Gun Debate
Gun Debate
For most US citizens, and even though who are not, it is almost impossible to get away from the current debates about gun control. I simply am inquisitive on where others stand on this topic. Discuss.
The entire reason Japan did not attack mainland USA during WWII is, and I quote: "Behind every blade of grass, there is a gun". We are feared by enemies who want to invade us as we have many guns out there.
If they attempt to restrict the weaponry a citizen can have any further, the Utah Sheriffs association even said themselves they will go to war with the federal government. The federal government will then rely on the armed forces, however the common citizen with a gun outnumbers the armed forces 20:1. Even if only a quarter of that actually fights, that's a 4:1 ratio. Then we have to take into consideration how many armed forces would actually fight their own fellow Americans, that drops the number dramatically.
The fact of the matter remains, our second amendment rights were specifically given to us to prevent federal tyranny and to allow the people to properly defend themselves against said tyranny at any time. "The right to bare arms", gives us the right to own guns. Now, the federal government is doing everything in its power to limit this, especially by limiting WHAT guns we can have. I think that is bullshit. People, yes, should have to go through a RIGOROUS screening to own a firearm, but should NOT be limited as to what they can use gun-wise. If the feds can use it, we can use it. That's how it's meant to be, that's how it should be. A proper screening will weed out those who abuse the system.
Now, let's look at all of the gun crimes committed. About 96% of them were committed with a legally registered weapon, just as the anti-gun fags say. However, 91% of those crimes were committed by people who the guns were not registered to, proving that these weapons were STILL STOLEN in all technicality. ALSO, there were over 2,000 public shootings in 2012 alone. Almost EVERY ONE of those shootings were stopped by CIVILIANS with their own guns, not the police. Just because the media only shows three shootings that were terrible (all three in areas where people aren't allowed to have guns) does not mean guns are the issue.
If they attempt to restrict the weaponry a citizen can have any further, the Utah Sheriffs association even said themselves they will go to war with the federal government. The federal government will then rely on the armed forces, however the common citizen with a gun outnumbers the armed forces 20:1. Even if only a quarter of that actually fights, that's a 4:1 ratio. Then we have to take into consideration how many armed forces would actually fight their own fellow Americans, that drops the number dramatically.
The fact of the matter remains, our second amendment rights were specifically given to us to prevent federal tyranny and to allow the people to properly defend themselves against said tyranny at any time. "The right to bare arms", gives us the right to own guns. Now, the federal government is doing everything in its power to limit this, especially by limiting WHAT guns we can have. I think that is bullshit. People, yes, should have to go through a RIGOROUS screening to own a firearm, but should NOT be limited as to what they can use gun-wise. If the feds can use it, we can use it. That's how it's meant to be, that's how it should be. A proper screening will weed out those who abuse the system.
Now, let's look at all of the gun crimes committed. About 96% of them were committed with a legally registered weapon, just as the anti-gun fags say. However, 91% of those crimes were committed by people who the guns were not registered to, proving that these weapons were STILL STOLEN in all technicality. ALSO, there were over 2,000 public shootings in 2012 alone. Almost EVERY ONE of those shootings were stopped by CIVILIANS with their own guns, not the police. Just because the media only shows three shootings that were terrible (all three in areas where people aren't allowed to have guns) does not mean guns are the issue.
Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
The entire reason Japan did not attack mainland USA during WWII is, and I quote: "Behind every blade of grass, there is a gun". We are feared by enemies who want to invade us as we have many guns out there.
If they attempt to restrict the weaponry a citizen can have any further, the Utah Sheriffs association even said themselves they will go to war with the federal government. The federal government will then rely on the armed forces, however the common citizen with a gun outnumbers the armed forces 20:1. Even if only a quarter of that actually fights, that's a 4:1 ratio. Then we have to take into consideration how many armed forces would actually fight their own fellow Americans, that drops the number dramatically.
The fact of the matter remains, our second amendment rights were specifically given to us to prevent federal tyranny and to allow the people to properly defend themselves against said tyranny at any time. "The right to bare arms", gives us the right to own guns. Now, the federal government is doing everything in its power to limit this, especially by limiting WHAT guns we can have. I think that is bullshit. People, yes, should have to go through a RIGOROUS screening to own a firearm, but should NOT be limited as to what they can use gun-wise. If the feds can use it, we can use it. That's how it's meant to be, that's how it should be. A proper screening will weed out those who abuse the system.
Now, let's look at all of the gun crimes committed. About 96% of them were committed with a legally registered weapon, just as the anti-gun fags say. However, 91% of those crimes were committed by people who the guns were not registered to, proving that these weapons were STILL STOLEN in all technicality. ALSO, there were over 2,000 public shootings in 2012 alone. Almost EVERY ONE of those shootings were stopped by CIVILIANS with their own guns, not the police. Just because the media only shows three shootings that were terrible (all three in areas where people aren't allowed to have guns) does not mean guns are the issue.
