#1  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:14 PM
Do you think that guns should be Outlawed

In my opinion they should be banned and off the streets

I do think that police and the armed forces should have them to fight against any common ememy but normal people l would say no

Look at America and how you can just buy a gun over the counter and rthis is so wrong

In Australia we have laws against having guns and this was brought across by a shooting that happened in tasmania and this bloke went on a rampage shooting people at a local tourist area

Primienster john howard had a gun anmesty where everyone who had a gun was paid a certain amount of money to get rid of there weapons you should have seen all the guns that were crushed

I know in Australia you still have the odd gun but it is not like it was before where you didnt need a lience to have onelaw against having a gunlaw in owning a gun or do you think la

Anyway l would really like your opinion on this do you think that there should be a law on having a gun





Last edited by Bondgirl; 09-23-2011 at 10:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:50 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but do the British Police still not carry guns?

One thing I do not like in the Constitution is the second amendment. The right to bear arms. This was probably good in the 18th century, but I think in modern days we should get rid of it. You don't need a gun. You can buy many other forms of non lethal weapons to protect yourself or your family.

I don't buy into all that crap how the government will be the only ones with them or only the bad people will have them.

Take them away from the citizens and the police. Let the armed forces keep them and certain positions deemed necessary. Fuck all the hunters. Learn to use bows.

I have used guns and I have seen first hand what they can do. It is ugly.

Bondgirl is right. It is very easy to buy a gun in America. Laws vary from state to state, but the south is the worst.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:58 PM
I am not sure about the British police but l know that Australian police have always carryed guns and now they also have Tasers which seem to settle down some troublemakers

So you think that police shouldnt carry a gun l think they should on the people they have to confront at certain times


This is a link to the Port Arthur masscare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Ar...cre_(Australia)

What this bloke did is wha startred Australia getting rid of guns

Also even when you get rid of guns they do replace weapons with knifes is how Australia is coping with a influx of this problem

Where has the times gone where you would fight with your fists instead of using a weapon

I find it is a wimps way out of fight with guns

Last edited by Bondgirl; 09-23-2011 at 11:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:15 PM
I am a shooter and I hold a current shooting license.

That being said, here are my general beliefs. It's good to possess a gun if:

- You are a responsible, mentally and socially sound person.
- You are aware that guns are not toys and do not weild them as such.
- You keep a secure place for your guns and you care for them responsibly.
- You respect and abide the law.

To paraphrase McBain (): Guns don't kill people- people kill people.

If ya need any more info, I'd be happy to share it (if it's within reasonable boundary)

Last edited by Tagia_Romero; 09-23-2011 at 11:17 PM.. Reason: blah
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:32 PM
Well in australia we have blokes who shoot wild pigs ducks ect and they hold a lience too

There are certain culls towards alot of kangaroos which when they breed wildly you have too many so you have to kill them

Also l think that they are going to have a cull of the crocodile population in Qeensland because we are getting to many of them
That is alright to a certain point if it doesnt get supervised proberly

But l still think there should be restrictions on who holds a gun lience even though in my opinion we shouldnt really need guns in this world..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:48 PM
I am not anti-gun, but I think it should be harder to own one. I think guns should be like cars - you should need a license and be able to pass a test in order to get one.

But I'm not a fan of all this "conceal/carry" nonsense. I think people who are obsessed about wanting to carry their guns no matter where they go have some serious issues to work out.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-24-2011, 12:31 AM
Thing is, you outlaw guns in any country.... It'll be just like drugs. There will be alternative methods to get them, and if someone wants one bad enough, they'll be able to still get it.

So it doesn't really matter either way. People are fucking stupid in general, but if a stupid fuck is determined enough, it won't matter if it's legal or not.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-24-2011, 01:27 AM
no
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-24-2011, 02:06 AM
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-24-2011, 02:01 PM
#1 This should be moved to the politics forum. Immediately. I don't like reading this shit on this forum, sorry it makes me angry. I'm just sick and tired of political discussions bleeding into every forum.

#2 This topic question wants to paint a extremely broad stroke. So in return I'll just say this that someone who lives in a densely populated city (with enough police presence) is more likely going to say guns should be banned but someone in a sparsely populated rural area (with police presence spread far away) say they shouldn't. You can and should probably imagine why.

#3 Don't compare the laws to our country to other countries. Its like comparing apples to oranges. They have a completely different set of rules and they all have a different view of individual property rights. Some countries believe the property you own isn't yours you are just holding on to it until the state decides what to do with it, other countries respect the right to individual property a little more. Every country is different and should be respected in that regard. I'm not telling someone in Taiwan how their government should be run so I expect the same in return.

