Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by joe762 at 9:25 pm on April 21, 2007 Should we eliminate  all guns or put less restrictions on them so everybody is armed to defend themselves against the killer at VT? -- Posted by silentkiller at 9:25 pm on April 21, 2007 i think we should jsut  make it harder to get guns. because i do think we still need guns to protect ourselves -- Posted by dethrose at 9:26 pm on April 21, 2007 Not everyone needs a gun. Just have armed and armored patrol around schools. -- Posted by I Love Josef Wirefly at 9:26 pm on April 21, 2007 tighter restrictions on firearms -- Posted by stratocaster69 at 9:27 pm on April 21, 2007 so many topics on this aswell,give cops guns.....thats all,xpt yes some places do need to make it harder to acquire a fire arm -- Posted by thrive in bliss at 9:34 pm on April 21, 2007 Civilians should not have guns. Weapon possession should be illegal. Of course, it's never going to happen in the US of A because 90% of the Texas population would be arrested. That's why I'm staying in good ol' Canada. -- Posted by joe762 at 9:37 pm on April 21, 2007 Quote: from thrive in bliss at 9:34 pm on April 21, 2007 Civilians should not have guns. Weapon possession should be illegal. Of course, it's never going to happen in the US of A because 90% of the Texas population would be arrested. That's why I'm staying in good ol' Canada. The only problem is that only criminals would have guns, would you feel safer then? -- Posted by shadowpool at 9:38 pm on April 21, 2007 -- Posted by joe762 at 9:41 pm on April 21, 2007 COOOOOOOLLLL -- Posted by thrive in bliss at 9:44 pm on April 21, 2007 Quote: from joe762 at 12:37 am on April 22, 2007 Quote: from thrive in bliss at 9:34 pm on April 21, 2007 Civilians should not have guns. Weapon possession should be illegal. Of course, it's never going to happen in the US of A because 90% of the Texas population would be arrested.    That's why I'm staying in good ol' Canada. The only problem is that only criminals would have guns, would you feel safer then? So, do you see any civilians defending themselves with guns? 1) It wouldn't be as easy for criminals to get guns. 2) It would be easier to crack down criminals, since anyone possessing a gun would be one. 3) Fewer people would have guns and that alone would make me feel a little safer. Truth be told, anyone who really wants a gun will get one, whether it be legally or illegally. I just don't think civilians need guns. Possession of fire arms can be dangerous even in a "responsible civilian's" hands. -- Posted by joe762 at 10:11 pm on April 21, 2007 Adolf Hitler was in favor of gun control also after 6 million poeple ago. -- Posted by shadowpool at 10:12 pm on April 21, 2007 This topic is freaky.  Everyone is suddenly against having freedom after this shooting.  Do you people realize what would happen after losing the right to own firearms?  We'd lose more rights.  That's not the voice of paranoia, either.  That's how things work.  When the people of our government realize they can get away with whatever they want, guess what?  They will.  And they are.  Maybe if we be less stupid, just a little, this process can be delayed some? The problem is with the trends in our society.  Now it's cool to be stupid, suicidal and depressed.  Anti-depressants are proscribed like candy.  On top of that, the diet of the majority of the people in the US is based on Cheetos, Diet Coke and Big Macs.  I'm not sure people realize how MUCH this changes the way people behave. Yeah, go ahead, pray we ban guns; hope for school mass murders on scales currently unimaginable as the kids find more creative ways to kill.  Guns suck.  They're terrible at killing rooms full of people.  Bombs and poison gas on the other hand, that's what they're used for.  And they're not hard to make.  The media will tell you that they are.  You probably have chemicals under your kitchen sink that could be used to end the life in a room full of people.  This is no exaggeration.  You probably do.  Take the guns away and the kids start looking under the sink. Things aren't looking good right now, but gun control isn't the way to fix things.  People need to be educated.  A redesigned school system could bring us out of these times.  People need to know how to live.  But system isn't designed around letting people do this.  