Gun Control!

Pages: 123
Okay, I'm all for gun control. However, there are situations I can think of where a gun might be useful.

The problem is the intention of owning a gun. There's two main reasons for owning a gun in 'MURICA:

1) Intent on threatening people.
2) Hunting.
2) Safety.

Notice how I put intent on threatening people first. They empower people to think they have more power than they actually do. No, you cannot shoot your daughters boyfriend because he cheated on her. You should also not shoot that guy who stole your wallet. The dumbest reasons come up all the time for people to shoot another person. If you just take away the guns, the empowerment is gone. This is where I'd like the focus of discussion be since it's the biggest gray (grey?) area.

Safety is an actual reason. But the issue is, it's more rarely used for safety than any other case. The rare times it's used for safety, it's often used incorrectly... You also don't need a goddamn Uzi for safety. I've personally experienced two deaths where someone has accidentally shot themselves. One was a child who thought a gun was a play toy, the other was a full grown man who tripped and shot himself in the head.

Hunting is the only legitimate reason I can think of for owning a gun. Again, you don't need an Uzi to hunt. You also don't need anything that can literally take out an elephant.

How often do we see accidents with people hunting? We had one moron in office who shot someone else in the face, and people think hunting is now dangerous. There have been less hunting incidents than any other occasion concerning gun use. And that includes things like being mauled by a bear or dear, not just accidental gun use.

I don't really care if the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights contains such a thing. Using such an argument to defend the use of public guns is fallacious.

Note: This is a personal biased opinion, based on my own logical thoughts. Very little influence has been brought from the outside. It has no intention of agreeing with any political party.
Last edited on
1) Intent on threatening people.
2) Hunting.
2) Safety.
from the looks you don't own any firearms. There are other reasons too such as sport(target practice) and collections.


Notice how I put intent on threatening people first. They empower people to think they have more power than they actually do. No, you cannot shoot your daughters boyfriend because he cheated on her. You should also not shoot that guy who stole your wallet. The dumbest reasons come up all the time for people to shoot another person. If you just take away the guns, the empowerment is gone. This is where I'd like the focus of discussion be since it's the biggest gray (grey?) area.
Maybe 1 / 10000000 people do this? Though they probably do this with anything such as pipes, knives, baseball bats, ect...

Safety is an actual reason. But the issue is, it's more rarely used for safety than any other case. The rare times it's used for safety, it's often used incorrectly... You also don't need a goddamn Uzi for safety. I've personally experienced two deaths where someone has accidentally shot themselves. One was a child who thought a gun was a play toy, the other was a full grown man who tripped and shot himself in the head.
This is what we call negligence and also you should take gun safety classes if you are not familiar with one. Also accidents happen with anything. I am sure more people die in car accidents than accidentally tripping and shooting themselves. Anyways no one buys an uzi for safety often times it will be a handgun for public/private use and a shotgun for private use. We also need guns to protect our nation.

Hunting is the only legitimate reason I can think of for owning a gun. Again, you don't need an Uzi to hunt. You also don't need anything that can literally take out an elephant.
Again no one does this. There are different calibers for different game.

I don't really care if the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights contains such a thing. Using such an argument to defend the use of public guns is fallacious.
You might as well give up all your rights then.
I'm against it. It won't affect those who break the law. However, I have read that this is a common slippery slope argument yet have had no explanation as to why.
NOTE: I understand your biased, and I respect it. We are obviously going to dispute it a LOT since this is such a broad subject.

I really don't care. My dad, on the other hand, is some big enthusiast. He spends at least $1000 dollars a year on bullets and new handguns.

As for the 2nd Amendment thing, the reason the Founding Fathers put that is mainly because they couldn't protect themselves from the British, who were breaking into their homes, killing people for yelling at them, etc. Really, just so us Americans can defend ourselves by dangerous people.

Of course when "You can own guns" means "You can defend your property with the guns, if someone tries to hurt you on the street you can shoot them" There are going to be so many different laws concerning it.
Some states, "They must be in your house before you shoot them"
Others, "If they are on your property you can shoot them"
More, "You cannot shoot them at all"

And then, they add new laws for gun control, and enthusiasts like my dad go crazy and think "THE SECOND AMENDMENT?!?!?! WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT" When really the 2nd Amd only says you can own a gun. It doesn't legally say that you need a license, you need to this, that, spat, blah blah.

There is also this "Guns kill people" argument. No, guns don't kill people. People kill people. If guns were gone, it'd be "Swords kill people" or "Axes kill people" or "Sledgehammers kill people".


If there is one thing humans are good at, it would be killing things. I just wonder what things would be like if we didn't go through one war...

EDIT: Changed "guns were illegal" to "guns were gone"
Last edited on
My argument really boils down to this- What guns were around back when the Second Amendment was written? Clearly not those that can take out a whole room in any amount of time- hell, they took a long enough time just to reload. The foresight for things as unpredictable as that just wasn't there- sure, there were valid reasons to include such an instruction, but it doesn't validate the fact that they didn't expect a simple musket to turn into a room-clearing machine. If anything, it just needs a modernization- a bit of common sense, really.
When really the 2nd Amd only says you can own a gun. It doesn't legally say that you need a license, you need to this, that, spat, blah blah.


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If there is one thing humans are good at, it would be killing things. I just wonder what things would be like if we didn't go through one war...
Overpopulation, starvation, poverty, ect...
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

oh. Well in the 8th Grade US History textbook all it says is "The right to bear arms" Sorry on that one.

Overpopulation, starvation, poverty, ect...

I want to disagree with that... but I don't know HOW to disagree with it... So, giblit, you beat me on both of them. I concede :(
The funny thing about gun control is what events bring up the discussion. High-rate of shootings in poor neighborhoods is the norm, an unlikely public shooting in middle to upper class neighborhoods creates a panic and call for gun regulations. Even though they say it will curb gun violence most of it happens in areas that don't even spark the discussion.

Anyway, a failure to pass legislation that makes background checks mandatory when purchasing guns is just ludicrous. There are so many bat shit crazy gun nuts out there making sure no rational thought doesn't make it into the gun control conversation.

"First they'll take our guns, then this ,then that."

While this is happening Canada watches on with popcorn in hand.
from the looks you don't own any firearms. There are other reasons too such as sport(target practice) and collections.

Sport I suppose I implicitly grouped with hunting. Probably should have just said Sport instead.
However, collecting? Fine. Let's collect without the $1000+ crate of ammunition then.

Maybe 1 / 10000000 people do this? Though they probably do this with anything such as pipes, knives, baseball bats, ect...

That's bologna and you know it. How many times have we seen someone illegally get a gun, shoot someone with it, and then throw it away? It's a common case.

And the difference between knives and a baseball bat is that both are closer range and it's a lot harder to stab someone in the face than it is to shoot them in the face. Have you ever tried cutting someone?

This is what we call negligence and also you should take gun safety classes if you are not familiar with one. Also accidents happen with anything. I am sure more people die in car accidents than accidentally tripping and shooting themselves. Anyways no one buys an uzi for safety often times it will be a handgun for public/private use and a shotgun for private use. We also need guns to protect our nation.


A handgun for public use? The public isn't a shooting arena. What the actual fudge.

The car analogy is the same! I think something should eventually replace cars, as there is quite a large margin for human error. However, our society's transit too heavily requires cars. To change while we still have no real alternatives to replace it with would be silly. That doesn't make it right.

You might as well give up all your rights then.

So because we should regulate something that has proven to be a danger, we should give up rights to all other things. That is not logical or an argument against gun control.

There is also this "Guns kill people" argument. No, guns don't kill people. People kill people. If guns were gone, it'd be "Swords kill people" or "Axes kill people" or "Sledgehammers kill people".

While people do kill people, guns enable that action. There's no reason to enable people to do that, especially since we don't care to fix said people.

There may be cases where "Axes kill people" but it would be far less than then cases of "Guns kill people".

Overpopulation, starvation, poverty, ect...

So you think that death is necessary by the hands of another? Yes, totally ideal logic there.

Has anyone who is pro-gun looked at 3rd party countries who have implemented gun bans and regulations? Has anyone seen a downside to those results? Has anyone looked into the problems they ran into whenever they went through said movements?
Last edited on
A handgun for public use? The public isn't a shooting arena. What the actual fudge.
Have you never heard of open carry and concealed weapons?

So because we should regulate something that has proven to be a danger, we should give up rights to all other things. That is not logical or an argument against gun control.
I was saying if you wish to give up one right after that you are going to be willing to give up another..until you have given up all your rights.