If they attempt to restrict the weaponry a citizen can have any further, the Utah Sheriffs association even said themselves they will go to war with the federal government. The federal government will then rely on the armed forces, however the common citizen with a gun outnumbers the armed forces 20:1. Even if only a quarter of that actually fights, that's a 4:1 ratio. Then we have to take into consideration how many armed forces would actually fight their own fellow Americans, that drops the number dramatically.
The fact of the matter remains, our second amendment rights were specifically given to us to prevent federal tyranny and to allow the people to properly defend themselves against said tyranny at any time. "The right to bare arms", gives us the right to own guns. Now, the federal government is doing everything in its power to limit this, especially by limiting WHAT guns we can have. I think that is bullshit. People, yes, should have to go through a RIGOROUS screening to own a firearm, but should NOT be limited as to what they can use gun-wise. If the feds can use it, we can use it. That's how it's meant to be, that's how it should be. A proper screening will weed out those who abuse the system.
Now, let's look at all of the gun crimes committed. About 96% of them were committed with a legally registered weapon, just as the anti-gun fags say. However, 91% of those crimes were committed by people who the guns were not registered to, proving that these weapons were STILL STOLEN in all technicality. ALSO, there were over 2,000 public shootings in 2012 alone. Almost EVERY ONE of those shootings were stopped by CIVILIANS with their own guns, not the police. Just because the media only shows three shootings that were terrible (all three in areas where people aren't allowed to have guns) does not mean guns are the issue.
range for the very first time. What those opposed to guns neglect to realize, is these bans and limitations on guns will
not solve a single problem. Here in Colorado, we just passed a law stating that magazines in excess of 15 rounds are
to be deemed illegal, and are not to be sold within the state. What possible problem could this solve? They blindly say
that "the reload time can save lives". They seem to not even know how quick someone can reload a weapon, for me
as I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds, is under 1 second for a rifle. With a handgun reload being even a smaller
increment of time. Most of these anti-gun types also have absolutely no working knowledge of how firearms work. I
have seen countless times them using the term "clip, or even "magazine clip". The last commonly used firearm to use
an actual clip was the M1 Garand, the proper term is magazine. A politician here, during a meeting, seemed to think
that magazines can only be used once. She went to say that "We want to ban these High-Capacity magazines, so that,
once a maniac uses it, it can't be used again." She has the warped thought that magazines are spent after use, and is
ignorant to the fact that they are indeed reloaded. Secondly, do we really believe criminals will even adhere to these
laws? I remember seeing a report in the Sandy Hook shooting that the shooter broke over 200 laws, including a dozen
murders. Will a simple law banning Hi-Cap mags really prevent these massacres from occurring? The idea that it will is
simply an ignorant statement. The only outcome I see from this, is the restriction of a Constitutional right of the
citizens of this country. It is truly sad.
Originally Posted by Aborted
Well stated Leh. I almost entirely agree. I have been an avid collector of guns ever since my Dad brought me to the
range for the very first time. What those opposed to guns neglect to realize, is these bans and limitations on guns will
not solve a single problem. Here in Colorado, we just passed a law stating that magazines in excess of 15 rounds are
to be deemed illegal, and are not to be sold within the state. What possible problem could this solve? They blindly say
that "the reload time can save lives". They seem to not even know how quick someone can reload a weapon, for me
as I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds, is under 1 second for a rifle. With a handgun reload being even a smaller
increment of time. Most of these anti-gun types also have absolutely no working knowledge of how firearms work. I
have seen countless times them using the term "clip, or even "magazine clip". The last commonly used firearm to use
an actual clip was the M1 Garand, the proper term is magazine. A politician here, during a meeting, seemed to think
that magazines can only be used once. She went to say that "We want to ban these High-Capacity magazines, so that,
once a maniac uses it, it can't be used again." She has the warped thought that magazines are spent after use, and is
ignorant to the fact that they are indeed reloaded. Secondly, do we really believe criminals will even adhere to these
laws? I remember seeing a report in the Sandy Hook shooting that the shooter broke over 200 laws, including a dozen
murders. Will a simple law banning Hi-Cap mags really prevent these massacres from occurring? The idea that it will is
simply an ignorant statement. The only outcome I see from this, is the restriction of a Constitutional right of the
citizens of this country. It is truly sad.
The biggest issue with these anti-gun nuts, is that they don't realize that the reason guns are used in crime is their efficiency to kill a single target quickly. Remove that, and we will start seeing homemade explosives all over the place. For twenty bucks you can go to home depot and come home with an explosive that can take down a small building, guns are what's keeping this from happening. Though as soon as all guns are banned for civilian use, I will definitely be joining the rebellion myself.
It's pretty much impossible to obtain a firearm in Japan, and the only guns allowed are shotguns and air rifles. There are no gun theft, because I've watched the news for a long time and we never have had a single case with gun theft in the past years I've watched the news.
Though we don't have many problems with killing. There are pretty much no explosive incidents and the really only way people murder is with knives.
I don't really like guns.
Though we don't have many problems with killing. There are pretty much no explosive incidents and the really only way people murder is with knives.
I don't really like guns.
