Gun Control

[magekillr]

*Points to Chicago with it's gun laws*

*Points to [insert redneck community here] with lenient gun laws*

 

Oh cool, I can go outside of Chicago and buy guns.

 

See why I noted in my original post FEDERAL?

[paul191600]

*Points to Chicago with it's gun laws*

*Points to [insert redneck community here] with lenient gun laws*

 

Oh cool, I can go outside of Chicago and buy guns.

 

See why I noted in my original post FEDERAL?

And if they ban them everywhere, gangs will still have them.

[obfuscator]

If you were walking down the street with $100 in your wallet, and a man came up to you and demanded it, what would you do? You'd probably give it to him, and be short $100.

 

If you had a gun, you'd shoot him, and instead of being down $100, you've now killed someone.

 

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

 

Killing somebody over $100? Yeah...it's a bad thing.

 

 

I find your logic to be ridiculous Y_Guy. No I would not shoot him for trying to rob me of $100. Staring down a barrel is enough for most people, you don't have to pull the trigger, that would be a stupid decision i'm talking about. And collecting and shooting go hand in hand. Not every collector is one that collects a museam type of collection. Some have both. And honestly, if the gun fires its worth a lot more then if it didn't.

 

So instead of taking away guns completely, why not offer training for them? Why not make it a requirement before you purchase them? Either in the form of proving you have the training or having to take the training.

 

Yeah, but you'd pull a gun on him. And if you wouldn't use it, why carry it in the first place? I'm no gun collector, but it just seemed strange to me....

 

See, your second sentence supports gun control. I've never completely advocated their removal, but you made it sound like there should be no control whatsoever.

[Dizzle229]

If you were walking down the street with $100 in your wallet, and a man came up to you and demanded it, what would you do? You'd probably give it to him, and be short $100.

 

If you had a gun, you'd shoot him, and instead of being down $100, you've now killed someone.

 

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

 

Killing somebody over $100? Yeah...it's a bad thing.

The life of the mugger isn't important. In that situation, the priority of what should be saved goes like this.

 

1. Your life.

2. Your property.

3. The mugger.

[dusky]

 

Yeah, but you'd pull a gun on him. And if you wouldn't use it, why carry it in the first place? I'm no gun collector, but it just seemed strange to me....

 

 

Most people that carry guns dont plan to shoot at anybody, but more so to threaten if the need arises. As he said, looking down a barrel is enough to get most people to back off. Also, its kind of like like insurance, people never plan to need it or use it, but they like to know theyre protected if the need were to arise.

[paul191600]

If you were walking down the street with $100 in your wallet, and a man came up to you and demanded it, what would you do? You'd probably give it to him, and be short $100.

 

If you had a gun, you'd shoot him, and instead of being down $100, you've now killed someone.

 

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

 

Killing somebody over $100? Yeah...it's a bad thing.

The life of the mugger isn't important. In that situation, the priority of what should be saved goes like this.

 

1. Your life.

2. Your property.

3. The mugger.

A wild mugger appears!

[shoot] [Wallet]

[Police] [Run]

[Zierro]

Killing somebody over $100? Yeah...it's a bad thing.

 

Wait, what are we talking about here? A robber or some joker that will just go away peacefully if you tell them you won't give up the money? In reality, they'd probably try to take it from you with force. And if that were the case, I don't think it would be such a bad thing to eliminate a public threat. It's moreso about making the world a safer place for the innocent than saving your $100, although I can't speak for everybody. Some people will use any excuse to use a gun.

 

True, point being that gun laws usually only hit the law-abiding citizens while the crooks still have illegal means of obtaining firearms.

 

This is why I'm not a big fan of the laws. Guns will always be around, legal or not. You can hide guns, make guns, smuggle guns, etc. They are not going away so it's unfair to unequip law-abiding citizens who have them for self-defense, while all the crooks use underhanded methods of obtaining them.

[Giordano]

Killing somebody over $100? Yeah...it's a bad thing.