It's designed around money. -- Posted by joe762 at 10:14 pm on April 21, 2007 I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS PERSON, IF HERE WAS HERE, I WOULD BUY HIM THE BIGGEST BEER!! -- Posted by HARDYZ at 12:01 am on May 26, 2007 elimination on assult riffles...... -- Posted by sos at 7:52 am on July 17, 2007 Elimination of all firearms nation wide -- Posted by Roc Kor at 3:56 am on July 22, 2007 Quote: from thrive in bliss at 12:44 am on April 22, 2007 So, do you see any civilians defending themselves with guns? 1) It wouldn't be as easy for criminals to get guns. 2) It would be easier to crack down criminals, since anyone possessing a gun would be one. 3) Fewer people would have guns and that alone would make me feel a little safer.   Truth be told, anyone who really wants a gun will get one, whether it be legally or illegally. I just don't think civilians need guns. Possession of fire arms can be dangerous even in a "responsible civilian's" hands. First of all, civilians in the United States use guns in a defensive situation 2,500,000 times a year. Civilians DO need guns. Read the works of America's founding fathers. Armed civilians defend themselves, their property, their state, and FROM tyranny within their own government. And the police aren't there to protect you. Even the courts have ruled that the POLICE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. Besides... if guns are banned... what will I play with during my free time? =( (Oh since some people are smart and want sources for the claims I make: www.gunfacts.info   ) -- Posted by helloworld at 12:52 pm on July 24, 2007 Quote: from thrive in bliss at 12:44 am on April 22, 2007 2) It would be easier to crack down criminals, since anyone possessing a gun would be one. You seem to be under the misguided impression that there is no gun control in the United States. Not everybody can legally acquire firearms in this country. It is very rare that police encounter criminals with licensed firearms, and when they do, the gun has automatically become illegal because they're using it in a crime. Thus, this really isn't a problem and would have no bearing on cracking down on criminals. 3) Fewer people would have guns and that alone would make me feel a little safer. Highly doubtful, because preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms is not a guarantee that illegal arms smuggling will suddenly stop. Besides, you can be killed with a machete, too. There are plenty of alternate threats where a gun would be an appropriate tool of defense. Possession of fire arms can be dangerous even in a "responsible civilian's" hands. So can a steak knife or a motor vehicle. -- Posted by helloworld at 12:54 pm on July 24, 2007 Quote: from Roc Kor at 6:56 am on July 22, 2007 And the police aren't there to protect you. Even the courts have ruled that the POLICE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. It sounds like you may have misinterpreted a court decision somewhere there. -- Posted by Roc Kor at 8:29 pm on July 24, 2007 Misinterpreted? I think not. http://www.outlawslegal.com/friendly/scam.htm (Explains the law. Tried to find something good without a pro-gun bias but hey it still does the job. Even has a list of other supporting court cases.) There are several court cases that state the police only have an obligation to protect the community and not individuals. MAYBE if you read the link I gave you ( www.gunfacts.info ) you'd learn something. The GunFacts document supports my position with actual facts and lists every single source. Heck, if you see something incorrect you can email the author and he WILL fix it or remove it. Because we don't need to skew our facts (or lie) to get our point accross. (Not accusing you of lying, but it's a fact that many anti-gun groups are... less than truthful.) Until the margin between the people killed by guns and the 2.5 million self-defense uses of firearms gets MUCH closer, your banning guns idea holds no water. -- Posted by j3100 at 1:01 am on July 25, 2007 2) It would be easier to crack down criminals, since anyone possessing a gun would be one. Do you just want to throw people in jail for any old reason?? If we outlawed cars, it would be even easier to track down criminals since anyone driving one would be one too...and fewer people would be killed by drunk drivers, or worse...cellphone drivers right? -- Posted by Roc Kor at 4:13 am on July 25, 2007 Whoah, j3100, slow down there. Don't confuse them with logic. -- Posted by helloworld at 12:19 pm on July 25, 2007 Quote: from Roc Kor at 11:29 pm on July 24, 2007 There are several court cases that state the police only have an obligation to protect the community and not individuals. I don't really see what relevance this has to gun control. Whether or not there exists an "obligation" to protect individuals is quite irrelevant. Either way, the police can't always be around when someone gets victimized. -- Posted by dreamweaver at 8:45 am on July 26, 2007 Quote: from dethrose at 12:26 am on April 22, 2007 Not everyone needs a gun. Just have armed and armored patrol around schools. That takes a lotof $$$ for that, unfortunately. Personally, I think they should restrict who they sell the guns to.  The guy was obviously mentally unstabled and should have never been allowed to own the gun. There were records of that before the whole incident even started. It's insane how they wont allow foreignors buy guns but they will allow mentally unstabled americans buy them. -- Posted by Roc Kor at 9:05 am on July 26, 2007 They technically don't allow mentally unstable. Cho (Virginia Tech murderer) slipped through a loophole that has since been closed by Virginia Law and will soon be closed by federal law. But anyway, Harris and Klebold (Columbine murderers) broke like... what... 19... 20 firearms laws getting their weapons? Cho wouldn't have been stopped by some firearm law. It probably wouldn't have affected the timing of his murders because he bought the guns months in advance. And the fact that police can't protect you means that you must protect yourself. Best method of doing so? Firearm. By resisting a criminal with a firearm you will only get harmed 6% of the time, as opposed to 25% by doing nothing, 40% by resisting with a knife, and 45% for non-violent resistance. And 76% of the time you never have to fire a shot (the cowardly criminal will run most of the time.) Gun control (of any kind) isn't the answer to crime, freedom, security or anything. It's just a type of "feel-good" legislation that politicians pass so they can say they're tough on crime or something like that. It's also a step toward a utopian and Orwellian society. Facism cannot succeed if the populace is in a position to resist with arms. Ask Hitler. He had to disarm all those dangerous criminals and terrorists (Jews, Catholics, Gays, Handicapped people, Gypsies, dissenters - all horrible folks wouldn't you agree? They shouldn't have guns!) before he could round them up and... dispose of them. Funny how a group of Jews with 6 handguns made an ass of the Germans in the Warsaw ghettos. Imagine if they were allowed to keep their personal arms? At least the 11 million people slaughtered in the Holocaust would've at least taken some o' the bastards with 'em. =( -- Posted by helloworld at 11:25 am on July 26, 2007 Quote: from Roc Kor at 12:05 pm on July 26, 2007 Gun control (of any kind) isn't the answer to crime, freedom, security or anything. It's just a type of "feel-good" legislation that politicians pass so they can say they're tough on crime or something like that. No gun control? So the drug dealer on the corner should be allowed to arm himself to the teeth without legal consequence? Yes, we all know he's going to do it anyway, but there has to be a law in place making it illegal so that he can be hit with harsh consequences for doing so when he gets caught. There are a lot of different kinds of gun control laws. Some of them are a good idea, others are stupid. Like artificially limiting civilian magazine capacities to 11 rounds in New York State. -- Posted by Roc Kor at 7:40 pm on July 26, 2007 Oh that's totally not what I meant. I was talking "preventative" gun control. Like banning guns or certain types of ammo or magazines and such. Of course criminals with guns should be prosecuted heavily for posessing a firearm. -- Posted by Xusk at 1:30 am on July 27, 2007 If we all had guns....people would actually think twice. -- Posted by Poker Shark at 4:09 am on July 27, 2007 No restriction on firearms. -- Posted by DESKPOWER at 12:20 am on Aug. 11, 2007 tighter restrictions on firearms -- Posted by Fraser Stewart at 3:51 am on Aug. 14, 2007 Should just stop selling them all together IMO Pages: 1 2  Next