Gun Control

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Should Gun control be allowed?

Yes
120
52%
No
84
36%
Other (please explain)
27
12%
 
Total votes : 231

Unread postby Chu Liu Xiang » Sun Dec 01, 2002 9:26 pm

TheYellowDwarf wrote: I fully agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I'm glad that you and your family fully understand how devastating guns are to people. Unfortunately, not all people are like your family. There are too many people who have the potential of killing others using firearms to devastating effects. By the time a gun-owner has commited a crime using his gun, it's already too late for gun control and crime prevention.


Guns kill people. I don't think 6 year olds are born with the malicious thought of killing another. Its the gun left lying around that kills people.
There's too many irresponsible people that possess guns. Gun control laws need to be enacted and enforced to take guns away from those people.
Besides, the Right to Bear Arms is out of date. No one is going to gather a militia to fight these days. What's the use of guns when missiles can easily wipe out the opposition? Also, I doubt that anyone lives off of hunting. And why would someone need a semi-automatic weapon? Guns seriously needs to be limited.
"It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man."
I am that bigger man. :lol:
User avatar
Chu Liu Xiang
Student
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:50 pm
Location: don't ask

Unread postby Iznoach, Legendary Dragon » Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:20 am

Chu Liu Xiang wrote:Guns kill people. I don't think 6 year olds are born with the malicious thought of killing another. Its the gun left lying around that kills people.
There's too many irresponsible people that possess guns.


Wow, you make a statement and immediately contradict yourself :lol: . You say that guns kill people, then turn around and say it's the irresponsible person leaving it around's fault. Thanks for proving my earlier point. :wink:

Chu Liu Xiang wrote:Gun control laws need to be enacted and enforced to take guns away from those people.


I couldn't agree more, irresponsible spastics need not own or possess firearms.

Chu Liu Xiang wrote:Besides, the Right to Bear Arms is out of date. No one is going to gather a militia to fight these days. What's the use of guns when missiles can easily wipe out the opposition? Also, I doubt that anyone lives off of hunting. And why would someone need a semi-automatic weapon? Guns seriously needs to be limited.


You never know, it could happen. It's a little known fact that it (the Constitution) provides for legal rebellion, if the government should become corrupt...
"Armed and dangerous, ain't too many can hang wit us
straight up weed no angel dust, label us Notorious..."--Biggie
User avatar
Iznoach, Legendary Dragon
Gunslinger
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:28 am
Location: French Landing, WI

Unread postby Han Xin » Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:44 am

Iznoach wrote:You never know, it could happen. It's a little known fact that it (the Constitution) provides for legal rebellion, if the government should become corrupt...

:lol: American and their precious constitutions. I mean that document was already out-dated by 1800AD. Does human suppose to evolved into bigger and better thing?

There one way that the American government could virtually makes all guns useless without taken guns away. Just prohibit the sales of bullets. Now don't tell me that the american constitution said that american had the right to have bullets too? :lol:
Han Xin's past-time - 沉湎於酒, 淫於聲色, 左手擁華姬,右手抱越女:lol:
User avatar
Han Xin
Shu Emperor
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 1:20 am
Location: In the middle between Love and Lust. ^_^

Unread postby Iznoach, Legendary Dragon » Tue Dec 03, 2002 8:04 am

Han Xin wrote: :lol: American and their precious constitutions. I mean that document was already out-dated by 1800AD. Does human suppose to evolved into bigger and better thing?


That's why we have the Judicial Branch of gov't, it's there to interpret the meaning of various parts of the constitution in reference to modern problems/cases.

Han Xin wrote:There one way that the American government could virtually makes all guns useless without taken guns away. Just prohibit the sales of bullets. Now don't tell me that the american constitution said that american had the right to have bullets too? :lol:


Now I suppose not, since bullets weren't used back then. I think it was "powder and ball" that was used in the muskets.
"Armed and dangerous, ain't too many can hang wit us
straight up weed no angel dust, label us Notorious..."--Biggie
User avatar
Iznoach, Legendary Dragon
Gunslinger
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:28 am
Location: French Landing, WI

Unread postby Chu Liu Xiang » Mon Dec 09, 2002 9:25 pm

Iznoach wrote:Wow, you make a statement and immediately contradict yourself :lol: . You say that guns kill people, then turn around and say it's the irresponsible person leaving it around's fault. Thanks for proving my earlier point. :wink:


Its their fault for leaving guns lying around, but it is not them that kill a person. It can be their kids, too young to know any better, that pick up a gun and kill someone. Thus whether you blame the irresponsible person or the kid, the gun is still partially responsible for killing a person. It makes the killing so much easier than say a club.
"It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man."
I am that bigger man. :lol:
User avatar
Chu Liu Xiang
Student
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:50 pm
Location: don't ask

Unread postby Iznoach, Legendary Dragon » Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:44 am

Chu Liu Xiang wrote:Its their fault for leaving guns lying around, but it is not them that kill a person. It can be their kids, too young to know any better, that pick up a gun and kill someone. Thus whether you blame the irresponsible person or the kid, the gun is still partially responsible for killing a person. It makes the killing so much easier than say a club.


