Firearms - Legal or Illegal?

Havoc · #1 04-17-2007, 12:52 PM

What else can you expect after a school shooting? The good old legal VS illegal for guns discussion is here! Debate and share your opinion. My stance on it:

There is nothing wrong with regulation laws on guns. Here in Holland, the country so well known for drug abuse and paid sex, guns are extremely illegal IF you don't have a permit to have one. Get a permit and you can have as many guns as you want (or as many as your permit allows). And whether or not you get a permit is based on your personal history. If you've ever been in jail, no permit. History of violence? No permit. Ect. Ect. In other words only people who are deemed responsible enough to own a gun can have one.
Now don't throw the argument 'some states in America also require permits' at me because you know just as well as I do that even a 4 year old with a fake ID can get a permit.

You need guns for your protection? Protection against who? The other lunatics who also own a gun and got their hands on it just as easily as you did? Protection against burglars? Better make sure he doesn't fall down and hit his head when you shoot him, he might sue you.

If you think having a gun in your night drawer makes you saver then what would be the harm in having a decent permit system in place to make sure only normal people can have guns? If you are so confident that you are responsible enough to handle it then you shouldn't be opposed to a rule like this. Instead everyone is shouting that guns should be completely legal and at the same time all these idiots are wondering where kids get the weapons to commit these school shootings. The people shouting for legality are the exact reason a permit rule should be in place because deep down these people know they wouldn't pass a permit background check, along with more then half of the American population.

Havoc

Mutual Friend · #2 04-17-2007, 01:00 PM

There is an obvious and objective answer to this. Guns are bad, they should be banned except from people in official positions and farmers.

snuzi · #3 04-17-2007, 01:03 PM

I have mixed views regarding the matter.

On the one hand, I feel that guns should be legal, so that you may protect yourself and your family from, say a burglar. Home invasion is almost a bad a crime as murder, meaning, that if the burglar is willing to risk serving the sentence for breaking into your house, that person might always be willing to take your life in the process. Also, if everyone were to own a gun, as I stated in the thread regarding the whole university shooting, crime rates would drop, since a majority of the criminals out there would not want to risk getting killed while performing a crime.

On the other hand, I feel that they should be illegal, since they do cause alot of problems in this world. If it weren't for guns, alot of people would still be alive right now, including the students killed in the shooting yesterday. Guns can cause alot of problems for those who use them irrespossibly or illegally.

Those are my views. At most, I feel that laws that have to do with firearms should be stricter, in order to prevent some unnecessary violence in our society.

Venks · #4 04-17-2007, 01:33 PM

Guns aren't bad, stupid people with guns are bad.
Don't give guns to stupid people, problem solved.

Venks · #5 04-17-2007, 01:36 PM

:

There is an obvious and objective answer to this. Guns are bad, they should be banned except from people in official positions and farmers.

Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns do.
I also want guns banned except from people in security/policing positions.
Sorry farmers no guns for you.

Havoc · #6 04-17-2007, 01:38 PM

You all seem to be forgetting that the majority of the world is stupid...

Mutual Friend · #7 04-17-2007, 01:54 PM

:

Guns don't kill people...

Rappers do!

LOL

:

You all seem to be forgetting that the majority of the world is stupid...

Urgh... shut up shut up shut up shut up

skillyaslig · #8 04-17-2007, 01:58 PM

Well I think there is no problem about people having guns, so if one person goes on a killing rampage you can just shot him/her in the head or back....but it does depend on what kind of gun we are talking about

Kimon · #9 04-17-2007, 01:58 PM

Guns'r bad.

Holla!

Edit, concerning the above: A guy can't go on a rampage if he doesn't have a gun. Unless he's throwing grenades everywhere, which I think would be kind of fun.

Havoc · #10 04-17-2007, 02:01 PM

:

Urgh... shut up shut up shut up shut up

Prove me wrong...

Would be fun coming from you

Havoc

Venks · #11 04-17-2007, 02:32 PM

:

You all seem to be forgetting that the majority of the world is stupid...

I don't remember forgetting that the majority of the world is stupid... I'm pretty sure they are.

A girl once told me I was gonna get struck by lightning because I didn't believe in "God" ... I hope she never gets a gun.

