hoofhearted4 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 "guns for everyone" is so ridiculous even america doesnt allow for it. well actually, America does allow it. everyone in the country can have a gun. its just how/where/when/what they can carry (it) whichcertain states have set restrictions....but every american can own a gun, and i think states need to just lay off their restrictions and allow everyone to have a gun at any time..loaded including criminals and the hysterically insane? thats what i mean by "everyone" and "restrictions" :]there should be _good measures_ down to ensure gun-owners have a crystal clear police record, and no mental problems whatsoever etc wouldnt do a damn thing. people who wouldnt pass that would find another way to get a gun. all that would do is make the process longer harder and more frustrating for anyone else who wants a gun. there shouldnt be any restrictions on who can own a gun....amendment numero dos says we have the right to own a gun. however, if the state wants to put restrictions on it, it is their right. however i disagree with their decision to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) hoofhearted4: Yeah, there's one problem though: it's harder to find a black marketeer than actually going up to a gun store and purchasing a weapon. That is a deterrent enough sometimes, though, it's funny how all the bikie shootings in Australia are all commited using Glock's.....and Glocks are illegal in Australia except under very exclusive circumstances....... There's also one problem with your absolute belief in the constitution: slavery was allowed until the Emancipation Proclamation and so on, does that mean it was correct before it was modified? Edited January 31, 2012 by dazzerfong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 hoofhearted4: Yeah, there's one problem though: it's harder to find a black marketeer than actually going up to a gun store and purchasing a weapon. There's also one problem with your absolute belief in the constitution: slavery was allowed until the Emancipation Proclamation and so on, does that mean it was correct before it was modified?Wrong on the first count, 'black marketeer's are fairly easy to find in any major metropolis, and I could probably find you the numbers for two or three in the Atlanta area in a few minutes, if it wasn't illegal. Wrong on the second count. Slavery was LEGAL until the 13-15th amendments were passed, first abolishing slavery/indentured servitude, then granting citizenship to those previously enslaved, and finally giving the males of that population the right to vote. Legal does not mean 'correct'. Legal means allowed under the law. There are a lot of things allowed under the law that I don't see as 'correct'. Correct is relative, legal is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 hoofhearted4:There's also one problem with your absolute belief in the constitution: slavery was allowed until the Emancipation Proclamation and so on, does that mean it was correct before it was modified? The Constitution is our guiding star we have extreme faith in it, it is the ultimate arbiter of what is legal.Penal indentured servitude was legal in Australia...so what does any of that have to do with guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDNA Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Sorry Aurelius I cant share your hooray patriotisms even if it was an ironic / sarcastic comet but to explain that I would have to violate Godwin's Law and maybe even Murphy's law.... I don't like to repeat questions but since there is a misunderstanding due to the fact that someone wants to turn the words in my mouthIt might as well consider the question a new .. if the Audience still don't understand the question i advice trying out for those unsure that they might as well try out the both from the save end 1st and then face it from the dangerous next ... would save me a loot of hassle in explaining, why the right of a free opinion is much more vital to a democracy than the right to own any weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shantih Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Also I may not live in a war zone but violent crimes do exist and more often than not they still involve guns (mostly meant for hunting) but things like that are not so common over here. You live in France, right? Violent crime is on the rise in France, meanwhile violent crime in the US is on a decline. France's violent crime rates have already been higher than those of the US. But now that gap is widening. You know what's on the rise in the US? Gun ownership. Whether or not they're linked is irrelevant, what is relevant is that this disproves the theories that higher gun ownership rates will increase violent crime. It depends on what you call violent crimes. Michael Moore said the same thing in Bowling for Columbine when he compared the number of guns in the US with Canada -but it doesn't mean that the opposite is necessarily true and that not having guns will increase the number of violent crimes (if anything making the access to lethal weapons easier is one of the first objections that comes to mind -not that I expect to convince any gun enthusiast here). Anyway to answer your question, I've lived most of my life in France and it's true that we have our share of problems but it's not as sensational as what Fox News or CNN may have reported -I have in mind the so called "riots" in France, going by