{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/26/2015 6:40:03 PM
2
No guns don't = violence necessarily if someone wants to kill someone they will find a way to do it... But that doesn't mean we should make them easy to get
But more, easier to obtain guns = more gun deaths
I don't think guns should be outlawed but I also don't think people should be able to walk around wherever they want with a AR15 or a hand gun strapped to them
Kansas just passed a law saying you no longer need a permit to carry your gun wherever you go also know as a canceled and carry permit
You can buy ammo online without a background check or even having a gun permits
Im a felon and can't own a gun but every year when the gun show comes to town I can go buy a gun without showing id because my state Missouri like most states don't require proof of a permit or a background check at gun shows,
Don't you see a problem with this???
English
-
Regulation will not stop criminals from obtaining guns. They will still get them on the black market and most often get better weapons you can get legally depending on state laws. Such as my state and alot of states fully auto is illegal yet if you know the right people and have cash you can go out and buy a fully auto M16 if you would like. If you put harder regulations out there for guns bought in sporting good stores or gun shows the illegal markets are not going to follow that and they will still be distributed among criminals. Also i am sure most weapons being used in most deaths are not registered to the user of the weapon, it is stolen or purchased illegally. Therefore with our rights to have guns the people need to be more pro active in securing their weapons from theft. Even if we had a strict gun ban they will still be in the criminals hands.
-
Obviously but the point is it will be MUCH more difficult. You still reduce the population of criminals carrying guns which will only have a positive effect.
-
I dont think thats true. Drugs such as cocaine, meth and herione are still here in full force and they are strictly illegal. So i dont see how strict laws about firearms will stop criminals from getting them. If there was a way, i would all for it but the fact is they will always get them if they want them just like drugs. The only thing stricter laws will do is give up more rights to law abiding citizens and give more power to a already over powered and greedy government.
-
I don't think that's true. The fact you have a direct correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crimes should tell you the state endorsing gun ownership makes it even worse. Countries that ban guns have statistically lower rates of gun crimes. Facts are facts... With drugs we have no idea how bad the problem would be if they were completely legalised and un-regulated such that you could go into a store and buy them with no limitations. Imagine how high heroin deaths would be if addicts could walk into a store and buy some without being asked for anything other than ID to prove they are 18+?
-
I see a problem with enforcement. I also see a problem with the law. I also see a problem with irresponsibility. There are lots of problems when it comes down to it. But the question is or should be "are we free?" It seems simple enough but it is a real and true question. Are we free? And to what extent. You cannot protect everyone from everything at all times. Some make (assert) the argument that we can lessen death by restriction/banning guns. Okay fine. We ban them. Deaths still happen. What now. Do we ban something else or accept the level of deaths? Most who want to control behavior want complete control. They would like to ban driving, eating unhealthy, drinking, drug use, religion, etc. all of these things have people shouting that they should be banned or restricted in some way. And if it's for the greater good, our safety, etc, why not ban them? So again I ask, "are we free?" To run our lives as we see fit as long as we do not take anyone else's liberty. I would contend if punishments were harsher, there would be a lot less crime/murder. But it will never get harsher in the foreseeable future so it really doesn't matter I guess. The only logical (and believe me it isn't logical) conclusion of someone who wants softer penalties for committing a crime (except drug crime for some reason) is to try and prevent crimes. Ie banning items, legislating behavior, etc.
-
I don't think the argument is about "are we free". If you want that kind of society we should have anarchy. By your logic you could make the argument to legalise almost anything -we should just leave it up to the population to make sure they do the right thing... Laws obviously impose on our freedom for the greater good. You have to weigh up the pro's and cons of access to guns. In all honesty I can't see ANY pros of access to guns - they only make things worse and escalate violence in every situation they are used. Banning guns is a step to reducing crime. In terms of harsher punishments - this is a deterrent. You still rely on people to be sane enough to be deterred. Some people just won't care either way. Minimising access is a more direct route to prevention. Also when you put "some" in your statement, I feel like it is only people in countries that currently have guns legalised. I have never met a European (and I've lived in France, Switzerland and the UK as well as visited many other countries) that wants to legalised guns in their respective country of birth. Switzerland which you mentioned is a special case, but in general they are a special case. They are not even official EU members.