Patrick Vykkers · #12 04-17-2007, 02:46 PM

:

Better make sure he doesn't fall down and hit his head when you shoot him, he might sue you.
Havoc

I think laws like that are a mistake in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, you should have the right to shoot robbers to bits and feed their entrails to dogs. Screw them and their "rights". They chose to flagrantly violate other people's rights by entering their home without permission for the expression intent of stealing other people's property.

skillyaslig · #13 04-17-2007, 03:39 PM

Yep, shoot 'em down. I think you shoud be allowed to kill someone in self defense and not get chucked in jail for 'manslaughter' as if someone was waving a butcher knife in your face or a gun you should be allowed to kil them, so I rekon guns are alright, depends on who gets them and what kind. I mean you're not gonna give rocket launchers to people.

Arxryl · #14 04-17-2007, 03:44 PM

Hm... again, mixed feelings.

I think people should be allowed to have guns, but only after extensive background checking (including mental illness' and such...) and so on and so forth. And common logic should be used in giving said person a gun... If they act like they are going to go out and shoot someone, or they seem too immature to use it correctly, then don't give it to them...

However, the world does seem like it would be safer without every person on Earth owning a gun... But guns shouldn't be restricted to only the few and rich...

As V.I. Lenin said

:

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ...
Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”

Taking all arms from people could be bad...

Summary in case you don't want to read the above: Guns are bad and kill people... Sometimes it would seem the world would be better without them, but as long as we have them, let's use our logic to determine who should and should NOT carry guns.

Mutual Friend · #15 04-17-2007, 03:58 PM

:

I think laws like that are a mistake in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, you should have the right to shoot robbers to bits and feed their entrails to dogs. Screw them and their "rights". They chose to flagrantly violate other people's rights by entering their home without permission for the expression intent of stealing other people's property.

That's ridiculously harsh. And you know it. Someone stepping a toe out of line doesn't immediately give YOU the right to end their lives. Obviously.

snuzi · #16 04-17-2007, 04:00 PM

:

Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns do.
I also want guns banned except from people in security/policing positions.
Sorry farmers no guns for you.

So, you're saying that a person trying to save the life of another by shooting an assailant is stupid? And why shouldn't the public be allowed to wield firearms? What if someone breaks into your house, and intends to kill you?

:

I think laws like that are a mistake in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, you should have the right to shoot robbers to bits and feed their entrails to dogs. Screw them and their "rights". They chose to flagrantly violate other people's rights by entering their home without permission for the expression intent of stealing other people's property.

Precisely. You should have every right to punish such a person. Plus, as far as you know, they may have no problem with killing you or your loved ones while on their greedy endeavor.

Although, the right to shoot someone for breaking and entering could be abused quite easily.

Patrick Vykkers · #17 04-17-2007, 07:42 PM

:

That's ridiculously harsh. And you know it. Someone stepping a toe out of line doesn't immediately give YOU the right to end their lives. Obviously.

A toe out of line? Are you blind? A person breaking and entering into my property, stealing my hard earned goods, and violating my rights should bloody well be met with some good old Mr Shotgun. It's like going into a church, pissing in the holy water and stealing from the collection plate, and crying because the priest chose to bonk you on the head with a Bible.

moxco · #18 04-18-2007, 01:34 AM

Simple. Firearms licences. You need a licence and a good reason to own a gun.

Nemo · #19 04-18-2007, 03:53 AM

:

Although, the right to shoot someone for breaking and entering could be abused quite easily.

Exactly. It's very easy to get someone to go to a secluded area, and just say "He was stealing from me" a month later in court.

Mutual Friend · #20 04-18-2007, 04:55 AM

:

A toe out of line? Are you blind? A person breaking and entering into my property, stealing my hard earned goods, and violating my rights should bloody well be met with some good old Mr Shotgun. It's like going into a church, pissing in the holy water and stealing from the collection plate, and crying because the priest chose to bonk you on the head with a Bible.

Again, it isn't like that at all.

I'm one who thinks that the punishment should fit the crime, that's what I meant by 'putting a toe out of line'. Burglars do not deserve to be murdered, you ****ing idiot. You total ****ing idiot.

My god, you're so bloody tiresome.

Mojo · #21 04-18-2007, 06:08 AM

Only armed forces should have, uhm, arms. That's why they are called "armed" forces. Us civilians shouldn't even have to think about guns. And if you really wanna shoot, go to one of the many gun-clubs. And make sure they lock up the guns after use.

Voodoo Hand · #22 04-18-2007, 06:38 AM

Does anyone involved in this debate, outside of maybe SeaRex, actually
OWN a handgun, or hell any type of firearm?

Point of interest: In vertically every state that passed a Concealed Carry
Permit laws the rate of violent crime has decreased.
Is this the reason? don`t know, but it`s a fact.

Point of interest: Sullivan Act is one of the most strict and one of the oldest
gun control laws around.

Guess where it applies ?? ( no extra credit for you snuzi )

That`s right, good old New York City been around since 1911 or so,
see how well its has worked.

Lastly, yesterday during that debacle if one, just one , soul had been able
to throw down on that sorry little motherf#ucker and return fire ,do you
honestly think the outcome would have been the same ?

Oh, by the way, both guns used at VTech were legal, no debate.

.

snuzi · #23 04-18-2007, 10:31 AM

:

A toe out of line? Are you blind? A person breaking and entering into my property, stealing my hard earned goods, and violating my rights should bloody well be met with some good old Mr Shotgun. It's like going into a church, pissing in the holy water and stealing from the collection plate, and crying because the priest chose to bonk you on the head with a Bible.

Actually, when you put it that way, it isn't justifiable. The main thing I'd be worried about is the safety of my family. The only way I'd pull the trigger on a burglar is if he's a threat to them.

:

Simple. Firearms licences. You need a licence and a good reason to own a gun.

That doesn't work. How do you explain gang members getting their hands on automatic weapons?

:

Exactly. It's very easy to get someone to go to a secluded area, and just say "He was stealing from me" a month later in court.

Precisely. There are some convincing people out there. And with enough evidence, they could claim that a person they killed attacked them first.

:

Again, it isn't like that at all.

I'm one who thinks that the punishment should fit the crime, that's what I meant by 'putting a toe out of line'. Burglars do not deserve to be murdered, you ****ing idiot. You total ****ing idiot.

My god, you're so bloody tiresome.

I agree. However, if they are armed and could possibly cause harm to you or your family, then I feel you do have the right to stop them. Even if that means killing them.

Hobo · #24 04-18-2007, 11:46 AM

I think they should separate society into at LEAST two castes. One for those deemed worthy enough to take the title of Human, and those of the moronic subspecies that seems to have evolved. Everyone who is Human gets guns. They earn more Human points (And what do points mean!?) by shooting the scum of the earth. And when they're gone, each other. The winner will WIN at life. And will spend a lonely, but SHOOTY time for the rest of his life.

moxco · #25 04-18-2007, 11:48 AM

I thing that whoever said you should be able to shoot a theif has ideas worst than mine.

snuzi · #26 04-18-2007, 11:52 AM

:

I thing that whoever said you should be able to shoot a theif has ideas worst than mine.

What do you mean? It's completely justifiable if they're threatening you or your family.

moxco · #27 04-18-2007, 12:00 PM

What about if you see someone walking away with your wallet. BANG their life is over just because of stealling a wallet.
I am against the death sentence to criminals exept for terrost and mass murderes.

snuzi · #28 04-18-2007, 12:03 PM

Dummy, I said that I would only pull the trigger if I was directly threatened by such a person, or if my family was threatened. Someone taking my wallet does not deserve a bullet in the brain. Sure, I'd probably imagine doing that to the person if that happened to me, but it would be unjustifiable.

And um, you do realize that the death sentence is only given to people who kill continuously or in a gruesome manner, right?

moxco · #29 04-18-2007, 12:09 PM

:

And um, you do realize that the death sentence is only given to people who kill continuously or in a gruesome manner, right?

Different countries different rules.
In Australia there is no death sentence. The worst is life time in jail [or should I say 25 years in jail].
Every now and then you hear Australians being hanged in Singapore for smuggling drugs.

Voodoo Hand · #30 04-18-2007, 01:46 PM

:

And um, you do realize that the death sentence is only given to people who kill continuously or in a gruesome manner, right?

That is not exactly true, there are a number of charges that can be considered captial crimes.

To my knowledge, there is nowhere in the U.S. where one can, shoot, stab, strangle, bludgeon, bore, electrocute, explode, implode, poison, drowned, or talk someone to death for just breaking into your house.

Burglary is not a captial crime, hence deadly force cannot be used, plain and simlple.

If you catch someone sneeking off with your TV under their arm you almost have to help them put it in the car, but if a couple of drug crazed lackeys kick down your front door,and are brandishing weapons, a la the latest home invasion trend, please feel free to balze away.

The difference: Eminent Personal Harm. This is basically the only reason U.S.courts will take for capping someone in your home.

:

Exactly. It's very easy to get someone to go to a secluded area, and just say "He was stealing from me" a month later in court.

I suggest you don`t try this, its not that simple.

.