#4 All I want is for someone to tell me when was the last time a legally owned automatic weapon that was used in a crime by the owner of the gun here in the US. Just one example. Thanks.

Last edited by creekin111; 09-24-2011 at 02:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-24-2011, 02:55 PM

No, not outlawed.

There should be tight restrictions and rules.

But if its home security you wanting, there's nothing better than security cameras. They're a more obvious and effective deterrent to a potential intruder than a gun. And of course strong doors and windows too. Walls are nice. They say houses without walls suffer the most break-ins, but i've seen no actual source to prove this. Roofs! I almost forgot.

Having a gun doesn't really help you unless you know how to shoot accurately under pressure.

You can train Rottweilers and some other intelligent breeds to silently attack intruders. I would prefer that than a gun I couldn't aim right.

Maybe I just get me some piranhas and throw them at intruders. ANYONE set foot on ma front lawn, I don't care if you a little girl who fell off a tricycle, I'll be throwing ma fish at you, so help me gawd.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-24-2011, 05:17 PM
You can twist the "right to bear" arm as much as you want but a semi-automatic m-16 is not for protection.

Prohibition doesn't work but controlling a situation does. In Canada , we got the gun registration law since 2001 which was inspired by the Polytechnique massacre in 1989. It's not perfect but it's a good tool. The keyword is TOOL. Like a car thief usually choosing for a car easy to steal ( no alarm , no gps , no steering lock bar, etc ) , any amount of protection will not deter a thief really determined to steal your 50k$ Porsche. Same with guns. If i'm prone to road rage and wanna "kill" the guy that cut me off on the highway , not having a gun will not deter me because i'll problably use a tire iron or a knife for the same purpose but the outcome will probably be less deadly. Instead of spending the next 25 years in a federal prison ( or 10 years on death row in some US state) for an violent outburst , i'll spend 2-3 years on probation with mandatory therapy.

Even i wanted to outland guns , it will never happen in a million years. Just check the on-going "war on drugs" , billions and billions of dollars of a failure.

Changing mentality is the real answer IMO.

Last edited by Dirtyfrog; 09-24-2011 at 05:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-24-2011, 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
#4 All I want is for someone to tell me when was the last time a legally owned automatic weapon that was used in a crime by the owner of the gun here in the US. Just one example. Thanks.
Trick question since fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 ARE BANNED from ownership by private citizens in the U.S.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-25-2011, 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.
"I luvs my gun...luvs my gun!!!"
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	gun.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	39.6 KB
ID:	9473  
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-25-2011, 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.
lol
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-25-2011, 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.



Whoops!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-26-2011, 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
Trick question since fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 ARE BANNED from ownership by private citizens in the U.S.
No its not a trick question. OK, how about the same exact question only instead of "automatic weapons" its "automatic weapons manufactured before 1986." Yep none. Zero. So why do people want stronger gun laws when no law abiding citizen is committing any crimes with those? Everyone who has legally own an automatic weapon has followed the law but people still want to punish them. Whether or not you think someone needs an automatic weapon is irrelevant.

Last edited by creekin111; 09-26-2011 at 03:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-26-2011, 03:38 PM
After watching this video... I believe you should have to take an IQ test, and at least score above 120.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81869689/

I'll be honest... I am kind of bummed that he didn't take off part of his head.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-26-2011, 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
No its not a trick question. OK, how about the same exact question only instead of "automatic weapons" its "automatic weapons manufactured before 1986." Yep none. Zero. So why do people want stronger gun laws when no law abiding citizen is committing any crimes with those? Everyone who has legally own an automatic weapon has followed the law but people still want to punish them. Whether or not you think someone needs an automatic weapon is irrelevant.
The reason I said it was a trick question is because of the 25 years ban in place , you get a rarity in the market. Prices go way up and the paperwork to acquire one is a pain so yeah those owners won't commit crimes with said weapons as most of them are collectors.

So , i'm pretty sure people want stronger gun laws on all guns and not only on pre-86 legal full automatics. Nowadays , everything is REPEATING ( like a .12 shotgun) or SELF-LOADING ( aka semi-automatic like a 9mm Glock or AR15). Of course , you can still tweak a semi-automatic AK47 to be fully automatic but that is highly illegal so i don't think someone who does that would register it.

PS. my curiosity got me and i looked on the web for a real legal automatic rifle ( like a m-16 , only one i know of ) and found this page : http://nfacentral.com/2011/04/so-you...to-buy-an-m16/. Interesting read.

