|
|
Post by Nitro God on May 9, 2006 15:51:54 GMT -5
Just wondering would you get rid of guns or would you keep now?
|
|
|
|
Post by im_an_alien on May 9, 2006 15:55:16 GMT -5
Why don't you vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin on May 9, 2006 16:00:06 GMT -5
If you outlaw guns it's not like criminals still won't be able to get them.
|
|
Kimm
Moderator 
Posts: 2,993
|
Post by Kimm on May 9, 2006 16:05:15 GMT -5
I agree with Spartan. Its not the legal firearms that usually kill people its the underground Saturday night specials that do it.
Armed citizens are the only way the Revolutionary war was even made possible. Guns owned by citizens have their place.
I could see if somebody had a history of violent arrests that persons rights could be revoked but thats a different story.
|
|
Commandhat
Full Member
Just add Active-ness!
Posts: 138
|
Post by Commandhat on May 11, 2006 8:16:26 GMT -5
this is probably going to get me flamed but I would get rid of them. Armed citizens can turn into citizen shooters AKA outlaws by themselves. And is that good? I don't think so.  Just because guns have a place for everything dosen't mean they should be handed over to the people. Guns are sort of like drugs. Overuse them and you get addicted to it. And just guess what happens after that. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin on May 11, 2006 8:36:26 GMT -5
Yeah... notice how drugs are illegal? Do you also notice how people still get them? now let's think here for a minute... you take guns away and people who really want them will get them. I'm sure a criminal won't care about breaking the law.
I can't remember right now because I haven't taken sociologyin a long time... but if I remember correctly every man in Switzerland (or some country in western Europe) is technically part of their military. Thus, at a certain age all men are isued a rifle. Guess what though... Switzerland also has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world. Double you tee eff? I thought guns were bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitro God on May 11, 2006 12:31:27 GMT -5
wH¥ Ðöñt ¥öü  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 11, 2006 13:01:44 GMT -5
this is probably going to get me flamed but I would get rid of them. Armed citizens can turn into citizen shooters AKA outlaws by themselves. And is that good? I don't think so. Just because guns have a place for everything dosen't mean they should be handed over to the people. Guns are sort of like drugs. Overuse them and you get addicted to it. And just guess what happens after that. No, even though I voted to keep the guns, I can see why you would feel the way you do. In fact there are a lot of good points in that post. It's true people would get the guns either way, but there would be fewer guns in circulation. So I can see that logic. But I've always been a hunter, and I've always believed in the citizens rights to bear arms. So I'd keep them. |
|
|
|
Post by im_an_alien on May 11, 2006 15:20:33 GMT -5
wH¥ Ðöñt ¥öü ?? Because I am neutral on the issue. I really don't care. |
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on May 11, 2006 22:37:55 GMT -5
It's all right to be neutral about a topic. Even Congressional People obstain from voting sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitro God on May 12, 2006 1:37:08 GMT -5
wH¥ Ðöñt ¥öü ?? Because I am neutral on the issue. I really don't care. I just want to see what other people say. |
|
Raider
Moderator
[Space for rent]
Posts: 515
|
Post by Raider on May 12, 2006 4:19:42 GMT -5
"I just want to see what other people say."
Now that's a quote. Must remember it.
Mm. Guns. Eh, I'd keep them. I think Bro_C's sig outlines my train of thought.
Lowest rates of gun violence when everyone applicable has one?
Okay, fair enough. I can see why.
1. If you threaten someone (with or without a gun), everyone else in the street has a gun to point at you. Theoretically.
2. Burglaries would be risky- again, because the person you're robbing will have a gun. And is a shot burgular counted as gun violence?
And what if it's because no-one lives long enough to tell about the violence?
Speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin on May 12, 2006 8:33:04 GMT -5
Armed robbery (with a gun, lol) has a lower rate of violence than strong-arm robbery (without a gun, lol). Proven fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on May 13, 2006 11:33:42 GMT -5
Armed robbery (with a gun, lol) has a lower rate of violence than strong-arm robbery (without a gun, lol). Proven fact. It's probably true in a theoretical way anyway. A guy walks into a store shows the clirk a gun most of the time a clirk will conform because that's safer than being shot. An unarmed robber might have to fight for the loot. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 25, 2006 13:32:05 GMT -5
If I were a store owner I would tell the cashiers if somebody comes in with a gun just give them whatever they want. Don't be a hero and possibly get shot.
The money in the register is not worth risking your life.
|
|
