Staredit Network

I have extremely strong anti-gun ownership views, but I don't want to get into another argument about it (would be 3 times in a year).

Basically, I don't think that it is necessary for citizens to:
1. Carry concealed firearms.
2. Own any automatic weapon.
3. Store any firearm at their place of residence.


1. I think that cops should be able to because you never know what could happen. Regular citezins (stfu i cant spell) shouldnt be able to
2.You need a permit to be able to buy a automatic weapon unless you buy it illegally. They don't all automatic weapons for anybody. They only allow them in certain cases. Like if you just buy them for show.
3.Why not? Thats the one place you should be able to have a gun. I mean what happend if a guy came in your house with a gun are you just going to site their and let them do what ever they want??


However, I do think that the following are necessary/ok:
1. Those whose occupation requires them to own a gun should be able to keep it at their place of residence. (farmers with shotguns, professional hunters etc.)
2. All firearms should only be fired at a firing range.
3. All owned firearms should be stored securely at the firing range when not in use.
4. ONE handgun should be able to be stored in the owner's place of residence if average police response times to their area are > 10 minutes.

1.ok i agree
2.Then how will the hunters and farmers and police be able to use their weapon?
3.Thats stupid. Because a cop wants to have his gun with him when a robbery occours they're not going to want to go to the shooting range pick up their gun drive to the bank robbery.
4.That would be stupid again because a gun doesnt take 10 minutes to cock it and shoot. It takes one second..

2. The farmers and police are the ones who can carry around a gun.
3. Cops carry their gun around
4. I don't think you understand, Will is saying that if you live 10 min away from the police, then you can carry a gun because police response might take too long.

In the hands of an intelligent person who wouldn't use the gun for any purposes other than self defense then I see nothing wrong with owning a gun.

I think people should be allowed to own a gun for selfdefense, even though I doubt they will realistically need it in real life, but they should have extremely tight screening measures and qualifications to be able to get a license. Also it should also be only for people who live in a place where the crime rate is high and like Will said the cops can't get there in time.

An alternative to a firearm I think would be some sort of device where you just press a button and it automatically dials 911 and gives all the information. That way cops can get there quickly or if you can't reach a phone.

I think that they should invent nonlethal weapons that fire some sort of handicapping ammunition, something that wouldn't kill people, but really hurt them so they couldn't do anything. That way you can't really accidentally or intentionally kill someone, yet for self defense it would be fine. In like a robbery or an attack wouldn't being able to knock the person out be just as effective as killing them?

No system would work. There will always be ways to get around it, or maybe the 'highly qualified' person will have some sort of mental breakdown? Then EVERYONE he targets would be screwed, because they weren't qualified. Knocking someone out wouldn't work, because people could just use those same weapons to knock the police, guards, you, etc. out. Then use a knife or something to finish the job, thereby rendering them useless. Really, there isn't a safe way to handle guns.

Well finishing someone off with a knife would be if the person wanted to intentionally commit murder, which anyone could do with probably a baseball thrown to someone's head and then a knife...

Though an alternative to guns that only knocks people out will probably prevent accidental shooting deaths, like if some kid gets a hold of a gun. And plus the fact that you would need something else to kill someone else is already solving the problem in someway. Some kid can't just buy a gun and start killing people.'



Of course there's a way to get around it, but tighting up wouldn't hurt. Having some type of good system is better than none at all.

But what exactly do you need to do to obtain a gun license?

Actually, I think no one really needs a gun unless they want to kill someone. There could be other alternatives to self defense I think.

Any fire arm should be obtainable some how. Well, at least small arms. The question of need is, you may not need it now, but in the future if America is ever invaded by china or another super power, you should be able to fight back. Automatic weapons? If you live in a rough hood and a gang of 6 dudes break into your house all with guns, you should need some serious fire power to repell or intimitade your foes.

But it should be nearly impossible to obtian automatic or more powerful guns. Hey, a bullet is a bullet, it just matters how many are flying at you.

3. What about hunters they wont be able to hunt.
4.I understand but what about the people under 10 minutes are they just going to sit their for 9 minutes while some guy is breaking into their house with a gun to their face? EXACTLY.. they won't. (The cops take forever to get anywhere anyways jk)

How about an automatic gun that fires nonlethal ammunition or something.

What like the guns that they used when the red sox won the American league championship and one of the cops shot a girl and killed her with a "non-leathal" gun. That girl was from my town My town is such a small town too....

Maybe they should try to design better nonlethal ammunition.

I say keep guns, makes the government think twice when they try to screw our rights over. We have the right to cause a revolution. (Between you and me, we're long over due for one too)
If we had no power to fight back, the government would basically piss on the constitution, (Like the patriot act for example) and with out the constitution, we're not really america. I hope the next time the senate passes another law like the patriot act, somebody go up in there with a sniper rifle, and starting shooting some of the people who voted for it. You know, in self defence of liberties. Maintain the balance of power.

Gun Control
With proper consideration to who is allowed to own guns, allowing ownership and concealed carrying could benefit our country greatly. Banning guns across our country would only take guns out of the hands of innocent people. Those who are planning to use guns illegally, obtain them illegally. Therefore a nation-wide ban would do more harm than good.

Guns are doing a lot of good for our community even if they are doing some harm as well. For example, in 98% of the cases in which a potential victim of a robbery shows the robber or robbers a gun, the robber will run away. I know that is an amazing statistic but it is true. That is why putting guns in the right hands will help ourselves as a country, prevent many robberies. That’s because of something called the “substitution” effect. This means that if one person owns a gun, robbers will be afraid others like him or her own a gun. So if there are five stores on a certain street, and there is an attempted robbery but the owner of the store pulls out a gun, robbers will be afraid to rob any of the stores on that street for fear that the owners own guns. That is due to the certain rationality that criminals have, which is they will not attempt a robbery unless they are sure they can get away with it.

We need guns to protect our selves these gats. In Canada and Britain, where guns are completely banned, more often the victim of a robbery will also be murdered because the robbers are afraid to leave any witnesses. However, in America there are much less cases of victims of robbery being murdered because more Americans can defend themselves with guns. Furthermore, if guns were canned across the nation people would still be able to buy guns. Many pro gun control people tend to ignore the amount of times guns are used in a way that is legal. Every years there’s 2.5 million cases of gun self defenses annually. That is a potential 2.5 million deaths that is prevented. Lastly studies have shown that allowing guns to be carried concealed on average will drop crime rates by 69%.

A.W.A.R.E (Arming Woman Against Rape Endangerment) sais that woman need guns to protect themselves from rape. As I stated earlier about putting guns in the hands of proper people, A.W.A.R.E says the same thing here as well. A.W.A.R.E even suggests training courses that women and even men could take. Here is an example: In New Jersey on day a woman in the car with her baby stopped at a red light only to find two men approaching her car from opposite sides. She immediately took out a gun she had in her car an aimer it at one of them en and they both ran away. This was heard on a radio station, and was not filed to the police because in places like New Jersey you are not allowed to carry guns concealed outside of your own home. It is also studied in America that woman are 2.4 times more likely to get hurt in a crime if they don’t resist than if they do resist. For men it is 1.4 times. Most also agree that elderly people, male or female need additional protection against crime.

And also, more people owning guns does not cause more crimes. Studies have shown that when crime rates go up, gun sales go up. Not when gun sales go up, crime rates go up. A perfect example is Switzerland. In Switzerland, there are very loose gun control laws, and there is barely any crime. This supports my statement above that more guns do not cause more crimes. Guns in intelligent hands do cause good. Also, if there was a complete nation-wide gun ban, many people would not turn their guns over to the police. This is for the same reason who people who drank in a mature, acceptable way during Prohibition continued to drink. They felt that because heavy drinkers/alcoholics who got liquor banned were making them pay for something they were doing which was drinking irresponsibly. Therefore, people who own guns legally now feel that because certain people can’t use guns acceptably are making them pay. Many people feel that they need guns to protect themselves and their family, and that is true. Again, guns do some terrible things, but they do much, much more good.

Zb2k I agree with everything you said.

Yeah, earlier I was talking about regular citizens, not law enforcers. The regular rules do not have to apply to those who need a firearm for their occupation.

Sorry for not making that clear - of course a cop shouldn't have to go to a firing range to pick up his gun.

The problem with looser gun laws is that it is a somewhat hormesial effect. Societies with banned huns have high homocide rates, as gun control laws become looser, the rate falls and then suddenly spikes.

Also it would be extremely hard to screen for who has the right to own a gun. BTK, for example, was a respected priest, and he is a convicted serial killer.

aw man guns r so cool. from videogames i know many types of guns (ie ak-47, HEAT stinger missiles, etc) i belive that guns should b distributed and we should have a massive killfest!!!!! deathmatch style!!!!! last person standing gets the world! mua ha ha ha ha! oh, remember 2 things:
1 : i am american
2 : americans r soooooooooooooo violent
mua ha ha ha ha!

ADDITION:
hello

yous the kind of person that makes adults want video games banned..

He's a spamer//flamer just ignore him and report his posts. On the pace that he's going he'll most probably be banned//suspended soon.

but if the creator of guns knew that people would someday use them to murder other people, why would s/he have made guns in the first place?

Guns aren't always for murder. Through history people have made guns to try and stop war becuase they thought the countries would see the power of the gun and not want to fight. An example would be Mr. Gatling, who invented the Gatling gun. Modern version today is the Mini gun.

That's trying to say we didn't make the Atom Bomb for blowing up the Japanese, we made it to "strike fear into our enemys".

If this is really true, it was pointless because technology is always advancing.

You will never be able to create guns to "Stop" any wars.

Ya, thats how we think NOW a days.

People in the 1800s and early 1900s thought if they made a powerful gun, people would be scared to go to war. Obviouslly their gun changed nothing.

You probably didn't know that, you go along and play, this is a big boy serious discussion

In the immortal words of (U)Bolt_Head:

Usually the bullet kills them.