Is not their life that costs $100, it's the decision to do the injustice that costs them their lives. If you don't want to die, don't risk it trying to rob people. Why is it okay for these burglars to steal $100 bucks with no consequences whatsoever? The cops aren't going to search for a stolen $100.

 

It's the decision to do injustice where justice is measured. Not physical loss.

 

 

 

Yeah, but you'd pull a gun on him. And if you wouldn't use it, why carry it in the first place? I'm no gun collector, but it just seemed strange to me....

Stop being so bigoted in your position that you ignore the good parts of gun control you should be at least acknowledging. If the threat of a gun scares a burglar away, you should be damn happy that your precious life hasn't died.

[Range_This11]

Guns are disgusting creations. I can never understand how people believe that we need a militia in the 21st century. The only other reason to carry a gun is testosterone, and that's pretty lame.

[obfuscator]

Wait, what are we talking about here? A robber or some joker that will just go away peacefully if you tell them you won't give up the money? In reality, they'd probably try to take it from you with force. And if that were the case, I don't think it would be such a bad thing to eliminate a public threat. It's moreso about making the world a safer place for the innocent than saving your $100, although I can't speak for everybody. Some people will use any excuse to use a gun.

 

Nobody's life is worth $100 - deserved or not. You appear to be condoning vigilante justice here?

 

 

This is why I'm not a big fan of the laws. Guns will always be around, legal or not. You can hide guns, make guns, smuggle guns, etc. They are not going away so it's unfair to unequip law-abiding citizens who have them for self-defense, while all the crooks use underhanded methods of obtaining them.

 

Your average person does not need a gun for self defence.

 

 

 

Is not their life that costs $100, it's the decision to do the injustice that costs them their lives. If you don't want to die, don't risk it trying to rob people. Why is it okay for these burglars to steal $100 bucks with no consequences whatsoever? The cops aren't going to search for a stolen $100.

 

It's the decision to do injustice where justice is measured. Not physical loss.

 

There aren't no consequences - cops will attempt to search for someone who's robbed someone. The bottom line is no matter what they've done, the life of another person is not worth $100.

 

Listen..there's absolutely no reason the average person needs to carry a gun for self defence.

 

If you carry a gun for "deterrence" purposes, does this mean you won't actually use it? And if you won't actually use it, why carry it at all?

[Giordano]

As I said, you're too bigoted in your viewpoint to awknowledge the good parts of gun controling: saving a human life by deterrent. Its my last paragraph that you ignored to wirte your last paragraph.

 

Again, its not the life that costs 100, its the decision to do injustice that cost them their life.

[obfuscator]

As I said, you're too bigoted in your viewpoint to awknowledge the good parts of gun controling: saving a human life by deterrent. Its my last paragraph that you ignored to wirte your last paragraph.

 

Again, its not the life that costs 100, its the decision to do injustice that cost them their life.

That wasn't directed at me, so I didn't answer. Or at least I didn't think it was...

 

Anyway, of course there are positives of gun control - I don't see "guns for everyone" as gun control.

 

So you're suggesting that anyone who does injustice of any kind should automatically forfeit their life?

[Giordano]

Its a gamble: kill this guys wife, he might kill you back. Steal from this shopkeep, he might pull a gun, try to run from a cop and he might shoot you.

 

There has to be, of course, a sort of balance since some petty crimes shouldn't be a death sentence, but people seriously have to know their injustices have consequences.

 

Let me ask you this: why do you trust the police over yourself?

[obfuscator]

Its a gamble: kill this guys wife, he might kill you back. Steal from this shopkeep, he might pull a gun, try to run from a cop and he might shoot you.

 

There has to be, of course, a sort of balance since some petty crimes shouldn't be a death sentence, but people seriously have to know their injustices have consequences.

 

Let me ask you this: why do you trust the police over yourself?

 

Everything in life is a gamble. I don't see where you're going here. Even if guns are illegal, it's still a gamble that you'll be caught and prosecuted.

 

People do know their injustices have consequences - jail. You can debate the effectiveness of the justice system all you want, but it's obvious that vigilantism won't help it.

 

Why do I trust the police over myself? That's a good question. I trust the police because it is their job to protect me - they dedicate their life to doing so, they receive training to do so, they practice doing so, they are prepared to do so. I am none of those things, nor do I wish to be.

 

Make allegations of police corruption all you want, I've never personally witnessed unfair treatment or the like from police officers.

[Giordano]

Well you're lucky. You can't argue for my stance unless you felt injustice or at the very least UNDERSTAND your ability to change the world around you.

 

All I want really is to change the courts than the cops. Murderer kills wife and husband kills murderer, the courts should realize the justice already given and give the husband a break in either a couple of months in therapy or something rather than 10 years in jail.

[obfuscator]

Well you're lucky. You can't argue for my stance unless you felt injustice or at the very least UNDERSTAND your ability to change the world around you.

 

All I want really is to change the courts than the cops. Murderer kills wife and husband kills murderer, the courts should realize the justice already given and give the husband a break in either a couple of months in therapy or something rather than 10 years in jail.

 

 

I absolutely understand my ability to change the world around me. I further understand that such a change should be positive. Vigilante justice that ignores basic human dignities is not a positive change.

 

I agree - often the courts do tend to provide skewed verdicts and some guilty do get away free, and some innocent are found guilty. However, I don't see the husband satisfying his need for revenge by stooping to the level of a murderer as someone who deserves leniency.

[Giordano]

I absolutely understand my ability to change the world around me. I further understand that such a change should be positive. Vigilante justice that ignores basic human dignities is not a positive change.

It ignores human dignity? The burgular ignored MY ans HIS human dignity when he decided to do the injustice. You take the same view as the court: more prilvige to the wrong-doer than the victim. The ORIGINAL victim.

 

I agree - often the courts do tend to provide skewed verdicts and some guilty do get away free, and some innocent are found guilty. However, I don't see the husband satisfying his need for revenge by stooping to the level of a murderer as someone who deserves leniency.

Well why not? Who deserves leniency? People who build schools and help the community? Justice isn't black and white and most espeically is not breucratic, aka every case is unique.

[obfuscator]

It ignores human dignity? The burgular ignored MY ans HIS human dignity when he decided to do the injustice. You take the same view as the court: more prilvige to the wrong-doer than the victim. The ORIGINAL victim.

 

What ignores human dignity more - the theft of a few dollars, or the taking of a life? You tell me.

 

Well why not? Who deserves leniency? People who build schools and help the community? Justice isn't black and white and most espeically is not breucratic, aka every case is unique.

 

Exactly - nothing is black and white - so a revenge killing of a murderer shouldn't guarantee an easy sentence.

[Giordano]

What ignores human dignity more - the theft of a few dollars, or the taking of a life? You tell me.

The decision to do injustice.

 

Exactly - nothing is black and white - so a revenge killing of a murderer shouldn't guarantee an easy sentence.

That's part of the gray area.

[obfuscator]

The decision to do injustice.

 

Which the vigilante then commits himself by unjustly taking a life.

 

That's part of the gray area.

 

Agreed then.

[Giordano]

The decision to do injustice.

 

Which the vigilante then commits himself by unjustly taking a life.

 

[/Quote]

So only the police can handle justice?

[obfuscator]

The decision to do injustice.

 

Which the vigilante then commits himself by unjustly taking a life.

 

[/Quote]

So only the police can handle justice?

Whenever possible - absolutely. That's what they're there for.

[Giordano]

And when they can't? Justice can't be served by anyone?

[Pirate_Felix]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

[Orpheus]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

I disagree. Two people are not an acceptable sample to make a generalization from a statistical point of view. You might also apply the scenario to other school shootings, but there's one common factor between nearly all of the shooters: Most of them had mental illnesses, and something, somewhere was a mere catalyst. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.