Last edited by Dirtyfrog; 09-26-2011 at 04:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-26-2011, 05:05 PM
Rarity or not the answer is still no. No crimes have been committed with any legal automatic weapon. So stricter gun laws won't make any difference here. And to say people want more stricter gun laws is another enormous broad stroke. People and their cultures are different in all walks of life and should be treated and respected as such.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-26-2011, 07:18 PM
ok , "So , i'm pretty sure people want stronger gun laws on all guns and not only on pre-86 legal full automatics" was badly formulated and a broad stroke indeed (as written ). What i meant was " people WHO WANTS stronger gun laws WANT it on all guns and not only pre-86 legal full automatics".

Still not sure why your focus is only on full automatic tho. This debate wasn't about that but guns in general. I know that it can be a touchy subject to some people ( like any Liberty VS Rights topic ) but i'm always up for a good discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-26-2011, 10:34 PM
Well only a couple of days ago a home owner was asleep when he was woken by a intruder

Well the homeowner had his gun in his bedside draw and got it out to investigate

he confronted the intruder and there was abit of a scuffle and the gun went off

The intruder stubbled out of the house with a gunshot to the stomach

he died on the scene

Now the homeowner has been arrested for the murder of the intruder

You see the homeowner was pretecting his property but that doesnt matter he murdered someone

Anyway l said before that guns were not aloud in Australia well they are still getting through
Also the police went to a bikie hideut and found around seventy guns stashed there

It is a shame we have to ue guns and l do think we need to get rid of all of them but you will never get totally rid of them

i know having a tonchy subject about guns can rub some people up the wrong way but it is good to talk about the harm these weapon have on people

if they were only used for hunting it would be a diffrent story but guns are used in so many diffrent way some can be for good things like pretecting us from trouble makers but in other cases it can be used for volience
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-27-2011, 12:22 AM
Contrary to some ppl , i <3 Bondgirl. Althought even as an ESL , "aloud" prolly means "allowed". You can't buy honesty.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-27-2011, 10:19 PM
Oh it is nice to be loved as a person

Well it is nice being honest and there is not much of that about these days to express how you feel about a certain subject
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-15-2012, 02:50 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:34 PM
More restrictions wouldnt actually solve the problem, it would just advance a "police state" era.

I'm posting right before work, so I might not go into enough detail - but I read a stat yesterday summarizing thusly: more guns = more gun-related fatalities. Whether it be homicide, suicide, or accidental. More guns means more people have access to guns, and, since 80% of all gun-related fatalities occur by guns that were once obtained legally - like the ones in Newtown - it's pretty simple. More guns = more deaths.

Data from countries around the world, and even individual states here, show an equally important trend. States/countries with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related fatalities.

More guns = more deaths.

Under no circumstance should a private citizen be allowed to purchase semi-automatic or fully-automatic rifles of any kind. Period.

And if you want to own a handgun, shotgun, or non-automatic rifle, they need to be much more controlled. To get a gun in Japan, for instance, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

A few years ago, 2006, the total gun-related fatality number for that year was 2. TWO. TWOOOOO. The next year, it jumped to 22, and it became a national scandal - prompting quick and decisive political action.

In America all you need is a State ID and a criminal history check. If you're going to a gun show, you may even not need that.

You say that explosives can easily be made by any ordinary citizen, but the reality is thats just not really true. It takes at least SOME know how to build and construct a bomb, there's greater risk of self-injury during this process as well, not to mention transportation, delivery of object, and detonation. Even a molotov cocktail isnt easy to get through security. The reality is, the number of people who could successfully build and deliver a bomb of any kind is infinitesimal in the face of a staggering gun-death rate. Literally any idiot can pull a trigger, not so with bombs, etc.

When there was a meningitis outbreak, we quickly tracked the steroid that was causing it. When bad software in Toyotas turned them into gas-powered missiles, we quickly fixed it. When something is dangerous and poses a health risk in this country WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Yet tens of thousands of people die every single year because of guns, and we're told we can't do a thing about it. Why?

Fact is, there is no easy solution. Banning guns or some guns would have a rubber band effect, be it knives, bombs, whatever, and the severity of that "snap back" may vary. But it would be PROGRESS nonetheless.

The ONLY truth from this is that inaction is not the solution.

Something MUST be done.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:55 PM
I don't necessarily want to ban guns, but I think it's backwards that in this country guns(tools that are potentially harmful to others) are legal, but drugs(something that is only harmful to yourself) are illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-15-2012, 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaw2929 View Post
So it doesn't really matter either way. People are fucking stupid in general, but if a stupid fuck is determined enough, it won't matter if it's legal or not.
That's why I don't like people. I feel like Sean Penn in U-Turn.

