Comments
-
@LeoRawr, I dont know why everyone is against owning guns... all the people that use them in horrible ways get them illegally, and its not like every criminal uses a gun. If we got rid of guns entirely and criminals couldn't get them illegally, then they would use everything else at their disposal. Many criminals today use knives and that isnt on the news. Just guns. And there honestly isnt a reason why they should make guns illegal. They are just taking away safety from law abiding citizens. The only reason I could think of for anyone in government to take away guns is to prevent an uprising, and only the democrats are for it.
-
@The Winter Sloth, if you want to compare to them, then you be jealous of their sex slaves, human trafficking, high level corruption among their police force, should I go on? I hate it when people compare our crime rate to the rest of the world, while we have no idea to what is going on in the actual world!
-
@MikeWazowski, But the secret service aren't private citizens, they're government employees. If there were more strict gun laws making it harder for private citizens to obtain firearms the secret service would still keep their guns to protect the President in case a private citizen illegally obtained a firearm.
-
@Aperture Employee, so he can protect his family with guns but I can't protect mine? You wantto take away guns from all the people who have them legally, when most of the crime is committed by unregistered guns. Taking guns away from the citizens who use them for protection is only going to leave us... Unprotected!
-
@DinkIeberg, probably not. But then, a bomb would be more effective anyway. Or a handful of grenades. Point is, if everybody is on an even playing field, it's a near impossibility to pull off a mass murder. Say i was a trained fighter, i could take on 3-4 or more unarmed, untrained people. If my intended targets were also trained fighters, I'd be lucky to take 2 at a time. Maniacs will ALWAYS have access to a force multiplier. The most effective way to eliminate the force multiplier is to multiply everybody's force capabilities. Whether it be knives, swords, guns, training, armor, or anything else. Unless guns could effectively be taken out of the equation, (let's be real here, they can't) the best way to combat armed psychos is with armed victims. If you can't disarm the horrors in the world, why would you make sheep out of people who could otherwise be sheepdogs against the wolves?
-
The definition of a criminal is someone who does not follow the law, so fun laws have no affect on criminals. Personally I have a loaded 9mm in my night stand and pray I never have to use it, except at the range of course. Don't forget your only protection from a tyrannical government is your weapons.
-
In countries like Britain, with no guns allowed to citizens, there is almost zero gun crime - and especially no school shootings the likes we see monthly in the states. It's like asking what's the best way to prevent nuclear war - multilateral disarmament, or giving everybody (even the unstable nations) wmds. Stricter gun laws means less weapons on streets - less weapons to harm innocent people. And please stop with this whole 'having guns to protect people with guns' sh*te. That thinking gives these criminals guns in the first place.
-
@Countrywide, people have a better chance living from a knife wound from a gunshot, depending on the person doing the stabbing. The whole issue on guns isn't about can we have them, it's about trying to limit them so we can limit the accidental gun violence that happens. Nobody expects or wants a school shooting or a person going on a shooting spree, so how can we limit those events without taking away our rights? The truth is that there are no simple solutions that can solve it.
-
@Grogie108, is that a fact? Well im glad we have someone like you to figure it all out for us. Oh wait, I forgot you're wrong because even if they called for a mass give up of wmd someone who want to hurt people will still have one. Just like disarming the population will only work for those that do so and give up the guns.
-
@bronze512, the fact of the matter is that no gun laws would have stopped any of these shootings, they are to limit and control citizens. And did you know that less than 1 percent of gun crimes are committed with registered guns. Or that more deaths have occured from knives in the United states alone from all gun deaths combined. Or did you hear about the guy who killed 17 people in a school with a knife. You dont need a gun to cause chaos. But a gun in the hands of a trained citizen can stop a crime faster than police.
-
@I am an expert, That wasn't my point though, was it? It was that if (figuratively speaking) all nations disarmed, it would be a better than giving all countries nuclear bombs. Having less weapons on the streets means less gum crime. The only way to do that is stricter control. You're literally arguing against a metaphor that I used to represent the situation.
-
@Grogie108, do you not get what I am saying? No gun control or confiscation will get them out of the hands of bad guys. And another thing why do you think we even have wmd ? To keep people from useing there wmd on us. Im willing to bet if the united states gave up there rights to own guns that with in a week gun crime would sky rocket and there would be total chaos.
-
@I am an expert, Not asking for total wiping out of weapons. Asking for stricter gun control. Renewing of licences across the board, mentality tests for those buying new ones. It might not mean less guns, but it would mean they'd be in safer hands. And with this whole WMD thing, I was using it as a metaphor. I know what the purpose of having them is, and I know why countries don't unilaterally disarm. I was just making a point that no nukes means no war, and less guns mean less gun crime.
