Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 102
Entire Site: 6 & 885
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-29-24 10:11 AM

Forum Links

Thread Information

Views
11,752
Replies
135
Rating
17
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
tgags123
03-02-14 08:34 PM
Last
Post
baileyface544
09-26-14 08:12 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 3,918
Today: 1
Users: 2 unique
Last User View
12-05-16
NintendoFan05.

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
Posts


7 Pages
>>
 

Gun control

 

03-02-14 08:34 PM
tgags123 is Offline
| ID: 983722 | 150 Words

tgags123
Davideo123
Level: 161


POSTS: 4284/9012
POST EXP: 545798
LVL EXP: 54039976
CP: 35988.9
VIZ: 4584832

Likes: 3  Dislikes: 3
There is probably a thread on this somewhere, but I searched and couldn't find one.

Time for a debate on everyone's favorite topic - gun control. If you have seen some of my other posts in this forum, you probably already know how I feel, but I am going to tell you anyway. Gun control is stupid. Not only does it violate the 2nd Amendment, it also puts us in more harm. It does not take guns out of the hands of criminals, it just prevents the victims from being able to defend themselves. Let me make this easy for you to understand:



If it still isn't getting through to you, maybe you should watch this video:



Banning guns doesn't take the guns away from the people that intend to use them to cause harm; it takes them away from the people that use them to defend themselves.
There is probably a thread on this somewhere, but I searched and couldn't find one.

Time for a debate on everyone's favorite topic - gun control. If you have seen some of my other posts in this forum, you probably already know how I feel, but I am going to tell you anyway. Gun control is stupid. Not only does it violate the 2nd Amendment, it also puts us in more harm. It does not take guns out of the hands of criminals, it just prevents the victims from being able to defend themselves. Let me make this easy for you to understand:



If it still isn't getting through to you, maybe you should watch this video:



Banning guns doesn't take the guns away from the people that intend to use them to cause harm; it takes them away from the people that use them to defend themselves.
Local Moderator
Winter 2019 TdV Winner


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-26-13
Location: Long Island, NY
Last Post: 32 days
Last Active: 16 hours

Post Rating: 0   Liked By: mattg0523, patar4097, Uzar,

03-02-14 10:09 PM
EideticMemory is Offline
| ID: 983756 | 310 Words

EideticMemory
Level: 137


POSTS: 2123/6326
POST EXP: 427597
LVL EXP: 30775972
CP: 26372.5
VIZ: 1209954

Likes: 3  Dislikes: 1
tgags123 :

FYI- A little about me: I grew up (and currently live) in the South. I fired my first gun at 11 and will get a hand-gun permit in the future. At one point I held the same political views that you probably do right now, but I started to think about them a little more and I'm not as steadfast as I used to be. In fact, I changed my opinion on many issues, since then.

---------------

While your post has inherent logic, you are discussing 'banning' guns. That's an extreme form of gun control, but not its entirety. In fact, it's only extremists who want to ban guns.

Most 'gun control' legislation is about limiting gun sales to felons and possibly insane people through background checks.

If you think about it, that's reasonable. Would we want to give guns to people who have committed crimes in the past or may be mentally unstable?

The conservative party in America uses the issue of 'banning' guns to make the party against 'gun control' when, in fact, nearly all gun control legislation is not about banning guns, but rather limiting the people to whom guns are sold.

The epitome of 'gun control', the Brady Law (passed during the Clinton administration), did just that.

Here's a clipping from Wikipedia. It makes my point regardless of 100% accuracy. It has nothing to do with 'banning guns' and all to do with who uses them.




That said, I, myself, am not on either side of the issue; I think they both have flawed perceptions of each other when they both want the same thing, public safety.

What do you think?

I just want to make the point that banning guns and gun control aren't one and the same. On the other hand, I have no clue whether gun control has any effect.
tgags123 :

FYI- A little about me: I grew up (and currently live) in the South. I fired my first gun at 11 and will get a hand-gun permit in the future. At one point I held the same political views that you probably do right now, but I started to think about them a little more and I'm not as steadfast as I used to be. In fact, I changed my opinion on many issues, since then.

---------------

While your post has inherent logic, you are discussing 'banning' guns. That's an extreme form of gun control, but not its entirety. In fact, it's only extremists who want to ban guns.

Most 'gun control' legislation is about limiting gun sales to felons and possibly insane people through background checks.

If you think about it, that's reasonable. Would we want to give guns to people who have committed crimes in the past or may be mentally unstable?

The conservative party in America uses the issue of 'banning' guns to make the party against 'gun control' when, in fact, nearly all gun control legislation is not about banning guns, but rather limiting the people to whom guns are sold.

The epitome of 'gun control', the Brady Law (passed during the Clinton administration), did just that.

Here's a clipping from Wikipedia. It makes my point regardless of 100% accuracy. It has nothing to do with 'banning guns' and all to do with who uses them.




