Gun Laws

Thanks Han for pointing out the obvious

Yes but you're all kidding yourselves if you think a couple extra laws, and maybe some supped up enforcement is gonna make a damn bit of difference with the sale and ease of obtaining weapons. I know you don't believe nobody drank during prohibition, and I'm sure you're aware that illegals cross the border day by day with illegal substances. It doesn't matter how badly the government wants people not to have something, it'll show up, it'll be used, and likely by the very people we have weapons to defend ourselves against.

The point of owning a non-hunting gun is hoping you'll never need it. If the government says people can't have guns, then you are left with whatever else as a deterrent while your assailant (who is breaking the law anyways) has a gun. I'm all for making sure guns are only owned by people responsible enough to handle them with care, but the people who don't handle them with care will have them anyways, and infringing the rights of normal citizens doesn't do a damn lick of good.

You wanna get weapons out of the hands of those who would abuse them? Go back in time and stop them from existing. Anything less is completely ineffectual.

I've stated now three times that it was done in China! Seriously, do you not read my posts? Or do you just reply to the parts you can argue to? A man (single human male) walked into a school (one with children in it) and STABBED (with a knife, not a sword, not a bayonet on a gun, but a knife) 22 children and one adult in China.

Let me put it this way, okay? In the military, which I am former Air Force and trained to deal with basic combat situations, we are trained to find threats. A man with a knife is placed same threat category as a man with gun. Why? Because you can be killed with a knife as well. It's not that hard, and some would say it's easier to kill multiple people with a gun for the fact it's silent. You know where you would go to kill someone with a knife? The throat. Slice the throat, sever the vocal cords, lay them on the ground and move on. That's simple. Why do you think muggers prefer knives to guns? They don't make a noise, and a pointy object in someone's ribs makes them know damn well who's in charge.

Why not do it that way? Guns put fear into people. The noise they make when fired. It's another way of control. Fear makes people run, unless they are trained (or stupid) and they fight.

Thanks, Zane. I know you may not agree completely with me, but it's good to know that someone here at least knows where I am coming from. Zane has a good point that if law abiding citizens can't get them because well, they will abide by the law, then what's stopping criminals who already break the law?

Well, actually I completely agree with you. The problem I have with gun laws mandating a registry, is that any douche bag that has access to that list will know who has em, and who doesn't. That aside, what's the first place the government will go to quash revolution?

Keep in mind is also outlined in US law that it is the civic duty to overthrow the government if they have become destructive to our ammendment rights, and establish a new one in it's place. Guns are a means to that end, because no one in power will williningly step aside and retract their bogus laws without a little incentive to do so.

I'm not saying we're at that point, or that revolution would do anything to benefit us at the moment. (Nationwide tensions are high enough already...)
But allowing the kind of laws that remove neccesary armament from law abiding citizens who will only use them to fufill said duty, is destructive of our ammendment rights. If a constitutional right is being called into question right now, we may be closer to revolution than we might like to admit.

Don't be stupid. A revolution? Seriously no we r not close to that. Funny u say ppl will get weapons regardless and I agree with that but if a revolution were to start couldn't the rebels obtain weapons in the same way? Laws will make it more difficult and expensive to obtain weapons I never said it would eliminate them. Venku, ur point with knives isn't valid. Ur killer killed children someone who can't defend themselves that is one isolated event. The majority of citizens can and are more likely to defend themselves from knives rather than guns. Tell me how was America taken from the natives? Superior weaponry. Guns beat knives it's that simple. Never bring a knife to a gun fight...

Did the shooter at Sandy Hook also shoot people that couldn't fight back? You just argued a point I have already said. KILLERS PREY ON THOSE THAT CANNOT FIGHT BACK. Period. If it's with a knife or a gun, it doesn't matter. The moment that SWAT showed up, the man commented suicide. At the movie theater, the man killed people, but the moment SWAT showed up? Turned himself in without a fight. Threw his weapons down and gave up.