-
Those countries have never been free. At least not as free until recently. They have always been ruled by one person (dictator), monarchs, oligarchs and the like. They have been told from the time of their existence that having any means of self defense is evil and bad. I'm sorry but no one is better than anyone else. We all have equal value. Kings and peasants are the same. And this is coming from a non-spiritual, non-religious, agnostic. And yes the laws should be up to the people. That is what a constitutional republic is. It is the people (representatives) who decide what laws they support. The constitution specifically lays out that the states have the power to govern themselves. The one size fits all governance of the federal government isn't how this country was founded.
-
You realise America is a young country right? And parliament was established in the UK before America's existence? So technically we have been free longer than you have? Almost 100 years longer in fact... Where the did you pull that ridiculous statement from? And yes, Kings and peasants are equal, I don't think you will find many people here who disagree with that. Tbh based upon that one statement it sounds more to me like you have been slightly brainwashed to believe we are less free? I certainly don't feel less free... I DO feel less safe going to the US knowing there are people who own guns though. Me owning a gun wouldn't make me feel as safe as knowing they are illegal. Why the hell should I have to gamble my life on whether I can pull the trigger faster or not? At least if someone has a knife I can run the -blam!- away. Yes laws should be up to the people, but the people also need to not be ignorant to make well thought out decisions. Your statement about freedom was pretty ignorant. You are ignoring what is staring you in the face - access to guns inevitably increases gun crimes and homicides. It's not about having a means of defence being evil. It is about what is best for everyone and ensuring other peoples liberty to own a gun isn't used to infringe upon other people's freedom. You realise a handgun's ONLY purpose is to kill right? We are arguing about whether it should be legal to own something that is designed to kill a human being. Oh and I am also a non-spiritual, non-religious, agnostic and a scientist by profession...
-
I hope you will too, but I will agree to disagree. Obviously we are rooted in our opinions. And I appreciate the conversation to allow me to challenge my opinions. I have a separate question though. How do you feel about a royal family still in existence in the UK living off of the money that they (their ancestors) took from the populous of the UK?
-
Agreed. I appreciate the debate too. It's interesting to hear what someone from the US actually thinks. OK the royal family - don't get me started lol. I am completely against the monarchy for reasons I stated before - a King and peasant are equal. No one should have that boost in life just because of where they are born, and it sure as hell shouldn't be supported by the state. Opinions are pretty split here though, some people think they bring in a lot from tourism, but it's heavily debatable to as whether we break even on them or not.
-
That is interesting. I never thought about the "tourism" aspect. Ironically enough it's probably Americans who are the ones visiting for the purpose of seeing the royal family. The universe or at least earth has to have a sense of humor.
-
Lol yeah that's actually true. For some reason you guys seem to love them. Other people also say they help with public relations. Again that is debatable though....
-
I would argue they help with debate like the Kennedy's, Clinton's or Bushs help.....not much. But who says America doesn't have royals. Haha. Sad state of affairs my friend. Good day.
-
Lol yeah exactly... Ah well. Maybe one day. Nice talking to you.
-
Well if the freedom to own a gun is interfering with the freedom of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness than sorry first amendment trumps all
-
Also according to the federalist and anti-federalist papers the founders were very clear of the opinion that the only way to ensure the first amendment was through the second amendment.
-
I'm being serious but how is my grandfathers (I don't have one) gun affecting your liberty?
-
Im sure the victims of senseless gun violence would say that their right to life was infringed on
-
What about deaths drunk driving? Should alcohol be banned? What about deaths from collisions? Should vehicles be banned? Vehicle deaths are I believe higher than gun deaths.
-
I didn't say it was Do you feel the same way about gay marriage or legal drugs or prostitution Should it be ok because it doesn't effect you?
-
I think all of those should be legal.
-
Just wondering
-
No I get it. Stereotypes exist for a reason and usually the pro-gun people are against gay-marriage (actually I'm anti any government involvement in marriage. I think hetero and homosexual couples should only be able to file for civil unions. There is historical writings that government "marriage" was instituted for taxation purposes, social security, etc but that's neither here nor their), anti-legalization of a number of things etc. I try to be as consistent as I can on all of these issues. Obviously if a company is conning or poisoning it's customers the state/federal government should step in. Obviously if someone kills someone else non-justifiable the government (city/county/state/federal) should step in. But if someone is smoking marijuana, shooting heroine or huffing paint in their home and falls asleep and then gets up the next day and goes to work safely and no one gets hurt, who cares. Same with prostitution as long as the participants are of legal age and consenting. Gay marriage/union who cares. If State A legalizes it an state B doesn't move to state A. I just think we, all of us, give up way to much freedom to people who go into politics "poor" but come out millionaires. All the while the only thing the citizens get are more restrictions, more taxes and we are more controlled.