That said, I, myself, am not on either side of the issue; I think they both have flawed perceptions of each other when they both want the same thing, public safety.

What do you think?

I just want to make the point that banning guns and gun control aren't one and the same. On the other hand, I have no clue whether gun control has any effect.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-30-13
Location: North Carolina, USA
Last Post: 155 days
Last Active: 155 days

(edited by EideticMemory on 03-04-14 06:32 PM)     Post Rating: 2   Liked By: MysteriousPanzer, NVTaks, sloanstar1000,

03-02-14 10:27 PM
tgags123 is Offline
| ID: 983761 | 72 Words

tgags123
Davideo123
Level: 161


POSTS: 4290/9012
POST EXP: 545798
LVL EXP: 54039976
CP: 35988.9
VIZ: 4584832

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 1
EideticMemory : Number 5 brings up a whole other issue that I will probably make a thread about in the future. I would like to point out that Chicago, a city with no Republicans, have banned guns completely. There are more violent crimes in Chicago than in any other city in the US. Coincidence? Obama said that Chicago is an example of how the US should be. Because criminals always follow the laws.
EideticMemory : Number 5 brings up a whole other issue that I will probably make a thread about in the future. I would like to point out that Chicago, a city with no Republicans, have banned guns completely. There are more violent crimes in Chicago than in any other city in the US. Coincidence? Obama said that Chicago is an example of how the US should be. Because criminals always follow the laws.
Local Moderator
Winter 2019 TdV Winner


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-26-13
Location: Long Island, NY
Last Post: 32 days
Last Active: 16 hours

03-02-14 10:34 PM
EideticMemory is Offline
| ID: 983765 | 262 Words

EideticMemory
Level: 137


POSTS: 2124/6326
POST EXP: 427597
LVL EXP: 30775972
CP: 26372.5
VIZ: 1209954

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 1
tgags123:

Just like to say that had the topic of the thread been 'banning guns', I'd agree with you 100%. I think that banning guns is stupid for basically the same reason you put in your first post.

However, it's about gun control, which is much broader and 'banning guns' is the far extreme of it.

Chicago is an example of 'banning guns',
which I don't support in the slightest.

Although, now that I think about it. The statistic about Chicago having the highest violent crime rate is relative. Who is to say that it wouldn't have been even higher without the ban? We don't know. It's something to think about.

Edit 2: Here's an example to clarify what I mean by relative:

There are 5 people and only 1 is a smoker. Say that the 4 non-smokers live to 85 and the smoker lives to 95. Just because the smoker lived longer does not necessarily mean that smoking prolongs life, it's relative. If he hadn't smoked, then he might have lived to be 100.

That's what I mean about saying that the violent crime rate is the highest in Chicago is comparative. We have no clue what the rate of violent crime might be without the ban... It just might be that banning guns actually lowered the violent crime rate.

Edit: And, honestly, I don't know whether gun control has any impact. I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between 'banning' and 'controlling' guns and that we shouldn't confuse the two when making a decision on this issue.
tgags123:

Just like to say that had the topic of the thread been 'banning guns', I'd agree with you 100%. I think that banning guns is stupid for basically the same reason you put in your first post.

However, it's about gun control, which is much broader and 'banning guns' is the far extreme of it.

Chicago is an example of 'banning guns',
which I don't support in the slightest.

Although, now that I think about it. The statistic about Chicago having the highest violent crime rate is relative. Who is to say that it wouldn't have been even higher without the ban? We don't know. It's something to think about.

Edit 2: Here's an example to clarify what I mean by relative:

There are 5 people and only 1 is a smoker. Say that the 4 non-smokers live to 85 and the smoker lives to 95. Just because the smoker lived longer does not necessarily mean that smoking prolongs life, it's relative. If he hadn't smoked, then he might have lived to be 100.

That's what I mean about saying that the violent crime rate is the highest in Chicago is comparative. We have no clue what the rate of violent crime might be without the ban... It just might be that banning guns actually lowered the violent crime rate.

Edit: And, honestly, I don't know whether gun control has any impact. I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between 'banning' and 'controlling' guns and that we shouldn't confuse the two when making a decision on this issue.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-30-13
Location: North Carolina, USA
Last Post: 155 days
Last Active: 155 days

(edited by EideticMemory on 03-03-14 06:19 PM)     Post Rating: 0   Liked By: NVTaks,