I've said this already. They are bullies, the moment you show that you're willing to fight, they stop. I learned that from personal experience. YOU'RE point is invalied because in both situations of Sandy Hook and the killings in China, the children were both unarmed, the teachers were unarmed, and it wasn't until the police showed up in both situations that the killings end with either the attacker being subdued or killed.

had the killer had a knife rather than a gun in the theatre situation or at virgina tech, more than half of the lives would have been saved.

A knife is quieter, meaning that you can kill multiple people without causing a panic. So, if the shooter in the movie theater, which is dark, he could have killed several people before anyone could have seen him. Not only that, but in the Virginia Tech killings, if he would have moved quietly, killing multiple people and probably wouldn't have been caught. Why do you think Special Forces train with a knife as well as a gun? Because even in close combat, and I mean close, a silencer still makes a noise. Knives can be just as deadly as a gun in close combat, which almost all these killings happened in.

1. People in a theatre are in a close proximity, someone would see what was going on, and it isn't that dark

2. An ordinary citizen is not a trained special ops soldier

I'll just state that I'm not really in favor of any proposal that seeks to limit amendment rights in any way/shape/ or form. Do I think every household needs an assault rifle? Nah, that is the homeowner's prerogative. I personally do believe gun safety courses should be a coming of age responsibility, like driving age, drinking age, etc. and would love to see better gun literacy when it comes to responsible operation of said "tools"

It is the responsibility of the person who makes the decision to use it as a weapon, for without the person, a gun is harmless, and any non-recreational use of guns (outside of self defense) is reprehensible.

That's my personal belief, being of reasonably sound mind/body/soul and being reasonably talented with gun usage and maintenance.

On the matter of tragedies regarding unprovoked gun violence, there is no way to prevent humanity from doing bad things. There just isn't any means of control reliable (and reasonable) enough to remove the threat of humanity from itself.
Mankind will have to live in fear of itself for eternity, regardless of gun safety/knife safety etc.

simple handling courses are not enough. You can figure out how to use a gun without much help, and taking a class saying it is bad to kill ppl with guns isn't going to stop anything. We have all taken drug prevention classes (D.A.R.E.) but ppl still use drugs without thinking twice about it. You are simply asking for a bandaid for a wound that needs stitches.

No, I'm saying there aren't any stitches fit to cover a void. A wound heals with time, but the hole in the psychology of humanity can never be filled. That was my point in the above. My statement about handling and literacy courses was just a suggestion to help educate the public. It is by no means a manner of solving the problem with gun violence.

I am saying there is NO solution, and regardless of any mandate/law/bullshit gun crimes will continue, just as crime does. And taking steps to limit the usage of guns by people who abide the law does nothing to lessen the amount of crimes committed by psychos/hacks/terrorists/thugs in the slightest.


There is no real solution to crime or regular violence itself. All we can do is do our best to head it off at the pass through diligent police work, crime prevention, and if neccesary, detente. Some pathetic piece of paper with laws on it can't soak up all the blood. Law enforcement and public literacy is merely a means to stave off a larger rate of crime, not a solution.

And in no way is this post angry or upset, upon re-reading it I wanted to make sure I wasn't mistaken for sounding mad, even if it reads that way. Thank you for the debate thus far, and I look forward to hearing your rebuttal.

I guess this is just one of those debates that can't be won.

pretty much. You say laws don't prevent crimes, and while this is somewhat true, they DO limit them. Where would we be with no laws? The same should be done for gun control.

Hanpan wrote:I guess this is just one of those debates that can't be won.

That's because both sides have valid points and it all comes down to a matter of semantics.
same with abortion debates really.

and then this stuff happens...

Archangel wrote:You say laws don't prevent crimes, and while this is somewhat true, they DO limit them.

Zane the pure wrote:Taking steps to limit the usage of guns by people who abide the law does nothing to lessen the amount of crimes committed by psychos/hacks/terrorists/thugs.

that's my story and I'm sticking to it lol.