The debate "Should current gun laws be restructured and if so how" was started by
March 4, 2018, 4:34 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 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.
trippyclouds posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, Najam1 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
trippyclouds, Nemiroff, Najam1, batmanfan777 and 9 visitors agree.
chemikilsm0ke and 6 visitors disagree.
We have a tremendous problem with fake shooting deaths reported as real. There are financial incentives and life insurance policies to take in consideration as the motivation. The guns are a supposedly quick way to accomplish injuries and killing. I will admit my laser training while recommending the focus of the attack be changed from the item guns to simply the act of killing. That means targeting the individual human, possibly controlled by multiple entities that only 1% of mankind can
recognize, attack and exorcise.
These demons killing people are always able to escape when lawmen capture or kill the host human. They already know how to kill a lot of people, very quickly without using one gun. They are having a fit of laughter watching the people chase guns and gunshots. There is no need for you to question that if they have other ways to accomplish killings, why don't they start using them. Realize, that these spirits are more advanced than those of the days of the Seminoles from Florida who massacred with mere bows and knives.
Haunted grounds and people who don't believe spirits exist are more spooky than the blind man firing m-80's with only a slingshot
First thing is to annul the vulnerable population's aura of indefensibly. You can't have a healthy society if some people have to walk around as unarmed targets. Bullies with guns are little different than the classroom bullies who don't have guns in school. You worry that if the state and federal gun laws are altered maniacs and rapists will walk around with guns. Guess what? They already do, and they specialize in attacking those prohibited from having guns. Maniacs and rapists don't like guns if placed in q situation where the victims might possible shoot back and injure them.
I agree banning guns would be impossible right now, and there are some legitamete arguments for civilian owned weapons, like people who live in remote parts far from a police response may need to protect themselves, but in those cases it's also unlikely innocent bystanders will be around.
revoking something as a right doesn't equal a ban. there is no right to own a car, yet many own one anyway. for the moment we should focus on common sense regulations like registration, closing loopholes and voluntary buy back programs. I'm also against mass civilian carrying of weapons in populated areas. even if good intentioned, if they all react to an incident it will a mass of deadly confusion.
unfortunately, the 31st in the world was per capita.
"the U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016."
every 1st world country is above us, but so are many 3rd world nations.
The amendment was absolutely not about maintaining a militia over a standing military, because they maintained a standing army. If you read the correspondence between them regarding this they talk about how the people are the militia because they had an armed population and how it was necessary because they recognized even they were prone to corruption.
That was not the fastest weapon i know what rifle you're referring to but the puckle gun had already been invented decades prior with some of the founding fathers being some of the most successful tacticians, inventors, and industrialists I seriously doubt they were unaware of this very relevant invention. If you want to get rid of the second amendment I believe it would cause more problems than how many it saved. While I disagree with the notion of a civil war many institutions and groups have made their position clear. they will not give up their guns on threat of death. I believe that this isn't a scare tactic and many people would fight a forced buy back program. You can't just implement idealistic legislature you have to think of how the people will react. I think its dangerous and irresponsible to risk a civil war over less than 1% percent of the population. The statistic of being 31st is misleading I will give you that, but not in your favor. We are only that high on the list because we have so many more people than every single country lower on the list than U.S. If you look at deaths per capita, which is more representative because it accounts for how much bigger of a country we are, we are not only comparable to other countries we beat out a lot of first world countries like Russia and France.
"America places 31st for gun violence in the world."
and who is below us? 3rd world countries with nonexistent governments? is that who you want to compare America to? if you look at nations of comparable wealth, we are dead last. isn't that sad?
1st of all, that clause has been grossly misinterpreted. that amendment is supposed to be about maintaining a militia so that the US wouldn't need a large standing army. it was never intended to mean some random dude should own a cannon.
2nd. even if that was what they meant A) they were not infallible. they were men. their work can be wrong and be changed to make it better. the 2nd amendment is killing alot of people.
B) when they wrote that the fastest a gun could be fired was 2-3 rounds per minute. they had no way of knowing that hundreds of years later a teenager with no military training could gun down dozens of people. the situation has drastically changed. their opinions are based on wildly outdated information.
An average private citizen does not have to explain their use for any arms because it's their right and unless you intend on repealing the second amendment you can't continue to argue its constitutional to limit the arms they have the right to own because they're dangerous. The founding fathers believed in freedom over safety hence "give me liberty or give me death", and they wrote this value into our constitution in the form of things like the second amendment. I don't think that it's putting gasoline on the fire because i don't think there is a fire. America places 31st for gun violence in the world. More people died last year choking on their food than mass shootings. More of the mass shootings in America's were committed with handguns as well as most reported crimes involving guns, so there's no correlation between gun violence and stronger guns.
Ok. there are no laws on any kinds of weapons. school shooters would then be armed with rocket launchers. considering how many mass shootings America already has, that would be just throwing gasoline on a fire that is already out of control.
why would an average person have any use for those kinds of weapons? I would argue a private citizen has no use for those weapons and they should not be allowed.
I do mean zero restrictions on any weapons except for bringing them to schools, private property that doesn't allow it, and certain government facilities. Can you elaborate on the longterm negative impact of a repeal like this?
as in allow everyone to own whatever they want? that seems catastrophically short sighted.
I think we should repeal all current weapon laws and restrictions.