03-02-14 11:24 PM
tornadocam is Offline
| ID: 983775 | 162 Words

tornadocam
Level: 103


POSTS: 790/3122
POST EXP: 781784
LVL EXP: 11359890
CP: 61424.1
VIZ: 4876874

Likes: 2  Dislikes: 0
I am a strong supporter of the 2nd. I believe that ever law abiding citizen should be able to own and carry a gun for his and her's protection. 
Radical forms of Gun Control do not work. A lot of countries who banned guns still have crime rates and dictators have gained control.  Some point out banning assault weapons. The problem I have with that is what is an assault weapon. Some states vary on the term. New York defines a gun that shoots more than 7 bullets is an assault weapon. That means lever action rifles are assault weapons.  
I do not have a problem with background checks. My state already has background checks. Guns buyers at my state's gun shows have to pass a background check. 
I do have a problem with gun registration and creating a database on who owns a gun. Because that could lead to confiscation in the future. 
I am a big supporter of the 2nd. 
I am a strong supporter of the 2nd. I believe that ever law abiding citizen should be able to own and carry a gun for his and her's protection. 
Radical forms of Gun Control do not work. A lot of countries who banned guns still have crime rates and dictators have gained control.  Some point out banning assault weapons. The problem I have with that is what is an assault weapon. Some states vary on the term. New York defines a gun that shoots more than 7 bullets is an assault weapon. That means lever action rifles are assault weapons.  
I do not have a problem with background checks. My state already has background checks. Guns buyers at my state's gun shows have to pass a background check. 
I do have a problem with gun registration and creating a database on who owns a gun. Because that could lead to confiscation in the future. 
I am a big supporter of the 2nd. 
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-18-12
Last Post: 54 days
Last Active: 1 day

Post Rating: 2   Liked By: EideticMemory, tgags123,

03-03-14 09:16 AM
supernerd117 is Offline
| ID: 983866 | 253 Words

supernerd117
Level: 142


POSTS: 2382/6187
POST EXP: 404633
LVL EXP: 34827121
CP: 17926.3
VIZ: 12818

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
I think that MOST law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have a gun, but not all.  I am schizophrenic, and have gone through periods in my life where I might have hurt someone had I had access to a gun.  Also, children.  Children should only be allowed to have a gun if they have passed exams proving they will exercise wisdom in the use of one (not outside of gun ranges, unless their safety is threatened), and know how to fire one sufficiently, so they will not shoot the wrong person.  This should be true of adults, too.  But I don't think those that violate this law (should it be passed) should always be convicted.  If the person can show in court they had a reason to violate it (perhaps they live in a dangerous neighborhood, and could not even make it to the testing center without getting mugged), then they should be let off the hook.  A person's face can often show much more than any evidence can.  Evidence is never flawed, but people's perceptions of it may be flawed.  A judge should be more free to make judgments according to a person's show of guilt in court.  You can usually tell whether someone is guilty of something by their face.  But it can be harder to tell what exactly they are guilty of.  They may not even be guilty of the crime they are accused of.  

Sorry about the rant.  If someone has a better idea, I'm very open to it.
I think that MOST law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have a gun, but not all.  I am schizophrenic, and have gone through periods in my life where I might have hurt someone had I had access to a gun.  Also, children.  Children should only be allowed to have a gun if they have passed exams proving they will exercise wisdom in the use of one (not outside of gun ranges, unless their safety is threatened), and know how to fire one sufficiently, so they will not shoot the wrong person.  This should be true of adults, too.  But I don't think those that violate this law (should it be passed) should always be convicted.  If the person can show in court they had a reason to violate it (perhaps they live in a dangerous neighborhood, and could not even make it to the testing center without getting mugged), then they should be let off the hook.  A person's face can often show much more than any evidence can.  Evidence is never flawed, but people's perceptions of it may be flawed.  A judge should be more free to make judgments according to a person's show of guilt in court.  You can usually tell whether someone is guilty of something by their face.  But it can be harder to tell what exactly they are guilty of.  They may not even be guilty of the crime they are accused of.  

Sorry about the rant.  If someone has a better idea, I'm very open to it.
Vizzed Elite
WOOOOOOOO


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-21-10
Location: Location
Last Post: 1581 days
Last Active: 59 days

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: tgags123,

03-03-14 09:47 AM
GenesisJunkie is Offline
| ID: 983872 | 80 Words

GenesisJunkie
Level: 84


POSTS: 1340/1975
POST EXP: 136547
LVL EXP: 5581226
CP: 11436.7
VIZ: 91175

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
No matter what law they try to make about it, it really doesn't make a difference.  If someone wants a gun and wants to carry it they will. The people that say stricter gun laws will help, well the conversation goes a little like this "Stricter gun laws will help keep guns off the street!" Really? How will it do that?" "Guns will be outlawed!" "Tell me more about how criminals follow the law."

Both sides are wrong. Nobody wins.
No matter what law they try to make about it, it really doesn't make a difference.  If someone wants a gun and wants to carry it they will. The people that say stricter gun laws will help, well the conversation goes a little like this "Stricter gun laws will help keep guns off the street!" Really? How will it do that?" "Guns will be outlawed!" "Tell me more about how criminals follow the law."

