Should guns be outlawed?

You're right khafra. Last thing we want is 8 year olds making home made nukes and causing the downfall of humanity..............bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

 

even though it's legal to carry a gun in the US I seriously do not fear anyone breaking into my house with a gun. Most gang members would rather carry a knife because of the amount of years possible in jail.(much less if a knife or other weapon is used as far as I know) I still fear burglery, but not enough to want to ban guns(partially cause my family owns several guns)

 

We get along fine without them.

I see no reason for anyone to have one apart from target shooting (keep it at the range locked up), hunting (hunting rifles, not shot guns/hand guns/assault rifles, machine guns, etc.) crime, military and Law enforcement (who should use them as a last resort)

Why would you want one in your house?

As far as I know the statistics are that more people get shot by accident then in a commsion of a crime. You're probably safer without one...

and the "The right to bare arms" was written in a different time, with different circumstances.

 

I agree with Swoop for the same reasons. I don't think having more weapons in a society will make it more peaceful. Weapons = Peace. Does anyone see anything wrong in that equation? He's also right that some of the americans I've met seemed to be extremely paranoid of thugs attacking them all the time, even if they live in the boring suburbs, which is why they looooove their guns.

 

Guns shouldn't be banned just because the worlds full of F**kwits. I say ban the f**kwits

There plenty of legitimate reasons for having guns, farmers need them. Large landowners need em for culls. I've seen airports use them to clear birds from runways after other methods were unaffective. Also sport shooting adds to the economy of rural areas that struggle to find an alternative line of income.

And what do you do when an aggresive country starts making guns and comes a callin, do you fight back with sticks and stones.

I would say if you've got a legitimate reason to have a gun then thats fine but if you dont the justice system should have more power/money to deal with you properly.

:woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo:

 

Their is no way in hell civilians armed with hand guns and rifles could fight off an invading army. The sticks and stones would be just as effective, niether would do a thing.

 

hmm... what army is attacking and who is defending? I think Southern California would be able to take on quite an army... Most armies in the world wouldn't make it very far...

 

Do you really believe that the US Armed forces would benefit at all from civilians with guns helping them?

They would get in the way, thats about it.

What are the tools of the infantry, the closest match to civilians with guns?

Assault rifles, Machine guns, gernades, Anti-armour weapons, mortars, APC's, A Radio with a Artillery battery on the other end, etc.

They also rely on strength in numbers, are supported by other units and are a part of a co-ordinated effort.

I wasn't in the infantry long, but I will say without a doubt that civilians with guns wouldn't be able to stop any semi-modern army.

With a army as large as the US Armed Forces civilians with guns are meaningless.

 

you forget that if a countrie had over 10 million people, all armed with automatic weapons it would prove difficult for any army to pass. They would definetely pass, they have aircraft and such. It would still prove quite a challenge. It's just a good thing no countries where all of its inhabitants are willing to fight have been invaded.

 

And just who's going to invade the US of A?

Communists? The Soviet Union's dead and China will soon cease to be communist.

Canadians? Terrance and Philip hasn't been arrested.

South Americans? Too dependant on US dollars.

Palestineans? They're too busy fighting the jews.

The European Union? In the pocket of USA.

Islamic terrorists? Maybe, but they attack in groups of ten, you hardly need a country armed with RPG's to fight them.

JUST WHO THE HELL ARE AMERICANS AFRAID OF?

 

Er, Adam... Since you don't live here, you're excused for not knowing, but governments are here to provide us the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whenever a government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right and responsibility of its citizens to replace it with a better one.

And armed citizenry is the government's incentive not to become destructive of those ends. And if you don't think citizens with rifles, improvised traps, and the occasional rpg can pose a serious threat, ask any Vietnam veteran about the Viet Cong. Any older Russian soldier about their experiences in Afghanistan. Hell, ask Napoleon about the Basques.

 

Yeah, but there are currently NO threats to the US mainland from hostile nations, apart from petty acts of terrorism that you hardly need an army to beat, much less an entire people armed to the teeth. National security is not a very good reason for americans to have guns, personal safety might be.

 

We (Americans, that is) have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean?
Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns?

When the U.S. Constitution protects a specific right, that individual has some protection against the majority. It does not mean that this right is absolute. We have no right to carry a gun on to the property of a person who forbids the act.
We have no right to use a gun in a way that hurts or directly endangers the person or property of anybody else. It is not to say our rights are being restricted by such limitations. Instead, our (inalienable) rights do not include hurting others or violating their property.

We have the right of free speech but it does not allow us to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater... so the same laws should apply to gun ownership.

Yelling "fire" in a crowed arena is an illegal act so similarly, shooting an innocent person with a gun is not included in the "right to keep and bear arms".

So what is in question here is because the rights of different people are incompatible, the rights of all people must be restricted to achieve social harmony... right?.
or.... on the other hand, our rights are a means to achieve social harmony. The more consistently our rights are protected, the more harmoniously people will live. If rights are curtailed or violated, social conflict results.

 

hmm....poll results are interesting....

|Cain|

 

I think we need minority report and arrest/kill people before they fire the gun. Sounds like a plan bwhahahahaha

then I can provoke YODA to kill me. whooooooooooooooooooooo that would mean no more cheesy jokes.

J/K YODA's the man and his jokes own!

 

Living in England where guns are illegal I don't have direct experience of the issue but it seems to me that guns cause more problems than they solve. If someone get's ****ed off in England, say their partner has an affair or whatever, they are realy angry and would shoot the partner had they the chance, as it is they hit them/ beat them/ smack them over teh head with a frying pan. All of which have far higher survival rates than being shot in the face.
Not having guns around lessens the effect of 'spurr of the moment' anger.

 

i read somewhere from the replies that "guns kill people". people kill people! violence will take up whatever weapons necessary to pursue it's goals. people have the right to do the same.

 

The problem with widescale gun ownership as a means of self protection is that the
'let's arm ourselves to the teeth because the bad guys are'
tactic has been tried before. The first world war was started because of it for example. Two equally powered sides to balance each other. This all works fine untilsomething happens to spark of a fight (for example Austria) then one person shoots, everyone shoots, everyone dies.(the 1st world war in a paragraph)
Exactly the same thing happens on a smaller scale, one person gets the wrong end of the stick, or gets jumpy, or does something stupid and it starts of gunfire. The first world war has proved the the tactic doesn't work so why do people persist in using it as an arguement.

 

i think i wouldnt mind, there is always archery for us hunters. i have a much greater love for hunting and nature, then i do for the guns i hunt with. archery gives the joy of target shooting, being in nature ect without being chased down by thugsters with hand guns.

id rather have living children, safer streets, and less violence then having guns. i think they should start with hand guns in the US and see how it moves from there. something to extreme to fast might cause resentment and the whole idea to be shot down like prohibition (though it was dumb).