Should guns be banned?

Guns shouldn't be banned. In some places in the United States, crime rates are high, and homicides are skyrocketing. Such places would be washington d.c. itself. although it may look pretty, the outskirts are dangerous. If you ban guns, then it would kill the sense of security in law abiding citizens, and just give the criminals an oppurtunity to strike. Guns shouldn't be banned, they should have heavy restrictions on them.

What do you think?

They could "ban" guns...but people would still have them so it's sorta pointless.

if it wernt for guns, people would have no way of protecting themselves from those who use them for dangerous purposes.

Living in Australia (a place with very strict gun laws) I can say it's a double edged sword...

Increasing gun laws, or banning them is really not the wisest idea, all I can see it doing is taking the peoples ability to defend themselves from criminals who can acquire guns with ease.

In Australia, while you can get a firearm (you need a large safe bolted deeply to the ground, you must have passed a gun handling safety test and you must very actively participate in gun club sporting competitions) it is impossible to get one for self defense, as the penalties are just to high to be caught with a concealed weapon, let alone pointing it at someone about to mug you. It's also illegal to have any form of weapon, including many simple knives (even in your own home as decoration). I don't feel safe, criminals have the upper hand in all situations, and I would get a jail term if I was shot and stabbed the attacker in self-defense.

I don't think gun laws in America should be made any stricter, nor should they ban them. Simply put; all you are doing is taking away the peoples right to defend themselves. 

How about the banning of guns for all pedestrians, so only authority figures can have them (ie cops), but not banning (maybe even to go as far as to issue) self defense weapons to people that do not have a criminal record?

No guns allowed in the UK, and as a result never hear about them really. Including in crime. Stabbing seems to be the current fad.

Per populace, there's much less genocide without guns, so why allow them?

burney, in some places, crime rates are high, no way the cops have time to respond to all emergencies, so citizens need something to defend themselves. and in the mean time, they need to explain what happened to cops, and have a lawyer ready just in case. Although criminals make their deaths seem like homicides, when the other person shoots them or whatsoever. So yeah, really, they have the upper hand in almost anything, but why let your life a waste, just cuz you aint have nuthin to protect yourself.

self defense weapons to people that do not have a criminal record?

thats the kind of restrictions they need to have

No guns allowed in the UK, and as a result never hear about them really. Including in crime. Stabbing seems to be the current fad.

Per populace, there's much less genocide without guns, so why allow them?

That was part of the double edged sword I was talking about, gun violence is quite low in Australia, but only so because the laws where introduced at such an early stage. America has a large gun influence, the criminals would know how to acquire them even if there was a full and complete ban and at this stage (in America) it would simply being doing more harm then anything else.

Gun control works in countries that introduce them at early stages, it is not something that would meet the US's current situation.

Thats why my idea is a little less drastic, I think that guns could be banned, but self defence items (tasers, tear gas, riot gun, etc.) could be allowed to people without a criminal record.

they should have access to those weapons, but id prefer anesthetic dart guns, then it wont be such a big deal, and if people were taught the right way to aim at a hostile and bring them down without killing them, then yeah, thatll work.

Yeah, but you also have to bring into account the whiplash from this, if this ever happened in America, there would be large amounts of protesting, probably rioting, and I'm sure a lot of paranoid people like me would think it's just one step in global unification.

banning guns is an offense to the second amendment, so yeah, wuts the point, ever heard of the waco massacre?

Why put restrictions on gun ownership? I think a better answer would be to more harshly punish the abusers rather then trying to stop it before it happens. People deserve the right to own guns, it comes down to freedom.

people have been doing that for the last 50 years, doesnt seem to work, and theres no way of stopping homicide, unless you take away the right to bear and keep arms, and close down all the gun stores in America, then yeah, a violent revolution is really worth it 



Any ways


The Waco, Texas Massacre

Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. Read this page if you believe otherwise. If you still have doubts, get the video Rules of Engagement for visual evidence. Or read the book Armageddon in Waco. Or see the film Waco: A New Revelation.

Waco occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno and Wesley Clark in supporting roles. Already back in 1993 the US government demonstrated its contempt for the American people by carrying out a massacre in order to "demonstrate" (on prime time TV) its supposed "authority" (a tactic favored by fascist governments). Following the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 by the psychopath George W. Bush, and the subsequent installation of the insane John Ashcroft as Bush's Himmler, things became much worse. On 9/11 about forty times as many people were murdered as at Waco. In both cases the murderers have so far gone unpunished.