I still think that comes down to the person, and not the weapon. I see where you're getting at, but let me pose this scenerio: A man breaks into your house in the middle of the night, packing a gun. You wake up and hear the guy, so you reach in the nightstand, and pull out your billy club, to go and face off with the would be robber/killer. Wouldn't you rather have a gun? I know I would...
"Armed and dangerous, ain't too many can hang wit us
straight up weed no angel dust, label us Notorious..."--Biggie
User avatar
Iznoach, Legendary Dragon
Gunslinger
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:28 am
Location: French Landing, WI

Unread postby Chu Liu Xiang » Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:19 pm

Iznoach wrote:I still think that comes down to the person, and not the weapon. I see where you're getting at, but let me pose this scenerio: A man breaks into your house in the middle of the night, packing a gun. You wake up and hear the guy, so you reach in the nightstand, and pull out your billy club, to go and face off with the would be robber/killer. Wouldn't you rather have a gun? I know I would...


If gun control laws were in place, then the man wouldn't likely have a gun. So instead of a gun, he has a knife. Either way, I'd call the police and have them use their guns on him.
"It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man."
I am that bigger man. :lol:
User avatar
Chu Liu Xiang
Student
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:50 pm
Location: don't ask

Unread postby Jiang Zhi » Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:43 pm

Oh, about school shootings, waht I think is, it is not necessary the video games adn the hard music but it's the peer influence.

School shooters are usually outcasts and loners at school feeling left out. I mean, jocks and normal people also plays games like doom and counterstrike (hell, i play DW and Jedi Knights and i don't go around shooting people) but they have morals and aren't angered by people around them.

Gun control laws however SHOULD be more restrictive and not have minors get ahold of them :)
Jiang Zhi of Foshan, style Maodi
~*!越武帝!*~ - 我愛我的妻子孫尚香!
Nan Hai, Jiaozhou

Laconius Arts and Design My Rot3K fanfiction
User avatar
Jiang Zhi
Sun Shang Xiang's puppy-eyed slave
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 3:07 am
Location: Sun Shang Xiang's bedroom

Unread postby Jonathan » Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:12 am

Minor’s get there hands on gun on most occasions, because their parents own them, and don’t keep them in a safe place. When it comes to shootings, that is usually about emotions, when a student is picked on for years he/she develop a lot of negative feelings such as anger and hate. Then he snaps, grabs on most occasions his parent’s gun and kills.

On the topic about if gun control was better enforced, would criminals get there hands on gun still? Yes they sure would, it isn’t a matter of going to a gun store and buying a gun, they have friends and connections, whether it is the black market or a local drug dealer. I am against gun control, if someone who has the intent to harm me owns a gun (and they can get them no matter what law is laid down) I want to own one too.
Also known as Zhuge Xuanshi
"The problem with the gene pool is, there's no lifeguard."
-Steven Wright
User avatar
Jonathan
Censored
Censored
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:14 am

Unread postby Iznoach, Legendary Dragon » Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:46 am

Chu Liu Xiang wrote:If gun control laws were in place, then the man wouldn't likely have a gun. So instead of a gun, he has a knife. Either way, I'd call the police and have them use their guns on him.


But the thing is, criminals, nine times out of ten, either get their guns from Mafia/black market "powderhorns", or other illegal means. I think that if guns were controlled too much more, the criminals would still have their guns, but normal tax paying citizens would be down to defending themselves with knives, clubs, bats, etc. That's not really fair, now is it? It sucks, I'll be the first to admit, but that's the reality of it. Outlaw stuff all you want, people will still be able to get it if they really want it. Does that mean people should be using AK-47's and M-16's for home defense? I don't think so. I think the current legislation regarding fully automatic weapons and assault rifles is sufficient. I don't think it needs to be extended to semi-automatic handguns (pistols, revolvers).
"Armed and dangerous, ain't too many can hang wit us
straight up weed no angel dust, label us Notorious..."--Biggie
User avatar
Iznoach, Legendary Dragon
Gunslinger
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:28 am
Location: French Landing, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved