Thread: How do you feel about gun control?

How does your god feel about this topic?

I for one, would be more calm if someone shut me, then to live my whole life knowing I shut someone else, even if it was self defense.

So, I'm for banning (in general, I'm not from US), cause criminals will get it anyway, and a country should not direct and encourage (yes encourage, in a sad way that's exactly what it is) good people into choosing this way of living. But that's just me. This kind of topics usually end up with a conversation about taxes.

I believe in thr right to bear arms. Not because I wan't to proect myself against the general public, but because if it becomes necessary I should be able to protect myself against the state, and we collectively should be able to defend oursleves against the state.

Wow Imran, we agree on something haha

Luanne, good question, I have prayed alot about this and i am at peace with the fact that if I do have to protect my loved ones or myself, that it would be justified.

I have not researched this but I wonder if the crime rate would go up if criminals knew for a fact that you didn't have a gun.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I believe in thr right to bear arms. Not because I wan't to proect myself against the general public, but because if it becomes necessary I should be able to protect myself against the state, and we collectively should be able to defend oursleves against the state.

The state is the general public, no?

From Wikipedia.

In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished:

• Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, origins, and history. However, the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital, international law.

• State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population.

That defintion of state, more or less, is the one I was referring to.

So if Barack Obama comes knocking on your door because he's raising the taxes, then you got your handcannon ready to shoot him? Nice

Lol. I'm not sure that's what I had in mind.
In a more realistic scenario, a right win goivernment is ellected that promises to restore pride to the nation and to destroy unemployment. This government then starts changing laws and altering consitutional rights. The leader of this party then goes on to make himslef the supreme leader. He then creates a secret police that terrorize the populace, ramapges around the globe on a crazy expansionist foreign policy and comeptlely restricts our civil liberties. At this point if the entire population was armed, we could resist, if not we can only watch while martial law is established and the few freedoms we still have a comepltely stripped away.

Guns are illegal in the waters by Somalia. The pirates love that law. It makes their job much easier.

Then Somalia should have more trained officers with guns patrolling those waters.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Lol. I'm not sure that's what I had in mind.
In a more realistic scenario, a right win goivernment is ellected that promises to restore pride to the nation and to destroy unemployment. This government then starts changing laws and altering consitutional rights. The leader of this party then goes on to make himslef the supreme leader. He then creates a secret police that terrorize the populace, ramapges around the globe on a crazy expansionist foreign policy and comeptlely restricts our civil liberties. At this point if the entire population was armed, we could resist, if not we can only watch while martial law is established and the few freedoms we still have a comepltely stripped away.

I would personally bail ship before that happened, don't know about you though.

Like Luanne, I would rather die than kill, and personally feel more confident talking my way through a conflict than prevailing by force of arms. One of my greatest strengths is connecting with people of all different backgrounds and reminding them that we are the same, be it a neurosurgeon, a roofer or a petty criminal. I walk everywhere, use public transportation, and gravitate toward highly diverse 'border zones' that can't make up their mind whether they're going to gentrify or turn ghetto. I never carry defensive weapons because I would rather be mentally prepared to respond to danger with calm compassion than fear or anger. Obviously it's not failproof, but neither is a shoulder holster, and my words can't be driven through my date's skull at high velocity if things go south, nor will they spill some fool's guts on the pavement in front of my little nephew. So far my method has seen me through two would-be muggings unscathed.

On regulation, I'm ambivalent. I do see the logic in handgun bans--guns don't magically appear in criminal hands, but mostly make their way by theft, sale or trade from legal origins. Fewer legal handguns in a city does translate to fewer illegal ones as well. For better or worse, though, citizens of this country have a right to be armed if they wish, and a well armed populace does discourage law enforcement exceeding their authority, along with invasion and military coup.

Really I don't care if people own military hardware including tanks and jets if they can afford them, as long as it's documented, but we need to keep a closer eye on gun shows to make sure they're not serving the black market along with the enthusiasts.

Bannin guns in certain public places like parks is an absolutely ridiculous idea. It's even worse than gun control as a whole. There is absolutely no way to check if EVERY person who walks into a park.