After the February raid by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of David Koresh's dissident religious community at Waco, Texas, the FBI and the U.S. Army took over, mounting a 51-day siege. This included such psy-war tactics as sleep deprivation of the inhabitants of the community by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered.

Finally, despite David Koresh's pledge to surrender upon completion of his written explanation of the meaning of the Seven Seals, the FBI and the Army attacked. At dawn on April 19, 1993, and throughout the morning, tanks rammed holes in the main building and pumped (in the FBI's words) "massive amounts" of CS gas into the building, despite knowing that inside were more than a dozen children. The tanks demolished parts of the compound and created tunnels for the wind to blow through. The buildings at this point were saturated with inflammable CS gas and spilled kerosene.

 Around midday two U.S. military pyrotechnic devices were fired into the main building, igniting a fire which (because of the holes in the walls allowing the wind to gust through) spread rapidly through the complex of buildings and became an inferno. 74 men, women and children died — including twelve children younger than five years of age. Fire trucks were prevented by the FBI from approaching the inferno. After the compound had burned down the BATF flag was hoisted aloft to signify 'victory'. Subsequently the burned-out ruin was razed in an attempt to remove all evidence of this premeditated murder of innocent civilians by agents of the U.S. government. Thus occured an atrocity which many Americans believe could never happen in their country. A look at the evidence presented in the film Waco: Rules of Engagement (and in the BBC documentary broadcast in the U.K. on November 28, 1998) shows that it did happen.

The lawyer for one of the survivors said at one of the U.S. government 'investigations' (or rather, whitewashes): In this country when people are accused of a crime they are arrested and given a trial — that's 'due process'. If found guilty of murder then maybe they are killed. We don't just kill them first — which is what happened at Waco.



As a result, the 51st Militia has been organized, to protect the second amendment, and to prepare for wahtever comes.

Who cares, it's really only a matter of time until the "free" citizens of the world are destroyed.  The few contain all the power, and we are just cattle.

[sarcasm]Yes. Guns should be banned. That we we'll all have to go back to using spears and arrows to hunt animals and have more difficulty getting meat.[/sarcasm]

What's a guns

And surprisingly I actually agree with Ruhani.
I'm sad now, DS already covered everything I had to say
But for what it's worth, I intend on purchasing a gun (when I have the appropriate finances and satisfy all legal requirements) for self-defence and also for the gun range.

The same here. These days, one can't trust the law to defend them. (Solely anyway. The police are AMAZING, I've seen their work firsthand, and I am a big fan, but it's just not possible for them to do it all alone.)

Yeah, but I wouldn't shoot a bullet at someone above the waist unless I really needed to, remember, just use it for self defence, don't be a hero.

guns ARE for self defense, really, shooting some one above the waste just kills them, and you're charged for manslaughter (Killing somebody in self-defense), its not a heavy charge. I'd just shoot the limbs, and they're disabled,

Limb with weapon

Knee caps, so attacker falls instantly

i really try to use dart guns, if needed, lead filled bullet guns (Shotguns and Handguns, and pistols)

You spelled waist wrong, and manslaughter is a pretty heavy charge.  Shooting when they are disabled is also going to far, beleive me, one shot to the kneecap and they will go down. it is the most painful place to get shot in the entire body, aside from the stomach.

Depends on the user of the gun actually. For the military, ofcourse never ban them LOL.
But for the normal usage, some ppl lack work in the thinking organ of the body so they may use it for wrong stuff and all. So yeah.
But it also can help in self protection, so it depends on the gay guy

In Holand guns are illegal but still people get shot here ( wonder why )
SO make them double banned
its wrong shooting people because he won Football or something or because he/she says something he/she stands for.
Guns for defense should be not allowed because that way you are just allowing people to shoot eachother.

Self defense weapons ARE NOT ALWAYS GUNS.  GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD.  I have yet to hear of a death from a riot gun.

They should ban guns everywhere.

Why? What effects do you think this may have on society? Hm? How else do you think people may resort to murder and how should governments deal with the arms smuggling market?

Topic: Should guns be banned?

YES

Yeah, we really need more of a debate in here, or a title change.

The only thing guns can do is kill people, and frankly, humans as they are right now aren't even remotely intelligent enough to be given something as destructive as a firearm.

i wouldn't give most a stick

Elegy and LoS have posited interesting arguments but have answered none of my questions.

Elegy and LoS have posited interesting arguments but have answered none of my questions.