Both sides are wrong. Nobody wins.
Vizzed Elite
Vizzeds official Sega addict


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-03-13
Location: U.S.
Last Post: 3117 days
Last Active: 2908 days

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: tgags123,

03-03-14 04:19 PM
TheFadedWarrior is Offline
| ID: 984039 | 121 Words

Level: 110


POSTS: 1335/3591
POST EXP: 266776
LVL EXP: 14308907
CP: 20550.5
VIZ: 79178

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 2
Call me dumb, I don't care, gun control needs to be enforced. No, not completely banning guns, but how about requiring licenses to be able to legally use guns in every state? You would have to pass a test and pay a small fee (maybe 20 USD). Why? To make sure you're going to properly use a gun. Background checks are necessary.

One thing that really should be banned: Assault rifles. Who the hell needs one of those for protection? Those are only for murder and for bragging rights. If you're trying to protect yourself, even a pistol will suffice. Oh, there's a whole group of guys you need to shoot? Call the damn cops, you don't need an assault rifle.
Call me dumb, I don't care, gun control needs to be enforced. No, not completely banning guns, but how about requiring licenses to be able to legally use guns in every state? You would have to pass a test and pay a small fee (maybe 20 USD). Why? To make sure you're going to properly use a gun. Background checks are necessary.

One thing that really should be banned: Assault rifles. Who the hell needs one of those for protection? Those are only for murder and for bragging rights. If you're trying to protect yourself, even a pistol will suffice. Oh, there's a whole group of guys you need to shoot? Call the damn cops, you don't need an assault rifle.
Vizzed Elite
The Melee Master


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-19-12
Location: There
Last Post: 76 days
Last Active: 16 hours

Post Rating: -1   Liked By: On3On,

03-03-14 04:26 PM
tgags123 is Offline
| ID: 984046 | 47 Words

tgags123
Davideo123
Level: 161


POSTS: 4306/9012
POST EXP: 545798
LVL EXP: 54039976
CP: 35988.9
VIZ: 4584832

Likes: 2  Dislikes: 1
TheFadedWarrior : You are forgetting the second reason the 2nd Amendment is there - so we can protect ourselves from the government. If the government decides to try to take over and starts attacking with military weapons, your little peashooter pistol isn't going to be of much use.
TheFadedWarrior : You are forgetting the second reason the 2nd Amendment is there - so we can protect ourselves from the government. If the government decides to try to take over and starts attacking with military weapons, your little peashooter pistol isn't going to be of much use.
Local Moderator
Winter 2019 TdV Winner


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-26-13
Location: Long Island, NY
Last Post: 32 days
Last Active: 16 hours

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: On3On, Sword Legion,

03-03-14 04:27 PM
TheFadedWarrior is Offline
| ID: 984047 | 42 Words

Level: 110


POSTS: 1338/3591
POST EXP: 266776
LVL EXP: 14308907
CP: 20550.5
VIZ: 79178

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 1
tgags123 : The US has never done that (unless you count the Civil War, but that's not really the government). Even though I really don't like the government here, they're not going to attack us.

Plus, I can fistfight those who bear guns.
tgags123 : The US has never done that (unless you count the Civil War, but that's not really the government). Even though I really don't like the government here, they're not going to attack us.

Plus, I can fistfight those who bear guns.
Vizzed Elite
The Melee Master


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-19-12
Location: There
Last Post: 76 days
Last Active: 16 hours

03-03-14 04:32 PM
tgags123 is Offline
| ID: 984051 | 80 Words

tgags123
Davideo123
Level: 161


POSTS: 4307/9012
POST EXP: 545798
LVL EXP: 54039976
CP: 35988.9
VIZ: 4584832

Likes: 2  Dislikes: 0
TheFadedWarrior : Do you think the (Jewish) Germans thought that their government (aka Hitler) was going to attack them? Do you think that the Russians thought that their government (aka Stalin) was going to attack them? The thing is, you never know. And taking away weapons is a tactic that was used by Hitler when he killed all of those people. It makes it so much easier to take control if your citizens are unarmed, or armed with much weaker weapons.
TheFadedWarrior : Do you think the (Jewish) Germans thought that their government (aka Hitler) was going to attack them? Do you think that the Russians thought that their government (aka Stalin) was going to attack them? The thing is, you never know. And taking away weapons is a tactic that was used by Hitler when he killed all of those people. It makes it so much easier to take control if your citizens are unarmed, or armed with much weaker weapons.
Local Moderator
Winter 2019 TdV Winner


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-26-13
Location: Long Island, NY
Last Post: 32 days
Last Active: 16 hours

Post Rating: 2   Liked By: patar4097, tornadocam,

03-03-14 06:01 PM
warmaker is Offline
| ID: 984112 | 180 Words

warmaker
Level: 91

POSTS: 1561/2198
POST EXP: 240742
LVL EXP: 7344272
CP: 4969.1
VIZ: 198528

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
tgags123 : I'm curious as to where you see Chicago has the most violent crimes.  Can you show citation?  Also, I'm confident Flint and Detroit, Michigan, both have higher per capita violent crimes compared to Chicago.  I would throw in Baltimore and Washington, D.C. as well.  Chicago has very dangerous parts but it has many safe places as well.  

I believe it should be difficult to maintain possession of firearms and certain people with background checks that fail should be allowed to have access to firearms.  I also believe firearms should not be in homes with people who have failed background checks, even if said firearms belong to another person in the house.

Lastly, the U.S. government would be able to take on any armed militia at this point in our history.  Remember Waco?  That didn't last very  long.  No major group can assemble a military force to combat the U.S. federal government.  But it is our right and I strongly support the 2nd amendment.  I simply think the original point has no proper application in our current culture and society.  
tgags123 : I'm curious as to where you see Chicago has the most violent crimes.  Can you show citation?  Also, I'm confident Flint and Detroit, Michigan, both have higher per capita violent crimes compared to Chicago.  I would throw in Baltimore and Washington, D.C. as well.  Chicago has very dangerous parts but it has many safe places as well.  

I believe it should be difficult to maintain possession of firearms and certain people with background checks that fail should be allowed to have access to firearms.  I also believe firearms should not be in homes with people who have failed background checks, even if said firearms belong to another person in the house.

Lastly, the U.S. government would be able to take on any armed militia at this point in our history.  Remember Waco?  That didn't last very  long.  No major group can assemble a military force to combat the U.S. federal government.  But it is our right and I strongly support the 2nd amendment.  I simply think the original point has no proper application in our current culture and society.  
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-02-10
Location: Honolulu, HI
Last Post: 3175 days
Last Active: 2838 days

03-03-14 06:11 PM
tgags123 is Offline
| ID: 984118 | 76 Words

tgags123
Davideo123
Level: 161


POSTS: 4310/9012
POST EXP: 545798
LVL EXP: 54039976
CP: 35988.9
VIZ: 4584832

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
warmaker : It is not most violent crimes, it was most murders. My bad.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/18/fbi-chicago-passes-new-york-as-murder-capital-of-u-s/

It states that Chicago passed New York City for the most murders per year (in the US) in 2012.

Flint and Detroit do have more murders per person, but the point I am trying to make is that banning guns does not make the city safer. If that were the case, Chicago would not be the "murder capital" of the US.
warmaker : It is not most violent crimes, it was most murders. My bad.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/18/fbi-chicago-passes-new-york-as-murder-capital-of-u-s/

It states that Chicago passed New York City for the most murders per year (in the US) in 2012.

Flint and Detroit do have more murders per person, but the point I am trying to make is that banning guns does not make the city safer. If that were the case, Chicago would not be the "murder capital" of the US.
Local Moderator
Winter 2019 TdV Winner


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-26-13
Location: Long Island, NY
Last Post: 32 days
Last Active: 16 hours

03-03-14 07:38 PM
Brigand is Offline
| ID: 984169 | 446 Words

Brigand
Level: 89


POSTS: 1547/2233
POST EXP: 116430
LVL EXP: 6763014
CP: 2057.5
VIZ: 112856

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I live myself in a country that according to some statistics had most guns in Europe and third most guns per capita than anyplace in the world after United States and Saudi Arabia. Statistics may wary since there are ofcource, the illegal guns, which are mostly from WWII era.

And I never, ever understood what you yanks are so hysterical about your damn guns. And why it is such a big deal of having gun control. We have gun control. And still half the population is armed to the teeth.

We have the trial period. You have to be a member of a gun club, gone through the trials so you know how to use one (70-80% of the male population were in the army anyway) or be a member of a hunting club. You have to register to the police. You have to get a gun licence from the police. You have to show that you are mentally sane and that you don't have a criminal record.

How hard is for a normal, decent person to pass that test? Too hard for you? You really need that automatic rifle to hunt deer today?

As for crime, yes we have crime, homicide and even organized crime too. It is illegal to carry a weapon out in public. Most of our homicides are drunken stabbings in a close circle of friends and firearms are hardly ever used in street crimes. Sure, the gangsters use firearms and carry them but those are the illegal ones. And they don't usually shoot each other out in public or common people in general. There are not that many burglaries. And when there are, even if there are lots of weapons, people don't shoot them but call the cops and most cases are solved.

So yeah, I believe if you want a gun, you should have one. If you are sane and if you are not a criminal and you actually do something with it other than fondling it when watching action movies. In my remaining family I am the only one who doesn't have one at home, but it is my own choice. Since I don't want or need one. For home protection a baseball bat and a tire iron will do, thank you.