So you think that death is necessary by the hands of another? Yes, totally ideal logic there.
You know how high our population would be if there was never a war or Man vs Man violence?
I was saying if you wish to give up one right after that you are going to be willing to give up another..until you have given up all your rights.

No, that's a poor argument. People wish to regulate or ban guns because they're proven to be harmful and other countries have shown good results in doing so. There's reasoning behind it. If there's another right that allowed me to easily harm someone else, then perhaps it should be evaluated. I unfortunately can't think of any.

You know how high our population would be if there was never a war or Man vs Man violence?

Then perhaps society should implement something to prevent such a high population *other than violently murdering each other*. I don't know... like investing more in birth control or pushing for safer sex.

Have you never heard of open carry and concealed weapons?

Yeah, I definitely don't agree with open carry. I don't initially agree with concealed weapons either.
Last edited on
The whole reason behind the 2nd amendment was that government should not dictate if the populous should have guns or not. At the time, we were ruled by Britain and they obviously did not want the general public having a way to shoot back at them. Take away the population's right to bear arms and you give the government all the reason to oppress them farther. Comparing muskets to Uzis is a distraction, at the time of the Revolution muskets where comparable to Uzis as far as the general public was concerned.

America was founded with the belief that when the government got out of control the people could and should overthrown it. Gun control laws only help to enforce a dictatorship.
America was founded with the belief that when the government got out of control the people could and should overthrown it. Gun control laws only help to enforce a dictatorship.


This is why I keep going back and forth on the gun control issue. Ideally you're right, that's what the 2nd amendment was for....

But the reality is that war has changed. And I don't realistically see the US public staving off the modern US armed forces.
Will gun control affect those who acquire guns illegally?
How will law-abiding citizens protect themselves from law-breaking citizens?
Will gun control affect those who acquire guns illegally?


Yes. Making something harder to obtain makes it harder to obtain for everyone.

That's not to say it will completely eliminate illegal guns. Of course it won't.

How will law-abiding citizens protect themselves from law-breaking citizens?


If you are getting mugged and your first instinct is to pull a gun and start a shoot-out, you're probably worse off than being unarmed.

Cops will be the first to tell you -- when facing a violent criminal, the best thing you can do is give them whatever they want and cooperate completely. Pulling a gun is a great way to get shot in the face.
Gun control laws only help to enforce a dictatorship


Yea a dictatorship that does not exist. How do background checks fair in this war against a republic? Comparing muskets to uzis isnt a distraction, its a comparison of kill potential which has risen quite a bit. So no, a sub-machine gun isn't great great grandpa's musket.
Last edited on
That's the other thing. People seem to think "gun control" means "you can't buy guns".

Usually it just means reasonable measures... like you can't have a criminal record or history of mental illness.
Will gun control affect those who acquire guns illegally?

Yes. There's always going to be illegal guns, but they will be harder to obtain. We can also reference other countries on the affects of this. It seems to be more than positive.

How will law-abiding citizens protect themselves from law-breaking citizens?

You act like all people currently go around toting guns. Even in the case someone pulls out a gun in public, do you think the best option is to pull out your own gun and start firing? If it's in private quarters, do you think your chances are better than someone else who initially pulls out a gun and starts firing on you, if only you had a gun? I believe the answer to both is no.

I agree with the sentiment that people kill people. Gun control is just a means to reduce enabling of that notion.
I would presume as well, that for most people it is psychologically easier to kill someone with a gun rather than an axe or a hammer, due to the physical detachment involved. I mean, for a gun all you need to do is pull a trigger, while with an axe you'd need to get all 'up close and personal'. Of course, this is all speculation.

Personally, I don't see any reason for guns to be legal. Why would you legalize something that's entire design process was pretty much around being able to kill people? From the start it doesn't seem like a great idea.

And as others said, even if you say its for 'safety', the chance of you being able to do something about it with your gun is almost none - probably the only effect it would have is as a deterrent, assuming its openly visible.
"The Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms, not to bear artillery." -- Robin Williams

-----===#===-----

I recently saw a documentary about "Kids with guns", it was quite enlightening. A few different stories including a four year old who got a rifle for their birthday who looked shocked and proclaim that they were to young to have a gun.

Another four year old was given a .44 magnum rifle (by her ex-marine father), looked like it hurt quick a bit when she reluctantly fired it.

Then there was the family with a small arsenal including a .50 cal rifle and a mini gun...

I think some form of gun control would not be all that bad.

Pages: 123