-
@Grogie108, but how csn you know that. If a criminal sees a sighn that there are armed guard on a store do you thibk they are going to rob it or go to one where no guns are allowed. What do you see everytime you go into a offical building or school? That no guns allowed sighn. Wher does most of the known gun violence happen? At schools abd offical buildings. If we had an armed teacher in (insert school name) we would have had less people die
-
@Grogie108, you also understand that we're comparing apples to oranges here. If the US were to suddenly take a stance identical to Britain's, the results would be different. Different groups of people need to be handled different ways. In this case, US citizens need to own guns because of the way it's society has evolved.
-
@Grogie108, I know what you said. Mine was a comparison to point out that the US and Britain can't be compared in such a manner as your original comment. Just like your WMD simile wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Guns are already a major part of our society and economy. Extra regulation would cause problems because of that. We as a nation can never achieve peace through the elimination of guns that Britain has because guns already exist, and it's a violation of our Constitution to take any of our weapon freedom away.
-
@Grogie108, YES make kids see guns as friends and grow up learning to respect their dangers and learning how to use them properly. Not only does it discourage crime, but it also reduces accidents because people know how to handle and respect a weapon. That's how I grew up in a rural area, and I wish everyone had such a privilege
-
@Grogie108, you're being downvoted not because of your opinion but rather the lack of quality in your argument. You present no facts or correlations from facts instead relying on emotions to drive your argument. You say less guns mean less shootings but thats not a fact. The United states has the highest level of gun ownership and we have less gun shootings than 90 percent of the world. More shootings occur in countries such as Egypt than the United states.
-
@Countrywide, I was basing my arguments on common sense - that Britain has less gun crime due to less guns. And if you look upwards, you'll see that I'm downvoted merely for stating that I would like more gun control to be implemented in the states - simply my opinion. And the same is happening to others in the section - like bronze 512, and aperture employee at the very start.
-
@Grogie108, yes obviously in a place with no guns there is less shootings but they have more deaths than when they had guns due to knifes. You would simply be disarming law abiding citizens. In fact have you ever looked at facts on guns and the number of deaths total in the United states compared to England's knife deaths. You use a very simple correlation that doesn't explain the intricacies of actual data.
-
@Grogie108, sorry 500%, not 400%. And deaths related to firearms went up by about 102%. Police are now also authorized to carry sub-machine guns in some parts of the UK, but this hasn't helped much at all because by the time they can respond, the act has already been committed. You aren't being down voted for your opinion, but for your ignorance (lack of knowledge in this area).
-
@Jinrocker, Mate, it's still less (in the ratio of population) than the states. And being downvoted for my ignorance? Look up, where I've said that this had darkened funny pics a bit. Downvoted. Look at aperture employee at the top. Downvoted. We've gave our opinions on the matter, and because they're not with the majority, they're downvoted. Even look to the latest esquire article on the subject. An ex marine wrote it in a bid to encourage stricter gun laws. What did he get in return? Death threats. So don't even dare blame it on my ignorance, for when a pro-gun comment gets 92 likes, we all know how this debate will end.
-
@Grogie108, since you're giving stats, how much has the violent crime risen in the UK in the last decade? also, gun crime as a general rule has ALWAYS been lower in the UK... Even well before any of their gun bans. Let's not forget to factor how many of those gun deaths here are a result of gang on gang violence, and self defense homicides. If the UK is such a safe haven, why are your Bobbies still wearing body armor? Nobody has guns right?
-
@Grogie108, are you literally this stupid? "No man needs to own a gun" guess why you are free. Because my great great grandpa had a gun and died killing british troops. In Israel every teach is armed and trained to use an ak47 and they have never had a school shooting that killed more than a few people. Kids being immune to guns is bad I agree. So teach them how to use them and gun safety. A 15 year ild in oregon defended his home with his dads AR15 while the kid was home alone because he knew how to use it. I'm 16 and I know how to use a gun and don't kill people.
-
@Grogie108, I'm sorry if I came off harsh, I'm assuming you grew up fearing guns? A lot of people do which is why when I was young every night my dad would make me hold his pistol and teach me what it could do so that I know what I'm doing before pulling the trigger, I fear guns in a good way, people who fear guns in a bad way just didn't grow up the same way and don't know what's up when it comes to guns and that is just a fact
-
@Camal Rapist, oh my God are you really that naive. You've just spouted ver badum everything the liberal media has told you to say. You believe in equality for everyone, but that doesn't mean the government should require redistribution of wealth. And the majority of conservatives I know freely give to the poor more than any liberals that ask the government to do it. Conservatives believe in charity, not having their money stolen by the government and distributed.
I would rather have a gun and not need it then need one and not have it