In short. I am for a normal person to be allowed to arm him or herself. What I am not for is foolish ignorant hysterics. If I wanted a gun I could get one with the permission of my good old goverment in a month. And if I needed one, I could wait. (Or if I had the money an AK-47 in two days from the street.)
I live myself in a country that according to some statistics had most guns in Europe and third most guns per capita than anyplace in the world after United States and Saudi Arabia. Statistics may wary since there are ofcource, the illegal guns, which are mostly from WWII era.

And I never, ever understood what you yanks are so hysterical about your damn guns. And why it is such a big deal of having gun control. We have gun control. And still half the population is armed to the teeth.

We have the trial period. You have to be a member of a gun club, gone through the trials so you know how to use one (70-80% of the male population were in the army anyway) or be a member of a hunting club. You have to register to the police. You have to get a gun licence from the police. You have to show that you are mentally sane and that you don't have a criminal record.

How hard is for a normal, decent person to pass that test? Too hard for you? You really need that automatic rifle to hunt deer today?

As for crime, yes we have crime, homicide and even organized crime too. It is illegal to carry a weapon out in public. Most of our homicides are drunken stabbings in a close circle of friends and firearms are hardly ever used in street crimes. Sure, the gangsters use firearms and carry them but those are the illegal ones. And they don't usually shoot each other out in public or common people in general. There are not that many burglaries. And when there are, even if there are lots of weapons, people don't shoot them but call the cops and most cases are solved.

So yeah, I believe if you want a gun, you should have one. If you are sane and if you are not a criminal and you actually do something with it other than fondling it when watching action movies. In my remaining family I am the only one who doesn't have one at home, but it is my own choice. Since I don't want or need one. For home protection a baseball bat and a tire iron will do, thank you.

In short. I am for a normal person to be allowed to arm him or herself. What I am not for is foolish ignorant hysterics. If I wanted a gun I could get one with the permission of my good old goverment in a month. And if I needed one, I could wait. (Or if I had the money an AK-47 in two days from the street.)
Trusted Member
Not even an enemy.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-29-12
Location: Yurop.
Last Post: 2701 days
Last Active: 2687 days

(edited by Brigand on 03-03-14 07:41 PM)    

03-04-14 01:23 AM
m0ssb3rg935 is Offline
| ID: 984298 | 93 Words

m0ssb3rg935
m0ssb3rg935
Level: 109


POSTS: 27/3607
POST EXP: 283159
LVL EXP: 13765202
CP: 22117.6
VIZ: 925574

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
tgags123 : whats the name of the man in the video? he basically said everything i would have said.

TheFadedWarrior : one, i don't think your going to fist fight a crack head thug, and two, "assault rifles" aren't about need. its about want. its a fun gun, something you get just because you can. for example, do you have?to eat junk food or drink soda? no. but you can if you want. you can punch holes in a military grade bullet proof vest with a .500 S&W magnum and they're completely unregulated.
tgags123 : whats the name of the man in the video? he basically said everything i would have said.

TheFadedWarrior : one, i don't think your going to fist fight a crack head thug, and two, "assault rifles" aren't about need. its about want. its a fun gun, something you get just because you can. for example, do you have?to eat junk food or drink soda? no. but you can if you want. you can punch holes in a military grade bullet proof vest with a .500 S&W magnum and they're completely unregulated.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Token Clueless Guy to Make Others Look Smarter


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-09-13
Location: Tennessee
Last Post: 819 days
Last Active: 486 days

(edited by m0ssb3rg935 on 03-04-14 01:26 AM)     Post Rating: 1   Liked By: tgags123,

03-04-14 05:57 AM
tgags123 is Offline
| ID: 984324 | 65 Words

tgags123
Davideo123
Level: 161


POSTS: 4322/9012
POST EXP: 545798
LVL EXP: 54039976
CP: 35988.9
VIZ: 4584832

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
m0ssb3rg935 : I find it funny that the same people that asked "Why does Rosa Parks NEED to sit in the front of the bus?" Are now asking "Why do you NEED and assault rifle?" The answer is, the Constitution protects our right to and that is the only answer I need to give.
I don't know the man's name, my dad showed me the video.
m0ssb3rg935 : I find it funny that the same people that asked "Why does Rosa Parks NEED to sit in the front of the bus?" Are now asking "Why do you NEED and assault rifle?" The answer is, the Constitution protects our right to and that is the only answer I need to give.
I don't know the man's name, my dad showed me the video.
Local Moderator
Winter 2019 TdV Winner


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-26-13
Location: Long Island, NY
Last Post: 32 days
Last Active: 16 hours

(edited by tgags123 on 03-04-14 05:58 AM)    