I have automatic guns. I had them sent to me in different pieces through ups. I've also in the past had drugs sent to me through ups. The secret with that is just wrap coffee grounds around them. Guns are extremely east to come by.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-15-2012, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
More restrictions wouldnt actually solve the problem, it would just advance a "police state" era.

I'm posting right before work, so I might not go into enough detail - but I read a stat yesterday summarizing thusly: more guns = more gun-related fatalities. Whether it be homicide, suicide, or accidental. More guns means more people have access to guns, and, since 80% of all gun-related fatalities occur by guns that were once obtained legally - like the ones in Newtown - it's pretty simple. More guns = more deaths.
If you're trying to reduce fatalities then by that logic we should reduce the number of cars in this country. More cars = more deaths. If not then why are some fatalities more acceptable than others?

Quote:
Data from countries around the world, and even individual states here, show an equally important trend. States/countries with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related fatalities.
So you're completely ignoring Switzerland and Mexico as if that could never happen here. "If the majority can do 'x' then we should be able to do 'x' and anybody who wants to do anything differently is wrong. Take no other variables into the equation."

Quote:
More guns = more deaths.
More knives = more deaths.
More pain killers = more deaths.
More red meat = more deaths.
More going out in the world = more deaths.

Maybe if its the government's job to avoid fatalities at all costs then they should strap everyone in a straight jacket with their teeth pulled out so they don't bite their tongues out jailed in padded rooms.

Quote:
Under no circumstance should a private citizen be allowed to purchase semi-automatic or fully-automatic rifles of any kind. Period.
How many crimes have been committed by legally obtained and unaltered "automatic weapons" here in the United States... ever?

Quote:
And if you want to own a handgun, shotgun, or non-automatic rifle, they need to be much more controlled. To get a gun in Japan, for instance, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Japan is a completely different culture than the United States so... ok? Good for them?

Quote:
A few years ago, 2006, the total gun-related fatality number for that year was 2. TWO. TWOOOOO. The next year, it jumped to 22, and it became a national scandal - prompting quick and decisive political action.
So with all these gun statistics from a different country and you seem to be an authority on what other countries do tell me what Switzerland does. Tell me what Mexico does. Again if you believe the government's job is to prevent fatalities (not just crime) then where do you draw the line?

Quote:
In America all you need is a State ID and a criminal history check. If you're going to a gun show, you may even not need that.

You say that explosives can easily be made by any ordinary citizen, but the reality is thats just not really true. It takes at least SOME know how to build and construct a bomb, there's greater risk of self-injury during this process as well, not to mention transportation, delivery of object, and detonation. Even a molotov cocktail isnt easy to get through security. The reality is, the number of people who could successfully build and deliver a bomb of any kind is infinitesimal in the face of a staggering gun-death rate. Literally any idiot can pull a trigger, not so with bombs, etc.
Molotov cocktails can be made by 7 year old children.

Quote:
When there was a meningitis outbreak, we quickly tracked the steroid that was causing it. When bad software in Toyotas turned them into gas-powered missiles, we quickly fixed it. When something is dangerous and poses a health risk in this country WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
The more you do = the better. Doesn't matter what you do and doesn't matter what long term consequences are down the road something has to be done. Just plug up your ears, close your eyes and demand that things get done. Doing something automatically means things will get better never worse.

Quote:
Yet tens of thousands of people die every single year because of guns, and we're told we can't do a thing about it. Why?
So what's your plan for nobody dying ever?

Quote:
Fact is, there is no easy solution. Banning guns or some guns would have a rubber band effect, be it knives, bombs, whatever, and the severity of that "snap back" may vary. But it would be PROGRESS nonetheless.

The ONLY truth from this is that inaction is not the solution.

Something MUST be done.
Yeah and if you're looking for what "others" are doing...

Quote:
Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding those registered prior to February 5, 1977; however, this law was subsequently overturned in March 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.[40]

The ruling was upheld in June 2008 by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller. Both courts held that the city's handgun ban violated individuals' Second Amendment right to gun ownership.
Crimes have been plummeting ever since that ruling. Also does Conn. have strong or weak gun laws? Do we even know yet if the weapons these guys had were legally obtained? If not why does legal gun ownership even come into discussion? Its like saying someone without a license ran over and killed a pedestrian so that means it should be harder for everyone who has a license to buy a car? Not my fault some lunatic 1,000 miles away tried to use a device that can be meant for killing to kill people. Cars serve a purpose and guns serve a purpose its not the government's job to weigh what serves more of a purpose than others. Red meat, alcohol, sugar etc. serves little to no purpose and kills people so we should ban it?