Originally Posted by Kallisti
It's pretty much impossible to obtain a firearm in Japan, and the only guns allowed are shotguns and air rifles. There are no gun theft, because I've watched the news for a long time and we never have had a single case with gun theft in the past years I've watched the news.
Though we don't have many problems with killing. There are pretty much no explosive incidents and the really only way people murder is with knives.
I don't really like guns.
Though we don't have many problems with killing. There are pretty much no explosive incidents and the really only way people murder is with knives.
I don't really like guns.
I'm all for guns, but I'll sit out if there's another Civil War over stupid things like this where people can't sit down and properly debate about it
Gun control? Eh. I mean I understand restricting the heavy weapons and automatics. That simply allows too much firepower for any reasonable taste
Other than that there isn't really a reason to restrict semi-auto weapons simply because when you make it illegal or such that just increases the want for them.
Other than that there isn't really a reason to restrict semi-auto weapons simply because when you make it illegal or such that just increases the want for them.
People should realize that if guns were to be restricted, it will be like drugs they`re illegal and people still use them. What im trying to get at what should be done is heavier and deeper background checks im talking about the whole family not just the person applying for a gun license
I think it's fine the way it is (From what i have seen ofcourse.)
It would be nice if the UK had similar attitudes to self-protection etc.
The people who are behind the gun if they really wanted to kill the victim(s) then he/she would find another way of doing it if guns were restricted anyway.
It would be nice if the UK had similar attitudes to self-protection etc.
The people who are behind the gun if they really wanted to kill the victim(s) then he/she would find another way of doing it if guns were restricted anyway.
Originally Posted by PCMau5
I think it's fine the way it is (From what i have seen ofcourse.)
It would be nice if the UK had similar attitudes to self-protection etc.
The people who are behind the gun if they really wanted to kill the victim(s) then he/she would find another way of doing it if guns were restricted anyway.
It would be nice if the UK had similar attitudes to self-protection etc.
The people who are behind the gun if they really wanted to kill the victim(s) then he/she would find another way of doing it if guns were restricted anyway.
Originally Posted by Aborted
Precisely. In just the last week or so, we've had 2 incidents of just that, mass violence WITHOUT guns. A man smashed his car through the wall of a supermarket, then proceeded to club masses of people. Then, just 2-3 days ago, a man was arrested for running around on a University campus and stabbing dozens of people with a knife.
The main reason we have so many murders are from the psychiatric drugs in use LEGALLY in the USA currently.
There is always going to be more ways to kill a person than to prevent it. That is just how it is.
Originally Posted by Empire
There is always going to be more ways to kill a person than to prevent it. That is just how it is.
Gun nuts make me lelz.
Anyways, I think that it's fine that a citizen should be able to have a gun. But only if they have proved that they are able to handle it.
It should NOT, be easier to get a fucking gun licence than a driver's licence. It should NOT be easier to get the right to carry and shoot a gun, a device where the main purpose is to fucking kill people, than a fucking car, which is mainly a method of transportation.
You can try to argue that the government is controlling you and limiting you all you want. I would rather have no one have guns than even one crazy fuck that's able to attain it just by walking into a shop and picking a gun. It should not be as easy as picking a fucking shirt or your lunch or something. You can have guns, but the tests to get them should be strict, and you should have to have ABSOLUTELY NO criminal record, not even petty theft. You SHOULD have to take a test to see if you're mentally stable, and then, you can have a gun.
Even at that point, I don't think you should be able to buy a fucking RPG or some shit. Pistols, and maybe a shotgun or assault rifle here or there, MAX. No sniper, no RPG, no bombs, none of that. Only something for immediate self defense, that's it.
--------------
That's my take on it at least, some people disagree, but I don't think everyone and their mom should be able to walk around with a fucking gun.
Anyways, I think that it's fine that a citizen should be able to have a gun. But only if they have proved that they are able to handle it.
It should NOT, be easier to get a fucking gun licence than a driver's licence. It should NOT be easier to get the right to carry and shoot a gun, a device where the main purpose is to fucking kill people, than a fucking car, which is mainly a method of transportation.
You can try to argue that the government is controlling you and limiting you all you want. I would rather have no one have guns than even one crazy fuck that's able to attain it just by walking into a shop and picking a gun. It should not be as easy as picking a fucking shirt or your lunch or something. You can have guns, but the tests to get them should be strict, and you should have to have ABSOLUTELY NO criminal record, not even petty theft. You SHOULD have to take a test to see if you're mentally stable, and then, you can have a gun.
Even at that point, I don't think you should be able to buy a fucking RPG or some shit. Pistols, and maybe a shotgun or assault rifle here or there, MAX. No sniper, no RPG, no bombs, none of that. Only something for immediate self defense, that's it.
--------------
That's my take on it at least, some people disagree, but I don't think everyone and their mom should be able to walk around with a fucking gun.
Similar Threads
- acc AVA || 20 € || Paypal or Paysafecard || All gun || not ap guns (price debate)By houaribenadla01 in Alliance of Valiant Arms (AVA) Selling / Trading / Buying14Last post
- 52Last post
- 14Last post
- 10Last post
- 10Last post