03-04-14 08:49 AM
thenumberone is Offline
| ID: 984363 | 313 Words

thenumberone
Level: 143


POSTS: 5797/6365
POST EXP: 365694
LVL EXP: 35019706
CP: 4946.4
VIZ: 329756

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 3
To compare the right to equality of minority's, to the right to carry a gun, is a gross misinterpretation of what human rights entail.
The checks that government want to put into place are really not that problematic, expanding security checks and banning assault rifles?
If i have to wait a week for a parcel to clear customs, I don't complain its curtailing my human rights, im just glad they are taking safety so seriously, and that I eventually get my parcel.
Is a brief wait that problematic?How many people really need a gun there and then? If that saves any lifes would you still argue against it?
And as for assault rifles...
Certainly you don't need them for hunting, unless you are a terrible shot. And if you are, you certainly shouldn't have a gun. For defending yourself? If you open up with that on an attacker, you are going to end up hitting all sorts of things and people. To defend against the military?Good luck popping a tank with an assault rifle. As if the people in the military are big enough douchebags to mow you down anyway. If you think that's realistic its time to think about changing your military structure.
Frankly, a gun isnt a toy. It shouldn't be as easy as buying a pint of milk. You should be vetted before purchase, and you should have a license. To get the license you should have to undergo firearm lessons and be approved as capable by a state or federal employee.
If you dont have the inclination to go through that id argue you aren't responsible enough to have one.

And to any claims that this is unconstitutional, id add that the right for you to even have guns is an amendment. The constitution has been changed before, its ridiculous to have the mentality you shouldn't change it again.
To compare the right to equality of minority's, to the right to carry a gun, is a gross misinterpretation of what human rights entail.
The checks that government want to put into place are really not that problematic, expanding security checks and banning assault rifles?
If i have to wait a week for a parcel to clear customs, I don't complain its curtailing my human rights, im just glad they are taking safety so seriously, and that I eventually get my parcel.
Is a brief wait that problematic?How many people really need a gun there and then? If that saves any lifes would you still argue against it?
And as for assault rifles...
Certainly you don't need them for hunting, unless you are a terrible shot. And if you are, you certainly shouldn't have a gun. For defending yourself? If you open up with that on an attacker, you are going to end up hitting all sorts of things and people. To defend against the military?Good luck popping a tank with an assault rifle. As if the people in the military are big enough douchebags to mow you down anyway. If you think that's realistic its time to think about changing your military structure.
Frankly, a gun isnt a toy. It shouldn't be as easy as buying a pint of milk. You should be vetted before purchase, and you should have a license. To get the license you should have to undergo firearm lessons and be approved as capable by a state or federal employee.
If you dont have the inclination to go through that id argue you aren't responsible enough to have one.

And to any claims that this is unconstitutional, id add that the right for you to even have guns is an amendment. The constitution has been changed before, its ridiculous to have the mentality you shouldn't change it again.
Vizzed Elite
Bleeding Heart Liberal


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-22-11
Last Post: 3382 days
Last Active: 3382 days

(edited by thenumberone on 03-04-14 08:51 AM)     Post Rating: -2   Liked By: Brigand,

03-04-14 04:43 PM
sloanstar1000 is Offline
| ID: 984561 | 333 Words

sloanstar1000
Level: 46


POSTS: 448/473
POST EXP: 35513
LVL EXP: 669407
CP: 953.8
VIZ: 204150

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
I have pretty much the same point as EidecticMemory. There's a huge difference between controlling the sales of guns, or passing background check legislation, and banning guns. The people who want to ban guns altogether are a small extremist wing of the gun control crowd.

I think trying prohibiting guns is just as useless as prohibiting drugs. America is too flooded with guns and drugs that it's really pointless to try to ban them(not that I think they should be prohibited anyway).

However, we should at least want to keep guns out of the hands of known violent members of society, or people who might have certain mental disabilities, for the same reason we want people to pass a driving test before getting on the road. That's not asking too much. I actually shot an AR-15 over the weekend, light-weight, accurate,and very fun to shoot, so I'm not entirely sure that just any violent criminal should have equal access to this gun.

I'd like to also point out that even the most hardcore, conservative NRA gun nut would agree that the right to bear arms given to us in the 2nd amendment is limited to only certain weapons. Most people can agree that we don't want to give the general public access to stinger missiles and tanks. The second amendment was written before assault weapons and high powered sniper rifles were invented, so it wouldn't hurt to have a grown up discussion about what exactly does the 2nd amendment cover.

I think people who want to ban guns, and the people who are freaking out thinking that guns are going to get banned just need to chill out. The actual argument is about exactly where we should draw the line on what weapons should be available to the public, and who can access it. But any time gun control is brought up publicly, the debate spirals into a banning vs. no banning argument, it's really just fear-mongering from both sides and it's counter-productive.
I have pretty much the same point as EidecticMemory. There's a huge difference between controlling the sales of guns, or passing background check legislation, and banning guns. The people who want to ban guns altogether are a small extremist wing of the gun control crowd.

