To gun, or not to gun?

I agree Gun's don't provide safety they only provide doom and death as some crazy people out there may mis-use the gun and shoot somebody. I think this is a serious offence and gun's should be banned. Although it's up to you but for me it's a nightmare because that pretty much increase's the death By like 20% or 40% But seriously it's unsafe as i said some crazy people psychotic people could mis-use the gun and seriously injure somebody.

This is pretty much how invasion's or terrorist attack's happen because it's easier to gather Supply's Like in Brussel and Paris there was a bombing. That's what i mean gun's decrease the population of the world as it's unsafe and people can just go to a window and shoot you if they see you. It's really stupid how people make debate's on like the most dangerous weapon's.

 

So you think banning guns will solve the problem? Lol.

I have an assault rifle and I do nothing but shoot for target practice and keep it for protection.

 

If you look at numbers from drunk driving offenses, they are very similar to those of gun related homicides. Should alcohol be banned as well?

 

Didn't the number of drunk driving accidents decrease when Wisconsin raised its drinking age from 18 to 21 in order to be the same with other nearby states? By that logic, having the same gun control laws nationally would decrease gun violence. (which is what I think we should be doing)

 

The 21 age limit is an outrage; if one can serve and die for their country at 18, one should be able to legally do anything within the country.

 

Perhaps the solution is that people shouldn't serve in the military until age 21. It would certainly upgrade the professionalism. Brain science says the portion of the brain which assesses risk isn't fully developed until age 25.

 

A lot of people who go into the military do so after high school. If they have no immediate plans for college, they might consider the military, and I don't think they should have to wait 3 years to do so. My step-brother joined the marines and after his 4 years were up, he went to college at the age of 22. (He gets many veteran benefits because of it) If people plan on going to both, college and the military, then they would have complete everything by the age of 29, which is way too late. 18 age is a fair age to be allowed to fight for your country. We passed a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 just because college students were complaining that they couldn't vote for the war they were drafted into.

You're right about the brain not being fully developed until 25, but I suppose people should still maintain their own liberty to decide what to do with their bodies. If they don't care that their brain isn't fully developed yet, then that's there own decision.

As for alcohol, you can supposedly make the argument that if other states around Wisconsin lowered the drinking age to 18, then that would have also been suffice. The major problem was that college students would drive up to Wisconsin from Illinois in order to legally drink, and they would drive back drunk and get into many accidents. And actually, you can see a similar problem in regards to gun control where people would go to areas where guns are more legally obtainable and then come back to heavier gun control areas. The city of Chicago just passed a law saying you can't buy cigarettes under the age of 21, which I think is stupid. The smoking age everywhere else in Illinois is 18. I would never use cigarettes (they are disgusting), but I understand peoples' right to use them if they so choose to.

 

And yet, highly-trained soldiers have frequent accidents: http://www.stripes.com/news/disturb...-discharges-of-weapons-in-afghanistan-1.22443

Good luck, civilians.

 

Gun control is a very, very weird subject because there are many people out there who own guns and have no intention of using them for anything other than self defense, while other people have them with intention of shooting and killing innocents. There is no real viable and effective way for the government to regulate who can and cannot have guns without undergoing a massive and expensive licensing program for everyone. Total gun banning would make a lot of people angry, but wouldn't necessarily have as many repercussions as people seem to think it will. I am not supporting an abolition of all guns, im just saying its not as bad as its cracked up to be. The second amendment is also too outdated to prevent gun control from happening, because that amendment was made so that colonial america could defend itself with a civilian militia in case of invasion, because at that point the country did not have a standing military. But invasion is no longer a concern of ours. Our nation has one of the largest, if not the largest, militaries in the world. If someone were to invade somehow, our armed forces would be able to reach the enemy in enough time that the few people in the area of the invasion who had good enough guns and proficiency with their weapons to hold off the invaders would be unnecessary. Again, im not in support of a blanket ban on firearms, im simply saying that a situation in which a ban would have a negative impact on society outside of upsetting some people is very, very unlikely.