Last edited by creekin111; 12-15-2012 at 06:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-15-2012, 06:33 PM
Not sure if this has ever been taken into account but another thing is we should be aware of is taking in the advancement of technology. Right now 3D printing is extremely limited but sooner or later there's going to be plenty of computer geeks around with the ability to make weapons. Instead of paper they would use liquid metal. Maybe not in 10 years or even 100 years but this could be a very real possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-15-2012, 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
If you're trying to reduce fatalities then by that logic we should reduce the number of cars in this country. More cars = more deaths. If not then why are some fatalities more acceptable than others?



So you're completely ignoring Switzerland and Mexico as if that could never happen here. "If the majority can do 'x' then we should be able to do 'x' and anybody who wants to do anything differently is wrong. Take no other variables into the equation."



More knives = more deaths.
More pain killers = more deaths.
More red meat = more deaths.
More going out in the world = more deaths.

Maybe if its the government's job to avoid fatalities at all costs then they should strap everyone in a straight jacket with their teeth pulled out so they don't bite their tongues out jailed in padded rooms.



How many crimes have been committed by legally obtained and unaltered "automatic weapons" here in the United States... ever?



Japan is a completely different culture than the United States so... ok? Good for them?



So with all these gun statistics from a different country and you seem to be an authority on what other countries do tell me what Switzerland does. Tell me what Mexico does. Again if you believe the government's job is to prevent fatalities (not just crime) then where do you draw the line?



Molotov cocktails can be made by 7 year old children.



The more you do = the better. Doesn't matter what you do and doesn't matter what long term consequences are down the road something has to be done. Just plug up your ears, close your eyes and demand that things get done. Doing something automatically means things will get better never worse.



So what's your plan for nobody dying ever?



Yeah and if you're looking for what "others" are doing...



Crimes have been plummeting ever since that ruling. Also does Conn. have strong or weak gun laws? Do we even know yet if the weapons these guys had were legally obtained? If not why does legal gun ownership even come into discussion? Its like saying someone without a license ran over and killed a pedestrian so that means it should be harder for everyone who has a license to buy a car? Not my fault some lunatic 1,000 miles away tried to use a device that can be meant for killing to kill people. Cars serve a purpose and guns serve a purpose its not the government's job to weigh what serves more of a purpose than others. Red meat, alcohol, sugar etc. serves little to no purpose and kills people so we should ban it?
Your argument offers nothing. It's exaggerative and foolish.

Want to know the difference between guns and red meat, alcohol, cars et al. Those all have a separate purpose. A car CAN kill - a gun, meanwhile, is designed to do so. And nothin else.

In addition, we do require people to get licenses, training, and to renew them several times to ensure they're still competently using the car. We also make people register their cars so there's a chain of possession, as well as charge mandatory insurance in case of an accident. We don't allow people that aren't safe - mentally ill, for example - to drive because its dangerous.

As it stands cars are MUCH more heavily regulated and monitored than cars are.

As far as how many crimes were committed using automatic weapons, it's not just crimes that kill. It's accidents.

You just... You do t know how foolish you sound. What possible justification can you possibly give for someone owning a semi automatic rifle. It's not even used for hunting. It's designed to kill a lot of things, and do so quickly. Honestly what's your reason for mourning a defense against stricter gun control laws?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-15-2012, 07:35 PM
With all due respect let us all know when you're willing or ready to have a discussion like an adult. If you're going to resort to childish insults then you've already lost your argument. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-15-2012, 08:19 PM
Foolish isn't an insult in this case, it means you're behaving irrationally.

In any case , I'm not the one comparing guns to automobiles and red meat. My points have been very rational, and not exaggerative.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-15-2012, 08:42 PM
More guns is the solution[/morons]

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-15-2012 at 09:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-15-2012, 09:05 PM
Making guns illegal only harms the everyday citizen. Just take a look at Mexico. 30 thousand people dead because drug gangs are running rampant and normal citizens aren't allowed to protect themselves. All it does is give criminals more power.


If we are going to strip away guns from citizens, then there is NO reason for cops to have guns either. Strip them of their guns as well. Oh whats that, they would still need them because criminals don't care about laws? Well I'll be who would known.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-15-2012, 09:06 PM
.

Last edited by Bourne101; 03-03-2013 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-15-2012, 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
More guns is the solution[/morons]
You should be nicer. There are rules around here you know.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-15-2012, 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post
You should be nicer. There are rules around here you know.
I think its their way of saying the issue is beyond debate for them and want others to know they think they know its beyond debate. It should end right there because there's really nothing to do or worth attempting.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-15-2012, 09:28 PM
"Gun Free Zones" might as well be called Easy Pickin's.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-15-2012, 09:31 PM
Stupidity should be outlawed before guns.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump