Gun Control

[Sparx]

Inspired by the shootings today.

How do you feel about Gun Control?

[tinkerbell12]

That was weird.

The one in Virginia, right?

And how did that person with the cell know to tape it on his phone.

I THINK HE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!

[2HOT2touch]

i think you should have to take an elaborate test and go through physcological testing as well before you are issued a license for a gun

[imabrat]

i think you should have to take an elaborate test and go through physcological testing as well before you are issued a license for a gun


You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Blumonkeyboy]

I feel that there are to many idiots in the world to give ANYONE a gun. Or any weapon for that matter, destroy them, and there is more peace. yes, i know im leavng out steps and stuff but w/e

[Sparx]

i think you should have to take an elaborate test and go through physcological testing as well before you are issued a license for a gun

Psychological testing won't do much. It would have to be extremly extensive, and it could be also called an invasion of privacy.

I am a firm believer in guns do not kill people. Guns never kill people. People kill people. Give them a gun, or give them a bomb, if someone wants to kill someone, its going to happen. But taking my gun that I use for protection away from me isn't goign to do a damn thing.

A gun is a tool. Its the person who uses it to use good or evil.

[Blumonkeyboy]

Psychological testing won't do much. It would have to be extremly extensive, and it could be also called an invasion of privacy.

I am a firm believer in guns do not kill people. Guns never kill people. People kill people. Give them a gun, or give them a bomb, if someone wants to kill someone, its going to happen. But taking my gun that I use for protection away from me isn't goign to do a damn thing.

A gun is a tool. Its the person who uses it to use good or evil.
very good point

[Sparx]

very good point

thank you

[Princess Ash]

Guns are meant for killing.
They are not meant to wound. They are not meant for play. Guns have a specific purpose of killing.
I think they should be gone. Destroyed, gotten rid of, finé. They were once needed to hunt game. We have other ways of raising and slaughtering animals now for food only. There is no need for guns.
Gun control should be gun extinction.
::steps off platform::

[Loves Disney]

Guns are meant for killing.
They are not meant to wound. They are not meant for play. Guns have a specific purpose of killing.
I think they should be gone. Destroyed, gotten rid of, finé. They were once needed to hunt game. We have other ways of raising and slaughtering animals now for food only. There is no need for guns.
Gun control should be gun extinction.
::steps off platform::

Another thing that makes us like the same person, Ash! :rotfl: I agree 100% with that statement.

[Princess Ash]

Another thing that makes us like the same person, Ash! :rotfl: I agree 100% with that statement.

I actually smiled and laughed out loud when I read that! ;) Oh Cat. :goodvibes

[Sparx]

Guns are meant for killing.
They are not meant to wound. They are not meant for play. Guns have a specific purpose of killing.
I think they should be gone. Destroyed, gotten rid of, finé. They were once needed to hunt game. We have other ways of raising and slaughtering animals now for food only. There is no need for guns.
Gun control should be gun extinction.
::steps off platform::

Have you ever fired a gun?
Target practice is honestly fun.

Ever slaughtered an animal?
Most animals today are in fact shot.

And what if someone likes to hunt? I live out in the boonies, but some people do in fact kill their own food.

There is plenty of need for guns. What do you think the main weapon in war is? The bayonet? Bombs? No. Guns.

I think everyone should be required to take a gun safety class, where you learn how to shoot, how to aim, how to care for a gun, but most importantly, how to be safe with a gun. Someone with a gun does not scare me. Someone who is uninformed with a gun does scare me.

Now, if we're destroying guns, do you intend to destroy every other weapon out there? Bows are much older than guns. And pretty much anyone can shoot a bow. So why not do away with them too?

Personally, I was never much of a gun person, but I love archery. I can shoot consecutive 9s and 10s. I've taken archery courses. I know the deal. I know how to be safe. I know how to shoot. I know how to not hurt people. So why would you take something that I find enjoyable away from me?

To remove guns is a very very very bad idea. Because, like it or not, not everyone is going to follow that rule. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. And frankly, if only people with bad intentions have access to guns, i'm going to be breaking some laws and getting a gun. Protection is important to me.

I would much rather every single person out there know hwo to be safe with guns than no one know how to be safe with guns, which is what would happen if you remove them from the situation.

People will always want to fight, be it with fists, guns, or if you remove guns, swords. So you can either educate everyone or send us back to the middle ages with swords and shields, but it won't solve anything.

[MuNkY]

Have you ever fired a gun?
Target practice is honestly fun.

Ever slaughtered an animal?
Most animals today are in fact shot.

And what if someone likes to hunt? I live out in the boonies, but some people do in fact kill their own food.

There is plenty of need for guns. What do you think the main weapon in war is? The bayonet? Bombs? No. Guns.

I think everyone should be required to take a gun safety class, where you learn how to shoot, how to aim, how to care for a gun, but most importantly, how to be safe with a gun. Someone with a gun does not scare me. Someone who is uninformed with a gun does scare me.

Now, if we're destroying guns, do you intend to destroy every other weapon out there? Bows are much older than guns. And pretty much anyone can shoot a bow. So why not do away with them too?

Personally, I was never much of a gun person, but I love archery. I can shoot consecutive 9s and 10s. I've taken archery courses. I know the deal. I know how to be safe. I know how to shoot. I know how to not hurt people. So why would you take something that I find enjoyable away from me?

To remove guns is a very very very bad idea. Because, like it or not, not everyone is going to follow that rule. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. And frankly, if only people with bad intentions have access to guns, i'm going to be breaking some laws and getting a gun. Protection is important to me.

I would much rather every single person out there know hwo to be safe with guns than no one know how to be safe with guns, which is what would happen if you remove them from the situation.

People will always want to fight, be it with fists, guns, or if you remove guns, swords. So you can either educate everyone or send us back to the middle ages with swords and shields, but it won't solve anything.

^^^^^QFE



My main reason why we shouldn't do that is because of war. If you outlaw guns you send us right back into the middle ages. If we don't go back to the way of the sword, then we will start using bombs and missles. One, those are more expensive and will make the cost of war skyrocket, and two, those could actually increase the number of innocent dead.

Guns actually keep war as un-grusom as it can get, and helps to keep civilian deaths down.

[Princess Ash]

See tho, we could get into an entire thing about war here (which I don't want to do)
Basically, whether it is completely unrealistic or not, war should not exist. People should live in harmony because none of us are really SO different that we need to kill one another over it. That is why, to me, guns (and yes, other weapons) are unnecessary. Whether target practice is "fun"...maybe. But there are so many other ways to have fun...that it is not needed to shoot something.

[Sparx]

See tho, we could get into an entire thing about war here (which I don't want to do)
Basically, whether it is completely unrealistic or not, war should not exist. People should live in harmony because none of us are really SO different that we need to kill one another over it. That is why, to me, guns (and yes, other weapons) are unnecessary. Whether target practice is "fun"...maybe. But there are so many other ways to have fun...that it is not needed to shoot something.

In an idealistic world, I would whole heartedly agree with you.

But, as the true meaning of utopia is "no place", utopia will never exist until humans evolve.

So we can either pretend everyone is perfect and agrees, or we can be realistic, prepared, and ready to protect and defend ourselves

[MuNkY]

See tho, we could get into an entire thing about war here (which I don't want to do)
Basically, whether it is completely unrealistic or not, war should not exist. People should live in harmony because none of us are really SO different that we need to kill one another over it. That is why, to me, guns (and yes, other weapons) are unnecessary. Whether target practice is "fun"...maybe. But there are so many other ways to have fun...that it is not needed to shoot something.

Another point that needs to be made is if you ban all weapons you turn us all into vegitarians.

I'd rather not give up my meat.

[Princess Ash]

So we can either pretend everyone is perfect and agrees, or we can be realistic, prepared, and ready to protect and defend ourselves

Or be proactive in being non-violent, finding compromises, and stopping war; it's up to our generation because, IMO, after us, if we do not stop all the destruction and killing, our children will be the "fortunate" ones who get to see the end of the world.

[Loves Disney]

Have you ever fired a gun?
Target practice is honestly fun.

Ever slaughtered an animal? No
Most animals today are in fact shot. Doesn't mean it's good.

And what if someone likes to hunt? So? I live out in the boonies, but some people do in fact kill their own food. Doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it lol.

There is plenty of need for guns. What do you think the main weapon in war is? The bayonet? Bombs? No. Guns. Because they are most available. And I don't agree with war either. I hate anything that kills. Besides...being in the military is different than civilians carrying guns.

I think everyone should be required to take a gun safety class, where you learn how to shoot, how to aim, how to care for a gun, but most importantly, how to be safe with a gun. Someone with a gun does not scare me. Someone who is uninformed with a gun does scare me. I can't argue with that. But should the elimination of guns take place...uninformed people with guns would not be a possibility.

Now, if we're destroying guns, do you intend to destroy every other weapon out there? Bows are much older than guns. And pretty much anyone can shoot a bow. So why not do away with them too? You don't hear about Bow and arrow attacks...

Personally, I was never much of a gun person, but I love archery. I can shoot consecutive 9s and 10s. I've taken archery courses. I know the deal. I know how to be safe. I know how to shoot. I know how to not hurt people. So why would you take something that I find enjoyable away from me?

To remove guns is a very very very bad idea. Because, like it or not, not everyone is going to follow that rule. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. And frankly, if only people with bad intentions have access to guns, i'm going to be breaking some laws and getting a gun. Protection is important to me. Eliminate guns from stores and make it impossible for the public to have them.

I would much rather every single person out there know hwo to be safe with guns than no one know how to be safe with guns, which is what would happen if you remove them from the situation.

People will always want to fight, be it with fists, guns, or if you remove guns, swords. So you can either educate everyone or send us back to the middle ages with swords and shields, but it won't solve anything.


My comments are in bold.

[Princess Ash]

Another point that needs to be made is if you ban all weapons you turn us all into vegitarians.

I'd rather not give up my meat.

:rotfl: Haha ok Mike, you win the meat comment. That was rather funny. Can't we kill animals another way? (That was semi-rhetorical...puhLEASE do not go into details, EW)

[MuNkY]

:rotfl: Haha ok Mike, you win the meat comment. That was rather funny. Can't we kill animals another way? (That was semi-rhetorical...puhLEASE do not go into details, EW)

No matter how you kill something, what you use to kill is a weapon. Wether you poison it, or chop it's head off, your using a weapon to kill it.

Same could be said for plants really, but it seems like nobody considers a plant to have a life now.:whatever:

[Sparx]

removing guns would cause people to reach for other forms of weaponry. You may very well start hearing about bow and arrow attacks. You'd be shocked to see what an expanding tipped arrow dipped in a little bit of rat poison could do to a person.

Though I think this is needless to say, removing something from a store doesn't make it impossible to get. I can make a few phone calls right now and get any drug I want. Cocaine isn't in stores, but I could still get it. I would still be able to get a gun if I wanted it bad enough.

[Loves Disney]

removing guns would cause people to reach for other forms of weaponry. You may very well start hearing about bow and arrow attacks. You'd be shocked to see what an expanding tipped arrow dipped in a little bit of rat poison could do to a person.

Though I think this is needless to say, removing something from a store doesn't make it impossible to get. I can make a few phone calls right now and get any drug I want. Cocaine isn't in stores, but I could still get it. I would still be able to get a gun if I wanted it bad enough.


If those drugs were made legal...you'd see A LOT more.

[Sparx]

No matter how you kill something, what you use to kill is a weapon. Wether you poison it, or chop it's head off, your using a weapon to kill it.

Same could be said for plants really, but it seems like nobody considers a plant to have a life now.:whatever:

there are people who refuse to eat anything that eats. including plants.

needless to say, they can only do this for short periods of time, or they would die.

[Sparx]

If those drugs were made legal...you'd see A LOT more.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. I was using drugs as an example of something illegal that I can still get to.

[Loves Disney]

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. I was using drugs as an example of something illegal that I can still get to.

Yes, and I was using your drug analogy to show that if something is made illegal, it will not be as widely used. Making guns illegal will reduce the number of it immensely. It make take a while for them to become unobtainable...but they will, nonetheless, reduce in number. My point with that post was that if those drugs should become legal, you'd see them around and used A LOT more than you do now.

[Sparx]

Yes, and I was using your drug analogy to show that if something is made illegal, it will not be as widely used. Making guns illegal will reduce the number of it immensely. It make take a while for them to become unobtainable...but they will, nonetheless, reduce in number. My point with that post was that if those drugs should become legal, you'd see them around and used A LOT more than you do now.

Oh okay. I misunderstood you.

I don't think more people would be using the drugs, were they legal, I just think people would be more open about using the drugs. It wouldn't be such a secret, and it would appear to be around more, but it really wouldn't be.

I think virtually the same amount of people would have guns, but more people would just be secretive about it.

[Loves Disney]

Whether guns continue to be used, my view on gun control is that guns should become illegal. lol.

[Jordo]

ok if you eliminate guns you would have people going to other forms of destrustion. Also if you toatlly destroy guns the economy will start to fall apart.
and what was stated before about the gun classes well that will just increase the killings more because more people will know how to use and make guns because they will more and likely know thwe machanics of a gun imean people in prison can make deadly crossbows from plastic spoons underwear elastic and newspaper. so if that can be acomplished who knows what "guns" can be made.
now i have no real opion on the matter i just tend to state the facts.
why can't we just like each other
i mean we wouldn't even be discussing this if people would ignore sterotypes and look at a person on the inside or not just kill someone because they broke your heart, stole girlfriend or wife, and if more poeple had morals and respect for one another adn try to get the whole story before making assumtions!
on a more random note do i sound like a hippie? :hippie:
so no im sad lets talk about somrthing happy like uhh... the sky oh wait stuff falls form the skyok how 'bout puppies oh wait ijust heard about a poor puppy that had a wire tied around his nose... man this is hard i need help wahhhhh!:sad1:

[Sparx]

ok if you eliminate guns you would have people going to other forms of destrustion. Also if you toatlly destroy guns the economy will start to fall apart.
and what was stated before about the gun classes well that will just increase the killings more because more people will know how to use and make guns because they will more and likely know thwe machanics of a gun imean people in prison can make deadly crossbows from plastic spoons underwear elastic and newspaper. so if that can be acomplished who knows what "guns" can be made.
now i have no real opion on the matter i just tend to state the facts.
why can't we just like each other
i mean we wouldn't even be discussing this if people would ignore sterotypes and look at a person on the inside or not just kill someone because they broke your heart, stole girlfriend or wife, and if more poeple had morals and respect for one another adn try to get the whole story before making assumtions!
on a more random note do i sound like a hippie? :hippie:
so no im sad lets talk about somrthing happy like uhh... the sky oh wait stuff falls form the skyok how 'bout puppies oh wait ijust heard about a poor puppy that had a wire tied around his nose... man this is hard i need help wahhhhh!:sad1:


elimination of guns will not destroy the economy.


gun classes will not kill people.


And we can't like each other because we're human.

[Tinkerbell424]

I don't like guns.
Like you said,Guns don't kill people.People kill people.

The gun doesn't pull it's own trigger.

My mom doesn't carry a gun.She used to have a license for it and had one but one we were born she got rid of it and now uses a baseball bat.

Gun's just don't go with me.

[Sparkle_Cherry]

I don't like guns.
Like you said,Guns don't kill people.People kill people.

The gun doesn't pull it's own trigger.

My mom doesn't carry a gun.She used to have a license for it and had one but one we were born she got rid of it and now uses a baseball bat.

Gun's just don't go with me.

She carries a baseball bat around in her handbag.. ?

~Caitlin

[Tinkerbell424]

Haha no.I was talking about at home.


She would never carry a gun around with her.

[IrishTink]

guns are bad.

[Sparkle_Cherry]

Haha no.I was talking about at home.


She would never carry a gun around with her.

Phew, you had me thinking there that your mom uses a body-bag as a purse :rotfl:

~Caitlin

[meeshheartsdisney217]

it is aloud in the constitution. as we were just studying.

but like some wise man once said.

if you wanna follow the second amendment, use it like it was intended. USE A MUSKET.
cuz that was never meant to be like for killing people and stuff. i do live in the second most homicidal city in the nation. so i'm used to hearing about people dying almost everyday. which is really sad. i'm used to it.

[Loves Disney]

It is in the constitution -- the right to bear arms. I disagree with it. lol. The constitution is a very old piece of documentation and I do believe that bit of it needs to be amended lol.

[tinkerbell12]

It is in the constitution -- the right to bear arms. I disagree with it. lol. The constitution is a very old piece of documentation and I do believe that bit of it needs to be amended lol.

The Constitution has been amended.
Just not that part because most people don't think it needs to be.

I agree with Shelby.
I guess I was looking at the wrong article at the beginning.. :confused3.

If someone wanted to amend that part of the article they could go to their senator or rep. and they could propose it. Either it's been proposed before and it's failed or it's never been proposed.

That right hasn't been amended for a reason.

[schmitty]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a stupid analogy. Bombs don't kill people either people kill people. Hammers don't hit nails, people hit nails, Baseball bats don't hit baseballs people hit baseballs. Its a stupid analogy used by people to try to justify the use of guns.
The second amendment is so outdated it should be done away with. It was only made so people could rise up against the government if they didn't like what was being done but now the government has technology so great that trying to overthrow the government would never happen. The government is far to big and powerful for any successful putsch.
Banning guns completely isn't fair. They should only be used by businesses for business purposes. We need to focus more on policing and finding the illegal guns. We already have some strict laws on illegal gun trafficking. If we can effectively do that we can cut down a big part of crimes. Then we can get rid of guns from regular people who use them for protection. Someone said that hunting is fun, so therefore guns should be legalized. I find killing people fun so does that mean murder should be legalized?

[schmitty]

That right hasn't been amended for a reason.
Yeah for a very good reason Im sure of it.:lmao: Just like how the proposed amendment that says men and women hasnt been made offical yet. Its obvious that men are better than women.

[tinkerbell12]

Its obvious that men are better than women.

Sexist.

[scoolover]

If everyone on that floor had a gun there would not have been 60 people hurt or killed. There would have been a few. I think everyone needs a gun.

[schmitty]

Sexist.
Yes the politicans are for not approving this amendment.

[DramaQueen]

We were talking about this in philosophy today...

I have never been exposed to guns, living in Canada, that is very rare.
Of course there is gun violence here, people have means of getting a gun if they want one. But in Canada, there is much less exposure to guns.
I've never seen a real gun, I've never been near a real gun. And frankly, I am VERY happy about that.

I think the "right to bear arms" should be revoked, personally.
But I think if that ever did occur, there would be utter chaos.
It's not realistic, I know. But I think that should not be someones RIGHT.

I understand that they are to protect yourself, but more often than not, that gun you bought to protect your family from bad guys, will NEVER be used for that purpose.
With a gun in your house the temptation is ALWAYS there. You KNOW it's there.
Of course, most of us would never think of using that gun to kill someone who has pissed us off, or seek revenge (most of us would leave them for emergency situations when our families are put in danger, correct?)
but with the gun being RIGHT THERE, in your house, the tempation is always there. You know it's there if you need it, or if you WANT to use it.
That is probably why most school shooting occur, the gun is just there, it's conveniently placed in the house, for "protection".

These kids are getting their hands on these guns because the are there, they are not being stored safely, and they are within arms reach.
That little 6 year old boy who killed his classmate a while ago, the gun was there, in his house. He didn't know any better.
There is NO WAY to enforce gun control laws within the comfort of peoples homes, without "invasion of privacy"
There is NO WAY that the government can make sure people are keeping their guns in a safe place, using them for the "right reasons" and that they aren't just laying around loaded, ready to go.

I think, most people can get along just fine without having a gun there "just incase".

[TheBellhop]

It's not like outlawing guns is going to solve the problem. Prohibition sure didn't stop alcohol from coming into the US. I do think stricter measures should be made on who can get a gun and who can't.

[AngienLuLu]

Must of been a PRETTY big coincidence to be video-ing on your cell right when the shots are being fired.

Yea. Something very suspicious about that.

[MuNkY]

Must of been a PRETTY big coincidence to be video-ing on your cell right when the shots are being fired.

Yea. Something very suspicious about that.

IT"S A CONSPERACEEEEEEEEE!

Bet ya Bush had something to do with it too!

[ktbutterfly2011]

If people want guns, let them have them.

Its been said more than once on this thread but i'll reiterate it again. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

If we're just worried about taking guns away because of mass casualties such as this one, nothings going to change. It'd be stupid. Too much trouble for too litte a resolution to the problem.

Here's the thing. If someone wants to kill someone they'll do it. If it is implanted so deep into their sould that they need to kill mass amounts of people, they will find a way to do it. Taking guns away would make it just a teeny bit harder to achieve their.... (bad word to use here) "goal".

[Sparx]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a stupid analogy. Bombs don't kill people either people kill people. Hammers don't hit nails, people hit nails, Baseball bats don't hit baseballs people hit baseballs. Its a stupid analogy used by people to try to justify the use of guns.
The second amendment is so outdated it should be done away with. It was only made so people could rise up against the government if they didn't like what was being done but now the government has technology so great that trying to overthrow the government would never happen. The government is far to big and powerful for any successful putsch.
Banning guns completely isn't fair. They should only be used by businesses for business purposes. We need to focus more on policing and finding the illegal guns. We already have some strict laws on illegal gun trafficking. If we can effectively do that we can cut down a big part of crimes. Then we can get rid of guns from regular people who use them for protection. Someone said that hunting is fun, so therefore guns should be legalized. I find killing people fun so does that mean murder should be legalized?

Oh, but people DO hammer nails, people DO bit baseballs, people DO kill people. The means of how people go about it doesn't change the fact that people are doing it.

[tinkerbell12]

Since I've been outta school sick the last two days I've been trying to get homework assignments from classmates and one said, "Well, in English we did nothing about talk about the gun shootings the whole period because we had to take a moment of silence for it. No h/w."

So even my English class is having this discussion. :worship: Finally something we'll use in real life!

[tinkerbell12]

Must of been a PRETTY big coincidence to be video-ing on your cell right when the shots are being fired.

Yea. Something very suspicious about that.

That's what I thought.:confused3

[Sparkle_Cherry]

I really don't understand the need that we have for guns. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't one.

I don't think that guns are all bad, but I still believe that they should not be legal for just anyone to own.

~Caitlin

[Jordo]

elimination of guns will not destroy the economy.


gun classes will not kill people.


And we can't like each other because we're human.
yes gun claas will because not all people follow "the rules" in fact some perpously break them. also most people don't pay attention to the safty rules. and what will happen to all the firing ranges the gun shops? all those people will lose jobs and have to go back to school and get a new degree and how will police protect the innocent with out guns [in case you haven't figured it out i can practilcly counter every piont you make] [it happens when you have a stubborn head strong sibling] now i agrre with you on the fact that we are human and we can't like everyone but we can at least respect them its not hard im not saying you have to be all 'oh evry ones my friend happ happy" *says as skipps about* just be courtious and mabye the economy won't be destroyed just a little weaker. and this may sound really heartless but its true the world is overpopulated and somehting has to keep it down

[schmitty]

Oh, but people DO hammer nails, people DO bit baseballs, people DO kill people. The means of how people go about it doesn't change the fact that people are doing it.
Yes People hammer with a hammer, people hit baseballs with baseball bats, people kill people with guns.

[crazy2beautiful]

Its been said more than once on this thread but i'll reiterate it again. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I say we take away all the people in the world so the guns can live happily.
The end.

[Sparkle_Cherry]

I say we take away all the people in the world so the guns can live happily.
The end.

I admire your creative use of sarcasm. I don't know if you intended it or not, but you really make a good point there.

~Caitlin

[Sparx]

Yes People hammer with a hammer, people hit baseballs with baseball bats, people kill people with guns.

people can either use the tool, hammer, baseball bat, or gun, or we could use primitive tools. Rocks, sticks, and a sword.

Either way, we're still using tools

[DramaGirl]

Guns are meant for killing.
They are not meant to wound. They are not meant for play. Guns have a specific purpose of killing.I think they should be gone. Destroyed, gotten rid of, finé. They were once needed to hunt game. We have other ways of raising and slaughtering animals now for food only. There is no need for guns.
Gun control should be gun extinction.
::steps off platform::

exactly.

[BabyPiglet]

I agree with everything Shelby has said.

[Loves Disney]

I agree with everything Shelby has said.

Lol, naturally. :rolleyes:

[MuNkY]

*in redneck voice*

Guns don't kill people. The government does.

[BabyPiglet]

Lol, naturally. :rolleyes:
No offense, but what is that supposed to mean?

[schmitty]

people can either use the tool, hammer, baseball bat, or gun, or we could use primitive tools. Rocks, sticks, and a sword.

Either way, we're still using toolsYup tools with specific purposes. The specific purpose of a gun is to kill.

[MuNkY]

Yup tools with specific purposes. The specific purpose of a gun is to kill.

What she means is that the gun didn't pick it'self up and pull it's own trigger and shoot those people. That kid did. Ultimately he used the gun to shoot those people. It's the same way in every instance.

Your basically blaming the gun for killing the people. Lets say he didn't have a gun and use a bow and arrow. Are you going to blame the bow and arrow for killing the person? What if he used a sword. Going to blame the sword for it?

Personally I perfer calling the kid a wacko and blaming him for the deaths. Not the gun. If the gun wasn't in his hands, it wouldn't have killed those people. HE was responsible for it.

[Sparx]

What she means is that the gun didn't pick it'self up and pull it's own trigger and shoot those people. That kid did. Ultimately he used the gun to shoot those people. It's the same way in every instance.

Your basically blaming the gun for killing the people. Lets say he didn't have a gun and use a bow and arrow. Are you going to blame the bow and arrow for killing the person? What if he used a sword. Going to blame the sword for it?

Personally I perfer calling the kid a wacko and blaming him for the deaths. Not the gun. If the gun wasn't in his hands, it wouldn't have killed those people. HE was responsible for it.

He would have.

Except, he would've used a bomb or poison or something like that.

More people could possibly be dead.

[MuNkY]

He would have.

Except, he would've used a bomb or poison or something like that.

More people could possibly be dead.

I was talking about the gun itself though.

Also, where do we draw the line to where the person is to blame for the death, and not what they used? Does it have to come down to the person strangling the victim to death, or is it then their hands comitting the crime? Do we ban hands and amputate everybody's hands?

I hate to make the comparison, but we don't say that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were caused by boxcutters. We blame the whacko terrorists. I don't see the difference between that and this in the terms of what the person used, and who, or what for that case, takes the blame. That dude killed people, and happened to use a gun. Does this mean all guns are horrible, and that we should ban them forever and ever? No, for the sheer fact that, well, he could've used anything. Let's say he bashed them over the head with a computer. Do we ban computers?:confused3

[Sparx]

I was talking about the gun itself though.

Also, where do we draw the line to where the person is to blame for the death, and not what they used? Does it have to come down to the person strangling the victim to death, or is it then their hands comitting the crime? Do we ban hands and amputate everybody's hands?

I hate to make the comparison, but we don't say that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were caused by boxcutters. We blame the whacko terrorists. I don't see the difference between that and this in the terms of what the person used, and who, or what for that case, takes the blame. That dude killed people, and happened to use a gun. Does this mean all guns are horrible, and that we should ban them forever and ever? No, for the sheer fact that, well, he could've used anything. Let's say he bashed them over the head with a computer. Do we ban computers?:confused3

The day a gun shoots someone, I will whole heartedly get behind the "ban guns" campaign.

Oh, and let me know when pencils start misspelling words.

[schmitty]

Box cutters are used for cutting boxes. That analogy is wrong and useless. Yes I would blame the sword or bow and arrow because they are tools made for one specific purpose, to kill.
Bomb and poison analogy is another horrible example. The amount of deaths caused by that in the US in attempts to kill others is astronomically smaller than the deaths caused by guns. Its far less likely for someone to go out and make a bomb and kill someone. Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people. If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then. Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.

[TheBellhop]

Lol, naturally. :rolleyes:

lol lol lol.

[MuNkY]

Box cutters are used for cutting boxes. That analogy is wrong and useless. Yes I would blame the sword or bow and arrow because they are tools made for one specific purpose, to kill.
Bomb and poison analogy is another horrible example. The amount of deaths caused by that in the US in attempts to kill others is astronomically smaller than the deaths caused by guns. Its far less likely for someone to go out and make a bomb and kill someone. Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people. If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then. Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.

So your going to sit there and tell me that because it originally has a different use it's okay for someone to use it as a weapon? What if I told you the Chinese invented gunpowder, NOT for war? What if I told you that this magical substance that sparked the age of the gun was originally inteded, and used for construction and entertainment. So some guy comes over to China, finds gunpowder, and makes a cannon using gunpowder as a propulsion device. But under your agruement, it was fine because that's not what gunpowder was used for.:confused3

Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people.
Umm, neither of us were. We were using valid arguements to help prove our points. You point out that the bomb and poison death rate is smaller than the gun death rate. Well alright. We ban guns. You DO realize however, that if you did that, banning guns I mean, it's not going to stop these crazies from killing people right? They're STILL going to try to kill as many people as possible. The rate of deaths by the means of poison and bombs will only go up if you ban guns.

If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then.
Congratulations. You just contradicted your arguement you just said.

Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.
Not really. I mean, you'd be suprised how easy it is to make a pretty powerful bomb. It might have been harder for him to kill those people, but he still would've done it. Also not to mention, a few well placed bombs would take out a lot more people. You'd be dealing with a radius of destruction rather than individual cases.

[Sparx]

Box cutters are used for cutting boxes. That analogy is wrong and useless. Yes I would blame the sword or bow and arrow because they are tools made for one specific purpose, to kill.
Bomb and poison analogy is another horrible example. The amount of deaths caused by that in the US in attempts to kill others is astronomically smaller than the deaths caused by guns. Its far less likely for someone to go out and make a bomb and kill someone. Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people. If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then. Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.

I've not used any "BS scare tactics". I don't think I need them. It only makes your argument appear weaker by calling mine "bs"

If you make guns unavailable, bombs, poison, etc will become the main means of murder. They're simply not used right now becuase guns.

As I've stated before, illegal=/=gone. Drugs are illegal, but I can make three phone calls right now and get anything I want.

Its much easier to make a bomb than it is to buy a gun. I know how to make a bomb, but I can't buy a gun.

[tinkerbell12]

Something about the guy with the cell being involved on NBC...

[Lil_Tink]

I'm pro peace.:hippie: But, I know that the world will most likely not be at peace, so there for guns will be around. IMHO if a person wants to kill a person, they will find a way. Tighten up licensing but a person could easily use someone elses gun.

And I didn't read all 5 pages so sorry if I am totally off topic now.

[tinkerbell12]

If you make guns unavailable, bombs, poison, etc will become the main means of murder. They're simply not used right now becuase guns.

As I've stated before, illegal=/=gone. Drugs are illegal, but I can make three phone calls right now and get anything I want.

::yes::
::yes::
::yes::!!!!!!

[BabyPiglet]

"Banning" guns is not going to do anything. Murderers will just go by different means of killing people. Whether it be bomb, poison, knifes, they're still going to kill.

And by "banning" guns people could still get them. We just make them readily available, but just by banning htem, you're not going to stop people from using them.