 

We've Alway's had Gun's!
Imagine this:
A robber walks into a bank with a machine gun, he shouts, "Everyone get down, NOW!" But in this society, people are allowed to carry guns in their own defense. So everyone else pulls out their guns, and they reply, "How about you get on the ground?"

If guns were to be banned, criminals would just switch to knives, baseball bats, deadly drugs, hit and runs with cars, gasoline and matches, and even their own hands. More people die from being strangled and stabbed than from gun shot wounds in America. Should we ban knives too?
The most common argument: guns don't kill people, people with guns do. Oh, and they're usually bad people. Background checks should be run on anyone who wants to buy one to make sure they aren't criminal, mentally ill or have a family with criminal history.

People Kill People Not Gun's Kill People


Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Somebody has to physically pick up a gun for the gun to go off and shoot somebody. Humans have been using guns for over 400 years there has never been a problem that they had to ban guns. Guns are a mean of survival and protection and always will be. They should run background checks on everyone who tries to purchase a gun. They should not sell guns to people that are mentally ill or have other types mental disorders. Guns should only be sold to people that has not committed any violent crimes. This will stop a lot of gun crimes that happen in America today. Gun should be sold to people for protection and hunting.

 

This post represents an alternate, fantasy universe. You could pick just about any statement in it and show how it's completely untrue.

For example: more people die of strangulation and stabbing than guns? False. In the most recent statistics, guns accounted for 69.4% of all homicides, an overwhelming majority. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 29, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 29, 2016 ---

I'm pretty sure if you're a civilian and you feel the need to draw your weapon, you're not really worried about how comfortable you are with using it safely. You're already in a high-stress scenario, and due to lack of training, you're less equipped to deal with the emotions while simultaneously being less prepared to make sensible decisions.

Nobody is saying they would, either. But it is a demonstrated fact that a gun in the house is more likely to injure one of the people it is supposed to be protecting. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

 

I'm pro gun, but this example highlights maybe .01% of crimes committed. Armed citizens rarely stop a crime being committed.

 

Even though I do not own any firearms myself and neither do my parents, I completely stand with the 2nd Amendment. The United States of America was after all founded with the musket and the rifle (early versions). I do believe that there should be certain restrictions though. I agree with those who say that people who are mentally troubled should not be able to obtain firearms and that there should be background checks to buy firearms. I also believe that American citizens should be able to buy assault weapons with the right permits and licenses. Another reason I am for the right to bear arms is because as I have stated earlier, this country was founded with firearms in the American people's hands I feel that the American citizenry as a whole should possess the right to have weapons to defend themselves from any threat, no matter if it is from a foreign power (yes I know this is highly unlikely that we will be going Red Dawn style but you never know), criminals, or even the possible threat of terrorists.

To those of you who believe that guns should be banned or restricted, I would like to ask all of you to please respond politely to this with your response and possible questions so that we could have a mature and pleasant conversation and get to understand each other's views more in depth without trying to twist each other's arguments to satisfy our own opinions.

 

@4726minecrafter Thank you for the spell check .

Also, rifling was around since the 1500s-ish (though it was not common until around the 1900s) and the colonists did use Kentucky Long Rifles and other rifles. The true definition of a rifle is, and I quote from the dictionary "a gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance." A muskets definition is and I quote again "an infantryman's light gun with a long barrel, typically smooth-bored, muzzleloading, and fired from the shoulder." A rifle is more accurate due to the grooves which spin the projectile making the projectile more stable as it flies through the air.

Most likely yes but do not throw out the possibility completely, anything is possible and a situation where gun owners defen themselves from extremists could happen in the near future with the terrible things that are happening around the world right now.

 

Honestly I figure that gun laws and the process of obtaining firearms should be tightened and less laissez faire.

