Peregrine Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 Anyways, can anyone use statistics to prove/disprove that our population would be higher if civilians didn't own guns ? I think the answer is no, all we have is common sense.I've seen the statistics that prove it. I just don't remember where exactly, and I don't have time tonight to hunt through all my bookmarks to get a source you'll accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinin Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 You can prove what never existed? Amazing Like i saidAnyways, can anyone use statistics to prove/disprove that our population would be higher if civilians didn't own guns ? The fact is we do have guns. I'm talking about if American civilians never owned guns, the population would be higher. If anyone is interested in this topic, please, somehow watch today's episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, it will show how stupid it was to get rid of the ban, in a humorous way of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Oh Come ON, Even Bill O'Reily supports moderate gun control! You shouldnt be allowed to own a bazooka, its a public safety hazard, as is to own an AK-47. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but they should be allowed to tell you which ones are acceptable and which ones are too much of a risk. Theres no reason to ban guns, but theres a hell of a difference between hand guns and M-16's. Moderate gun control should be a must, or were ALL dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Moderate gun control should be a must, or were ALL dead. I'm not sure about that... only the ones trying to be killed would be dead ;) ... j/k, i believe in moderate control... an AK is fine but no C4 or grendades please... Anyway, I suppose it is ok to question SOME rights with logic... But if we did that with all our rights, we would barely have any rights left... First would go freedom of speech because you could "hurt someones feelings", then press because of their "false news statements and slander" and the rest would just tumble down... smoking kills people, it's legal... you want to fight that with logic? drinking kills people, it's legal... you want to try and fight that too? when you bring up too much logic, you are fighting basic rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I think everyone can agree that we need to control some of the more dangerous weapons, but the problem is: where do you draw the line? Personally, I'd like a really defined rule as to how we can catagorize what is allowed and isn't allowed rather than doing it on a case by case basis. Assuming you think gun ownership should be allowed at all then you should be able to assume that a handgun is legal on one extreme and yet an Atomic bomb is illegal on the other extreme. Where does an AK-47 fit into this though? It's smack in that grey area where it's definately not for hunting deer or protecting your household (for argument's sake we'll just assume that) but it's also not obvious that its only purpose is for something sinister. Some people may want an AK-47 for purely asthetic reasons. They might like to keep it in a display case and just like to "have" it, while others may just like to take it out to the firing range and do target practice. However, it's definately more likely to do more damage if used improperly than a handgun. That being said, we can all see that a Bomb is probably not going to just sit in someone's living room as a conversation piece, and you can't really go target practicing with it. My gut is telling me that Asault rifles should be legal because I can't say with a reasonable amount of certainty that they will be used improperly. Bombs and chemical weapons most likely WILL be used improperly and so I think they should be banned. It's a touchy issue and I think that it may be that we have to just look at each weapon individually (as much as I hate to do that) and decide on a case-by-case basis if a weapon is almost certain to be misused. Althoug, I do think that a tank could make deer hunting pretty easy :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Moderate gun control should be a must, or were ALL dead. I'm not sure about that... only the ones trying to be killed would be dead ;) ... j/k, i believe in moderate control... an AK is fine but no C4 or grendades please... Anyway, I suppose it is ok to question SOME rights with logic... But if we did that with all our rights, we would barely have any rights left... First would go freedom of speech because you could "hurt someones feelings", then press because of their "false news statements and slander" and the rest would just tumble down... smoking kills people, it's legal... you want to fight that with logic? drinking kills people, it's legal... you want to try and fight that too? when you bring up too much logic, you are fighting basic rights. No, smoking and drinking are personal choices, and if they were illegal they would be victimless crimes. Same thing goes for people who sit in a room and get high, thats illegal, probably harms them and yet its a victimless crime, so it SHOULDNT be illegal. Any accident that occurs with a firearm would be a crime involving a victim, so there should be moderate gun control. You cant go arround weilding assault weapons, theyre a safety hazard, as we see from any of the gang wars involving them where a mother or her child are killed by accident. And if you say youre gonna use assault weapons for hunting, give the damn dear a chance! But for that matter, its called an "Assault" rifle for a reason: It was made to go into a fray and bring people down. Civilians are not allowed to go and kill people, only millitary personnel are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 IDEA!!! How about we only sell the guns and no bullets! That way they can have a showcase and we don't have to worry about crime with the weapon (unless they hit people with it ;) ). And if they want to fire it they have to go to a firing range and only use rubber bullets to shot with... Explosives should be a complete NO!! I wouldn't classify explosives as a firearm. only fireworks stuff should be allowed. That's it. I would draw the margin (for selling bullets, not the gun) at the same or above the level of semi automatic. Only the military needs that. Civilian have no reason. (remember, only the bullets are banned, not the gun. That way we can still have collectors...) No, smoking and drinking are personal choices, and if they were illegal they would be victimless crimes. Wrong... ever heard of second-hand smoke? I have heard several stories about kids getting lung cancer because their parents smoked. What about drunk drivers? They kill plenty of people! That is NOT a victimless crime... When the "item" is used improperly lives are lost, just like a gun. Plus, many lives lost to guns are accidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 No, smoking and drinking are personal choices, and if they were illegal they would be victimless crimes. Wrong... ever heard of second-hand smoke? I have heard several stories about kids getting lung cancer because their parents smoked. What about drunk drivers? They kill plenty of people! That is NOT a victimless crime... When the "item" is used improperly lives are lost, just like a gun. Plus, many lives lost to guns are accidental. 1.) people can move away from second hand smoke. Their parents were fools for not smoking outside.2.) Drunk Driving is NOT a victimless crime, but DRINKING ITSELF is. If someone is dead because of a result of drunk driving, its a VEHICULAR HOMICIDE.3.) Accidental or not, an accident with an assault weapon would be much worse than an accident with a simple revolver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I clearly stated:When the "item" is used improperly lives are lost, just like a gun. Guns may be designed to kill, but aren't supposed to be used by the public for that reason... so they are used improperly!! But anyway, I think my idea might work!! they would have spend loads more money to get bullets illegally... the black market will never die... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Indeed, they are used improperly, but in vehicular homicide while driving under the influence, it is more the vehicle that is being used improperly, because that same guy doesnt have to drive. And for that matter, cant someone stay home and drink? And your idea about not selling bullets. Do you mean to assault weapons or to all firearms? If you mean to all firearms, its unconstitutional. If you mean to assault weapons, then its a lost cause because malcontenders can still get the projectiles on the black market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.