what American medias broadcast anyone would have assumed the country was in flames... Comparing violent crime rates between the US and France is really off when discussing gun ownership. It's not because a few kids in the impoverished suburbs burn some cars on December the 31st that the country is turning into a war zone. There is absolutely no contest if you look at the number of murders per capita. The main difference is that we don't own guns (except for hunting) and that no civilian would ever consider carrying a gun around or taking one to a nursery, a school or a day care center. In this country private investigators don't carry guns and we have a deep rooted mistrust of any form of vigilantism. I think it is really preposterous to assume for one second that there are more murders in France than in the US (considering the difference in population of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 hoofhearted4: Yeah, there's one problem though: it's harder to find a black marketeer than actually going up to a gun store and purchasing a weapon. That is a deterrent enough sometimes, though, it's funny how all the bikie shootings in Australia are all commited using Glock's.....and Glocks are illegal in Australia except under very exclusive circumstances....... you dont need to find the shady guy in a trench coat in a dark ally. its actually very easy to obtain weapons without going through the whole process. i know people who have unmarked guns. There's also one problem with your absolute belief in the constitution: slavery was allowed until the Emancipation Proclamation and so on, does that mean it was correct before it was modified? as someone said. i dont believe it was correct. of course im against slavery. if it occured today, and nothing was in the constitution, that doesnt mean i would support it. but it would be that its not against the law....however, the Constitution is not perfect (close though) which is why its possible to amend. to add changes such as slavery, or what have you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Guns ? ...... YES, lots and lots of guns ... it's a fact that when you disarm the public like where I am that the only other people who have them are the criminals.Now you have a defenseless public ... oh, and if you're one of the lucky ones who does have a firearm then you better pray that the criminal actually shoots you firstso that when you shoot him, you have a wound to prove that it was all in the name of self defense ... otherwise it's the orange frock for you. But if you're clever then you will hand the weapon to your wife and let her shhot the evildoer because women normally get off easier ... hmmm, reckon I'll tell my boyfriend to leave his gun with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zegh8578 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 "guns for everyone" is so ridiculous even america doesnt allow for it. well actually, America does allow it. everyone in the country can have a gun. its just how/where/when/what they can carry (it) whichcertain states have set restrictions....but every american can own a gun, and i think states need to just lay off their restrictions and allow everyone to have a gun at any time..loaded including criminals and the hysterically insane? thats what i mean by "everyone" and "restrictions" :]there should be _good measures_ down to ensure gun-owners have a crystal clear police record, and no mental problems whatsoever etc wouldnt do a damn thing. people who wouldnt pass that would find another way to get a gun. all that would do is make the process longer harder and more frustrating for anyone else who wants a gun. there shouldnt be any restrictions on who can own a gun....amendment numero dos says we have the right to own a gun. however, if the state wants to put restrictions on it, it is their right. however i disagree with their decision to do so. you clearly asked for opinions, so refering to currently existing laws regarding exactly what you ask is sortof... guiding the responses to your desired result :D i still think it should at least be _in writing_, if your a complete nutter, and you try to buy a gun the legal way, then you should be barred from it.wouldnt that be better? if you have a twitchy serial killer type, worst case scenario, to let him struggle at least a LITTLE? in another country, such as norway, our famous mass murderer anders breivik struggled a lot aquiring a weapon. he had HK-416 in mind, yeah, dream on dude, he ended up with a hunting rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Sorry Aurelius I cant share your hooray patriotisms even if it was an ironic / sarcastic comet but to explain that I would have to violate Godwin's Law and maybe even Murphy's law.... I don't like to repeat questions but since there is a misunderstanding due to the fact that someone wants to turn the words in my mouthIt might as well consider the question a new .. if the Audience still don't understand the question i advice trying out for those unsure that they might as well try out the both from the save end 1st and then face it from the dangerous next ... would save me a loot of hassle in explaining, why the right of a free opinion is much more vital to a democracy than the right to own any weapons.Freedom was the objective in the Revolution and it was achieved with both the pen and the sword, neither would have succeeded on their own. Question answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts