Gun Control : For & Against

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Personally, I would like to see a total ban on all guns in the hands of anyone other than the police or military.



That means NO guns in the hands of Joe Citizen.



If criminals are caught with guns..lock them away for 20 years in prison.



No If's and's or but's..



Too many are dying because of poor gun control.

And I am not just talking about the USA.



I think that AUS holds the record.



35 killed by one gunman in Tasmania..1996.



This gave rise to much tighter gun laws..and less gun deaths...have resulted..



Where do you stand ?



( he says lighting the wick and standing back with fingers in ears )
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    liquidrliquidr Posts: 884member
    Well maybe I'm bent, but I'd like to see a gun available to every man and woman over the age of 18, properly trained in safety and respect of course. But if we were remove guns from the citizenry than I don't think the police should have them either.
  • Reply 2 of 39
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    Well maybe I'm bent, but I'd like to see a gun available to every man and woman over the age of 18, properly trained in safety and respect of course. But if we were remove guns from the citizenry than I don't think the police should have them either.



    LiquidR ( no offence ) but that is scary..



    Seriously, in my time as a psych I had to deal with some pretty interesting " individuals " who could technically qualify for a gun licence..but who would most likely have mistaken such as a " Licence to Kill "
  • Reply 3 of 39
    liquidrliquidr Posts: 884member
    Sorry, I'm tired, I meant to qualify better. Guns available to individuals, trained properly of course, lacking a criminal record and mental illnesses.
  • Reply 4 of 39
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    Sorry, I'm tired, I meant to qualify better. Guns available to individuals, trained properly of course, lacking a criminal record and mental illnesses.



    It's Ok LiquidR ,I thought that is what you meant..

    But even so there are many sociopaths who otherwise appear & act "normal " that could easily obtain a licence...

    It really isn't that obvious or clear cut..hence my idea that there should be a carpet ban..period..full stop
  • Reply 5 of 39
    liquidrliquidr Posts: 884member
    Well, that would be why I think cops shouldn't have them either if there were a carpet ban. Too many sociopaths make on the force in America. I don't know how it works elsewhere in the world, but with so many small jurisdictions in the US standards for screening police officers varies a lot.
  • Reply 6 of 39
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    Well, that would be why I think cops shouldn't have them either if there were a carpet ban. Too many sociopaths make on the force in America. I don't know how it works elsewhere in the world, but with so many small jurisdictions in the US standards for screening police officers varies a lot.



    It is scary to think the very officers meant to uphold the law aren't screened psychologically ( in depth )....for their suitability to possess a weapon.
  • Reply 7 of 39
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    i dont like the idea of an all-out ban. i fear the government too much, and for them to take away my (and other americans') right to bear arms, my fear would only increase. the right to bear arms must remain intact, so we can be allowed to form effective militias. let's not forget from where that amendment came. that guns have gotten out of control is sad, disheartening, and quite frightening. but banning them would be more so.



    i agree there should be extra measures put on guns. background checks should be more thorough. psychological checks should be done. these measures though would likely only have a placebo effect though. people can always steal guns. hopefully they can cut the numbers down some.
  • Reply 8 of 39
    i think the 2nd amendment is just as sacred as the first, although i personally don't like guns i think you either repeal the 2nd amendment or quit dancing around it with gun laws.

    and like thuh freak before me i can now (thanks to the current administration) envision a time when we might need to take up arms against our own government.
  • Reply 9 of 39
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Scary people shouldn't be allowed to have guns.



    Non-scary people should have guns, and should shoot all of the scary people.



    The scary people aren't really people, they're demons, and it's good to destroy demons. Don't feel bad, just fire away.



    Thank you very much.
  • Reply 10 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    Well maybe I'm bent, but I'd like to see a gun available to every man and woman over the age of 18, properly trained in safety and respect of course. But if we were remove guns from the citizenry than I don't think the police should have them either.



    i think there is a place in georgia that does this.
  • Reply 11 of 39
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    you could try the Chris Rock method...



    Gun Control, hah. What we need is Bullet Control.

    If every bullet cost $5000, criminals and wannabe-gangstas would think twice.

    It'd be all like "man, I would pop a cap in yo ass... if I could only afford it...

    you better hope I can't get me no bullets on layaway."
  • Reply 12 of 39
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    Ban them, but it's too late for America
  • Reply 13 of 39
    Ban handguns and automatic / semi-automatic weapons and increase controls and waiting times on those that remain available...there are valid reasons for people to own a hunting rifle or shotgun, but I don't see why anyone outside of the military or law enforcement can justify having access to guns that are solely designed for killing human beings (and even then I have reservations).
  • Reply 14 of 39
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    I don't see why anyone outside of the military or law enforcement can justify having access to guns that are solely designed for killing human beings.



    fear of the government. the reason the amendment was put in the constitution.
  • Reply 15 of 39
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thuh Freak

    fear of the government. the reason the amendment was put in the constitution.



    That's why I've always struggled with the issue. I wouldn't stand for a government that has all the guns, so they have to stay legal in my book. Hell, it's scary enough that the police and military are mostly republican already.



    I do believe that a state can control what type of weapons are sold though. That is, you shouldn't be able to buy a tank, or an RPG, or a backyard nuke. Fully automatic weapons, and semi-auto with an easy switch to full aren't necessary.



    I'm also not as afraid of a registry as some others. I know the old fear was that if a list existed, they could be rounded up more easily. Logistically that would be a nightmare in a population so large.
  • Reply 16 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thuh Freak

    fear of the government. the reason the amendment was put in the constitution.



    Fear of the British government though, no? I don't see a need for it any more, and I certainly don't see an armed population being much of a deterrant to a government that controls a modern army...
  • Reply 17 of 39
    not necessarily, many framers were fatalistic about the country they were creating.

    perhaps the language was settled on to assuage both points of view.
  • Reply 18 of 39
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    I certainly don't see an armed population being much of a deterrant to a government that controls a modern army...



    ahem, the south (during the american civil war). i dont agree with their reasons for fighting, but i respect their right to have done so. they disagreed with the government, created a well formed militia, and fought the army.



    edit: i nearly forgot about the american revolution. local americans fought against one of the largest militaries in the world. although they didn't exactly whoop them, they hurt them enough to convince them of their seriousness, and they succeeded.



    i hope that it wont ever be necessary, but i think we need to keep the law on the books incase it happens. there may come a time when the country becomes uninhabitable, and maybe only a militia can cure it. clearly the u.s. army could destroy just about any uprising it wanted to; but in creating that uprising the militia evokes notice and shows all the world citizens what their grievances are. then the government has to rethink whatever they were doing wrong.
  • Reply 19 of 39
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    Fear of the British government though, no? I don't see a need for it any more, and I certainly don't see an armed population being much of a deterrant to a government that controls a modern army...



    Guerrilla campaigns notwithstanding *cough* Vietnam, Iraq *cough*

    not enough to stop a modern army, but daily sniping accretes into a deterrent if public support wanes
  • Reply 20 of 39
    Government forces have difficulty fighting against guerillas because the guerillas are supported by the people and governments are constrained by having to appear to follow their own rules. If the US government were to become corrupt enough that militia throughout the country were driven to revolution the government would just carpet-bomb / gas the offending areas. Public support or opposition wouldn't be an issue, cause they'd be ruling by force anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.