The debate "It is not the gun that kills you but the person who shoots it so gunfree zones won't prevent murder" was started by
March 31, 2016, 12:48 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
ProudAmerican888 posted 1 argument, Maximus posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 1 argument, RyanWakefield posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
fadi, ProudAmerican888, Maximus, oscar90000, supercat, BhargavSharma and 4 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, RyanWakefield, bigbadtux, PsychDave, R_o_h_i_t, Cannon2cool disagree.
And nobody knows that more than the criminals in Chicago. They tried banning guns and crime went through the roof the dropped it and so did crime. I don't think it was a coincidence.
But the gun is the most effective and easy way to end a life.
pointing out that nobody at all has guns.. except, the guards at the castle.
just in general
to whom are you addressing to?
how's that saying go? You can find out who's in charge by looking to see who the rules don't apply to.
Ryan that is reasonable. Those funny lookin fellas around the Queen's castle sure have some big guns strapped around them though.
ireland is much better than UK ryan
in the UK, nobody has a gun, not even police.
It's like fear-porn. Same with what they do on Radical Islam. Then the division happens because pro and anti gun views and pro and anti islam views. The perfect storm of division.
I gotcha. Well, the media kinda stirs things and the are extremely quick to show shootings anywhere in the country. Unfortunately, they are all the same kind of shootings(the bad guy who's elevator doesn't go to the top floor). I find out alot that they don't show when someone saved the life of themselves, their family, neighbors friends or just innocent bystanders being attacked. It happens more frequently than we know and 99% of the time news will never show it. That in itself proves there is an agenda at play.
I do think the police go too far sometimes, but there is supposed to be a governing body watching them to prevent it. Who watches random gun owners? How many mass shootings have been carried out by police officers? I would feel safer if the only ones with guns were the police because they are statistically less likely to shoot me. They also wouldn't be as able to justify it as self defense if I wasn't armed.
Have you fired a fully automatic rifle? Yes, it fires small projectiles, but it is not terribly accurate. That's why I said I would rather a semi-auto.
Given the choice between a semi auto pistol that would be fairly accurate (assuming you practice and train) and an Uzi, which do you think would be more accurate and which would likely cause collateral damage?
The one question that i have realistically is that I believe that Liberals feel the police are out of control and abusive But on the same note everyone has a right to own or not own a firearm*(provided they meet the criteria like no felonies, mental illness, etc..). Pointing that out, I struggle with the logic that they would rather nobody have guns but the government. Am I wrong?
Dave, I think you missed the fact that grenades explode and fling shrapnel across a room inaccurately, randomly mutilating and killing people around it. Firearms shoot a rather small projectile in one direction, accurately killing or wounding someone...
I understand the mentality of wanting a gun to protect yourself, but the reality is that they do more harm most of the time than good, and I think most people know that on some level.
Few people would argue that the only way to stop a lunatic with a grenade is to have a grenade yourself. Almost no one would agree with the government selling explosives to the population for use in protecting yourself, because we would see the absurdity of it. It is simply a sliding scale of what people are comfortable with having available to the public.
RPGs and other explosives
Lever action /bolt action rifles
Blunt heavy objects
There are obviously steps in between, but most people have a point on the list where they see restrictions being a good idea, and a point where they think restrictions are overreaching. The difference is where we draw those lines.
Personally, I don't see a reason for automatic weapons to be available to the public. If I were going to defend myself from a bad guy with a gun, I would want an accurate gun to make sure I hit the person I want to. That is not the strong point of automatic weapons.
A gun makes it easier for the person to kill someone. Having a gun available to the killers makes murder just the pull of a trigger. Banning guns will not end all murder, it will definitely prevent a good amount of them since other fatal weapons have significant range like a gun.
the statistics speak for themselves
This seems to contradict this position.
probably not, that's why much stricter gun control is necessary. because that will prevent murder.