People always equate gun control with reduced gun violence because of a primitive logic that says, "People use guns to kill people. If we take away the guns, there will be no more gun violence". When here in reality, if you want to solve a problem, you have to consider ALL the factors that cause it. It would be more effective to remove the social and economic problems that create that violence in the first place.... Like drug prohibition.

I have to say.. that sounds like a really useless law. What're they gonna do? Set up metal detector stations to scan people entering the park like they're about to get on an airplane?

All that'd accomplish is give criminals the incentive that people there are less likely to have a weapon on them, making them less of a threat.

I really don't see any benefits to having a "ban" on guns in a park.

Originally Posted by davej

I live in the US and believe in the right to bear arms. I have my concealed weapons permit and i carry a hand gun every where i go. I am not a trigger happy person ready to blow off someone's head but in this day and age I will do anything to protect my family and friends. The reason why I am bringing htis up is there is a big debate going on with banning guns in parks here. I personally think it is a dumb idea. The main reason being, those that you have to worry about haveing a gun (thugs) will carry a gun in a park regardless. In a neighboring city, they passed the law banning guns in parks. two days after that law was passed, someone was robbed at gun point. Those that go through the steps of getting a permit and a concealed carry permit are not the ones you have to worry about with a gun.
At the same time, I also believe in strict gun laws that determines who can own a gun and who can't. again i know the gun laws are pointless as well because anyone can get a gun illegaly.
How do you feel about this topic?

This.

But not that I know from experience though, we do not have that right in Scotland. But we can however get a licence for a gun that isn't a hand gun. And it cannot be carried around. It is for things like hunting and gun sports.

Originally Posted by Marvo

I would personally bail ship before that happened, don't know about you though.

It's not that simple, if it was, there would have been nobody left in Nazi Germany.

The parks laws were never intended to weed out concealed carry permit holders peaceably walking their dogs. Functionally, it's a law against drawing a firearm in a park, and may provide police with an additional charge--or one charge that will stick--against an assailant or drug-dealing gang member. That said, the main motivation strikes me as political, a variant of b.s. "tough on crime" laws, but tuned to liberal constituencies.

just about any anti-gun law is pointless and counter-productive, because it only effects those who intend to use guns in a lawful fashion, in other workds for self defense. Criminals who obtain guns illegally and use them for illegal purposes will not be deterred by any anti-gun laws.

Making a law only controls the good people. Banning something ensures that whatever you are banning is given to the group that you do not want to have it, whether it be drugs, guns, books, or anything else.

Now, I can't cite my sources, but I've heard a couple of instances regarding personal armament in the past. The first act of the most oppressive dictatorships in history was to disarm the public. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and communist China all disarmed the public in an effort to prevent rebellion. Legend also has it that the Soviet Union knew that it could never successfully pull off a land invasion of the United States because so many of the U.S.'s citizens were armed.

Guns are fine, I am against government regulation of property. If people are so against guns, they should go round them up themselves instead of sending the children of other people to collect them.

tingly

I'm all for gun control. I don't think that just anyone should be able to purchase firearms, as they can in the US. However I don't see the point in banning guns from places like parks, if you're allowed to carry it elsewhere.

~

Originally Posted by ClouD

Then Somalia should have more trained officers with guns patrolling those waters.

The area is way too big for officers to cover it effectively. The pirates are going to have guns, guaranteed. With that being the case, people moving through the waters should be allowed a chance at defending themselves. The way it is now, pirates have guns and their victims don't. That represents what happens in any dangerous area where guns are illegal. Criminals love situations like that. People who obey the law don't.

Originally Posted by Odd_Nonposter

Legend also has it that the Soviet Union knew that it could never successfully pull off a land invasion of the United States because so many of the U.S.'s citizens were armed.

Every government in the world knows that if they invaded the U.S., they would have the most powerful military in the world to deal with AND tens of millions of citizens with guns. That is why we will never be invaded by a military.

I believe everyone should have a gun, and that government "permits" are anti-freedom and ridiculous.