon the second amendment.

I don't think the average person needs to own an assult rifle, but hey its their right. I personally think small caliber guns are all the average person needs.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The Chinese Mafia in little china in the early 1900's (someone correct me if I am wrong) used cleavers as well as an extensive arsenal of melee weapons because guns were expensive.

Handling and care should be mandated. Not so much as service in the military (imo that would do a lot of good in America, being an American myself) but a class and yearly class renewals. Living in Florida I have the joy of seeing hundreds of stupid rednecks everyday. All of them have the pleasure of stupidly handling firearms.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do

I'm not arguing, I just had a mental picture of an old woman holding an infant being pistol whipped, it made me laugh.

As for the Batman shooting, nothing could have stopped it, don't even try to pick that apart.

Throw in a quote from Chris Rock “Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .” I think someone already said something similar to this and used a Dilbert strip, oh I love Dilbert. And Dogbert. And Catburt. And Loud Howard.

How about instead of worrying about gun control, we worry about the education quota in the United States*, does anyone ever think that maybe if the general populous was just a tad bit smarter we wouldn't be so d*mn stupid with things** that have the capability to kill?

*If your reading this and are from a different country who's EQ is as morbidly low as the U.S.'s you can cross out United States and fill it with the country of your choice

**Guns, knives, cars, drugs, prescription drugs, fans, sandwiches, Mcdonalds, Mcdonald's hot coffee, ovens, gas ovens, masturbation, vienna sausages, caffeine, nicotine, methamphetamine, morphine.

I see a lot of Militia talk, there is nothing wrong with militias. If there is a need for a revolution it will happen. If its a small militia with crazy views and crazy followers, not many people are going to get on board and the military will quickly smite them. If there is a need for a militia like the government being their usual [&@%!] self then you will see a larger militia with dedicated people who have a higher chance of those dirty suit wearing [&@%!] not killing them all so fast.

If any line contradicts another line please take your daily recommended amount of shut up.

[JockoBeans]

Guns are designed to kill. Knives are designed to cut.

What type of logic is that? That makes no sense. I guess I can say spoons make people obese.

[DorostheConqueror]

Well, I never! It's very presumptuous of you to assume that criminals won't obey the law!

That's the point. Criminals are criminals for a reason, they don't obey the law

...

[Musicman247]

Good points on both side. I think there should be a stricter set of rules for owning a gun, including a background check and maybe a psych evaluation. You have to pass a driving test to be allowed to legally drive. Why not to own a gun?

[JockoBeans]

Good points on both side. I think there should be a stricter set of rules for owning a gun, including a background check and maybe a psych evaluation. You have to pass a driving test to be allowed to legally drive. Why not to own a gun?

They already have those.

[Weasel]

Good points on both side. I think there should be a stricter set of rules for owning a gun, including a background check and maybe a psych evaluation. You have to pass a driving test to be allowed to legally drive. Why not to own a gun?

Hear hear! There is a reason your name is pink, no smart mouth intended.

[Musicman247]

They already have those.

Background checks, yes, but not psych evaluations. It would be interesting to see how many gun crimes were carried out by first time offenders.

[JockoBeans]

They do not have psych evaluations for driving cars. Just because someone passed the driving test does not mean that they are not a crappy driver or are prone to road rage.

Same thing would be for guns.

[Archer]

Honestly, I think psych evaluation are a good thing. It would cut out all of the crazies who do not need guns to begin with.

[Weasel]

Background checks, yes, but not psych evaluations. It would be interesting to see how many gun crimes were carried out by first time offenders.

To chime in with recent events, James Holmes the Colorado Shooter only had a traffic violation.

[Archer]

They won didn't they? Its not like the gov't could stop them.

[JockoBeans]

Honestly, I think psych evaluation are a good thing. It would cut out all of the crazies who do not need guns to begin with.

That did not stop that muslim major from shooting up Ft. Hood. He was a psychiatrist and was surrounded by others. He was connected to known terrorists and he was mentally disturbed. He got a gun no problem.

[Archer]

Because psych evaluations are not required right now.

So of course it didnt stop him.

[Weasel]

Honestly, I think psych evaluation are a good thing. It would cut out all of the crazies who do not need guns to begin with.

That did not stop that muslim major from shooting up Ft. Hood. He was a psychiatrist and was surrounded by others. He was connected to known terrorists and he was mentally disturbed. He got a gun no problem.

Another thing to consider is psych evals would stop many crazys, but you don't have to be crazy to blow away your co-workers, I have considered it many times.

[JockoBeans]

Because psych evaluations are not required right now.

So of course it didnt stop him.

What I am trying to say is that it was obvious he was nuts. Psych evaluation or not he would have gotten a firearm.

[Archer]

Your right he would have. As I said before if someone really wants to do something that awful they are going to get what they need no matter what the laws say.

[Musicman247]

Shouldn't we at least try and make it harder to get a gun for those crazies who will get a gun "no matter what the law says"?

Making it easier to buy guns makes it easier for everybody.

[MARS]

Nah, man. They'll get guns anyway, so we make the effort? It's not like there's this thing called chance involved.

Well, I obviously don't know what I'm saying, since I'm just a silly European. Things work best in America and everyone knows it, from the families who owe thousands to hospitals to all those people who have lost part of their families to these guns that everyone gets "no matter what".

[Archer]

As far as psych evals, Im not really worried. I'm not crazy.... I think.



edit: Its not that your a "silly european", as you call yourself, Its just that the US has too many gun owners to pass any gun control laws that are really big. I honestly think the biggest thing that can get passed is psych evaluations.