I live in an area within close proximity of four million people.
I walked into a D!ck's Sporting goods store with a couple text Id's and a wad of cash, walked out 2 hours later with a semi automatic rifle with a couple hundred rounds of ammo. One month after turning 18. I was in a compromised state of health, and saw the appropriate people for it, however; that relates in no way to the reason I bought the firearm.

I think that even if one can pass a basic background check, there should be a certain wait time to further check, like to find records in other countries, or at least to give them time to make sure they need/want the weapon.
If someone buys a firearm with intent to use one day, and they obtain it that day, we might have a messy situation.
However, after waiting a few days, they come to the realization that their thoughts and actions were irrational and they cancel the check and process of obtaining their gun.

STRENGTHEN BACKGROUND CHECKS DONT LET AN 18 YO KID JUST WALK IN AND BUY SMTH

 

@4726minecrafter Sorry, I use a school laptop and those pictures are always a

 

It's like, literally, the dumbest segment of society that is the most heavily armed, so why are we even talking about competency? We don't screen anyone by competency. No felonies, no overnight stays in a mental institution, no high school diploma, no problem.

Here's people stressing out and making poor decisions when it's a video simulation, so yeah, I'd say I've got a pretty good read on people:
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/201...training-for-media-city-council-members.html/

Or this one:
"I managed to correctly take down one suspect, though I’m sure that was more luck than skill. I missed another suspect who was shooting at me, shot an innocent bystander and was shot or stabbed several times when I didn't respond quickly enough." "Even knowing it wasn’t for real didn’t stop my heart from pounding or my mind from racing"

http://evanstonnow.com/story/public...vilian-tries-police-shoot-dont-shoot-training

 

And people with guns kill more people. The reason you don't see people using bazookas to blow places up is because they are banned. We have some regulation to make sure dangerous weapons are not in the hands of civilians while still making sure their second amendment rights are not being infringed. But it's just not enough. We need federal regulation to make sure people are not abusing laws from other states to easily obtain dangerous weapons. "Gun free zones" are a joke. Being able to buy a gun without a background check is also a joke. Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easy as hell. We don't worry about knives because people aren't going to rely on throwing 30 knives in a minute at long distances to kill large amounts of people. They might kill or injure a few people within a close distance if they have knives, sure, but there's only so much the government can do. At the very least, we are reducing the number of fatalities.

Tell me, would you rather be in a room where a mass shooting is occurring or a mass stabbing? If you say the latter, then I'd think you understand why we need to reasonably regulate guns. If you say the former, I'd say you're lying. If you say both equally, then I really just want you to envision yourself in a room where a mass stabber and mass shooter are on the loose and really think about who is more dangerous to the public.



I think the hardest thing for people to understand in this debate is that we don't want to ban guns. I repeat: We don't want to freaking ban guns. And I'll say it a third time: We do NOT want to ban guns. Nobody is saying we should ban guns. We want fair regulation to make sure law abiding citizens get their guns and at least do something about trafficking and mental illness.

 

Eh... technically with the right licenses and such you could legally obtain a bazooka or a grenade launcher without the ammunition...

 

I really don't agree with the premise you can be 18 and handle an automatic weapon, grenades, and die for your country but you are not allowed to own a firearm on your home soil. When it comes to alcohol I will say 100% that it honestly is horrible when you look at the consequences. It serves no purpose except for recreational use and is a legitimate toxin to the body and causes many more deaths aside from drunk driving incidents... It leads to liver cirrhosis and is virtually an aggravating factor or risk factor for every major disease state.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 30, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 30, 2016 ---

"It's like, literally, the dumbest segment of society that is the most heavily armed"

Not going to waste my time finding the quotation by Nuckle but that is a horrible generalization. I'm an owner of an Ar-15 which many would consider to be "heavily armed" and I'm in pharmacy school and probably going to medical school upon completion of my current program. Many of my friends in school and doctors at hospitals I have worked at are owners of these so called "assault weapons". A doctor I know has a 50 caliber sniper rifle... I wouldn't make the broad generalization that people that are heavily armed are stupid.