I think trying prohibiting guns is just as useless as prohibiting drugs. America is too flooded with guns and drugs that it's really pointless to try to ban them(not that I think they should be prohibited anyway).

However, we should at least want to keep guns out of the hands of known violent members of society, or people who might have certain mental disabilities, for the same reason we want people to pass a driving test before getting on the road. That's not asking too much. I actually shot an AR-15 over the weekend, light-weight, accurate,and very fun to shoot, so I'm not entirely sure that just any violent criminal should have equal access to this gun.

I'd like to also point out that even the most hardcore, conservative NRA gun nut would agree that the right to bear arms given to us in the 2nd amendment is limited to only certain weapons. Most people can agree that we don't want to give the general public access to stinger missiles and tanks. The second amendment was written before assault weapons and high powered sniper rifles were invented, so it wouldn't hurt to have a grown up discussion about what exactly does the 2nd amendment cover.

I think people who want to ban guns, and the people who are freaking out thinking that guns are going to get banned just need to chill out. The actual argument is about exactly where we should draw the line on what weapons should be available to the public, and who can access it. But any time gun control is brought up publicly, the debate spirals into a banning vs. no banning argument, it's really just fear-mongering from both sides and it's counter-productive.
Member
Destroying pixelated antagonists since 1996


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-24-12
Location: SC
Last Post: 3144 days
Last Active: 2150 days

(edited by sloanstar1000 on 03-04-14 04:48 PM)     Post Rating: 1   Liked By: Spicy,

03-04-14 06:13 PM
tgags123 is Offline
| ID: 984603 | 67 Words

tgags123
Davideo123
Level: 161


POSTS: 4327/9012
POST EXP: 545798
LVL EXP: 54039976
CP: 35988.9
VIZ: 4584832

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
sloanstar1000 : Don't give me any of that "It only applies to muskets" crap. It was designed to allow us to protect ourselves with the same type of guns that may be used against us. We cannot limit the citizens to crappy pistols and then give the military assault rifles. There is no way we would be able to protect ourselves from the government, should we need to.
sloanstar1000 : Don't give me any of that "It only applies to muskets" crap. It was designed to allow us to protect ourselves with the same type of guns that may be used against us. We cannot limit the citizens to crappy pistols and then give the military assault rifles. There is no way we would be able to protect ourselves from the government, should we need to.
Local Moderator
Winter 2019 TdV Winner


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-26-13
Location: Long Island, NY
Last Post: 32 days
Last Active: 16 hours

03-04-14 06:50 PM
sloanstar1000 is Offline
| ID: 984648 | 216 Words

sloanstar1000
Level: 46


POSTS: 450/473
POST EXP: 35513
LVL EXP: 669407
CP: 953.8
VIZ: 204150

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
tgags123 : first of all, I never said, or even hinted to the "it only applies to muskets" argument, I don't think you understood the point of my post, my main point was that people should try to have a grown up conversation about this issue.

So, let's try to think about this practically... You are concerned that the government may attack it's own citizens, that's actually why the Second Amendment exists anyway, it's not impossible and it's happened before...ok. So you think that the citizens should be just as well armed as the US government to protect itself?

Well, in that case, citizens would need to have access to things like predator drones, enriched plutonium, guided missile destroyers, AC-130s and of course 50. cal machine gun turrets to put on the back of your truck. if we were to even have the slightest chance defending ourselves from an attack from our government, we would actually need those things.

This isn't a practical solution. If you're worried about our government attacking it's citizens, maybe we should be trying to demilitarize our over-militarized government? I'm not for giving absolutely anyone access to the deadliest weapons on the planet, just on the off chance that the government would for some reason try to wipe out it's own citizens.







tgags123 : first of all, I never said, or even hinted to the "it only applies to muskets" argument, I don't think you understood the point of my post, my main point was that people should try to have a grown up conversation about this issue.

So, let's try to think about this practically... You are concerned that the government may attack it's own citizens, that's actually why the Second Amendment exists anyway, it's not impossible and it's happened before...ok. So you think that the citizens should be just as well armed as the US government to protect itself?

Well, in that case, citizens would need to have access to things like predator drones, enriched plutonium, guided missile destroyers, AC-130s and of course 50. cal machine gun turrets to put on the back of your truck. if we were to even have the slightest chance defending ourselves from an attack from our government, we would actually need those things.

This isn't a practical solution. If you're worried about our government attacking it's citizens, maybe we should be trying to demilitarize our over-militarized government? I'm not for giving absolutely anyone access to the deadliest weapons on the planet, just on the off chance that the government would for some reason try to wipe out it's own citizens.







Member
Destroying pixelated antagonists since 1996


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-24-12
Location: SC
Last Post: 3144 days
Last Active: 2150 days

(edited by sloanstar1000 on 03-04-14 06:51 PM)    

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×