Uhhh, yeah you really missed his point. If you get rid of guns, there will be another thing to take their place. Ever been stabbed..? If you can't get rid of all weapons, which you can't, then there is no need to target specific ones.

Hmmm how about we try doing something about the real problem here, the people misusing the guns? Target the cause, not the how. Just because little Billy was shot to death, doesn't mean the psychopath wouldn't have just simple stabbed him to death if guns weren't available. Guns aren't the problem, so don't blame them.

Look, take away the only thing defending the law-abiding citizens, and you'll have more deaths than ever. Criminals, believe it or not, they can get their hands on some extreme weapons, so you're telling me, stabbing and beating one up to death, is the solution? Taking away guns won't restrict the people from getting them. Take away guns, you'll have a violent mass revolution on your hands. People everywhere protesting, riots, chaos, well lookie here, you've got a nice skirmish between the government and gun clubs, and anybody who wants to bear an arms for protection, congrats   

If Guns got banned people wouldn't need guns for self deffence... Heck I think all Bullistic missles and bombs should go to... Bring back the days of the Sword !!!

(Sorry Watched 300 last night... It Rocks !!!)

Uhhh, yeah you really missed his point. If you get rid of guns, there will be another thing to take their place. Ever been stabbed..? If you can't get rid of all weapons, which you can't, then there is no need to target specific ones.

It takes training to use a sword or a bow properly, any monkey can use a gun, you just point it at what you want to die and pull the trigger.

If you were a burglar, would you be more prone to shooting the people you were robbing if they have guns?
Of course you would be, guns are all about harm and no good.

It doesn't matter if guns should be banned or not. Its too late. They've already been invented, and even if the world goes into some magical utopia where no guns are allowed, people will still have them. Also, even if guns hadn't been invented when they were, something almost identical would've been made soon after. Everything is eventual. If it was possible though, my personal opinion on the matter is no, guns should not be banned. If somebody breaks into my house at night, and he is going to kill me or someone I love, I don't want to have to think back to my "ninja sword training" at 4 am. I want to reach for a gun, shoot him in the leg, and call the police.

Good point i mean if you point a gun at someones face most will stop, then again if you have a sword at someones neck they would put the gun down, guns are a problem but with so many out on the streets and how easy they can get them, theres now point arguing because no matter what we do someone will find away round it and then it will spread again.

I think Bullets should cost £800 per bullet... That way there wont be no innocent by-standers... There wont be drive bye's...

If you shoot at some one its going to be for more than just calling you a name or some thing daft !!... It's gunna have to be worth £800 a pop.

I don't think Guns should be on sale in Hyper Markets or Public shops, they should be on sale in council or state shops an each person who buys one should have some sort of interview and be ID checked... Each guns Serial number recorded... Every batch of bullets sold should also be coded and logged against your social security number or NI ID.

There should be tight laws around getting a fire arm, so tight that it puts people off... If you have a Gun licence every time its to be renewed I think your fire arm should be inspected to make sure it has not been altered to fire over the legal limit allocated to the guns strength...

Gun law is too relaxed.

They should be banned... But your right, they wont be... So I think they should be super expensive and hard to get hold of, and if you have one without a licence then you should serve time.... Say 2 years.

It doesn't matter if guns should be banned or not. Its too late. They've already been invented, and even if the world goes into some magical utopia where no guns are allowed, people will still have them. Also, even if guns hadn't been invented when they were, something almost identical would've been made soon after. Everything is eventual. If it was possible though, my personal opinion on the matter is no, guns should not be banned. If somebody breaks into my house at night, and he is going to kill me or someone I love, I don't want to have to think back to my "ninja sword training" at 4 am. I want to reach for a gun, shoot him in the leg, and call the police.

Thats exactly my point, if you have a gun you reach for it, not only do you get robbed, but the burglar gets spooked and kills you.
Also, swordsmanship is alot like playing an instrument, it's muscle memory, so you wouldn't have to think about anything as much as simply react.

I think Bullets should cost £800 per bullet... That way there wont be no innocent by-standers... There wont be drive bye's...

If you shoot at some one its going to be for more than just calling you a name or some thing daft !!... It's gunna have to be worth £800 a pop.

I don't think Guns should be on sale in Hyper Markets or Public shops, they should be on sale in council or state shops an each person who buys one should have some sort of interview and be ID checked... Each guns Serial number recorded... Every batch of bullets sold should also be coded and logged against your social security number or NI ID.

There should be tight laws around getting a fire arm, so tight that it puts people off... If you have a Gun licence every time its to be renewed I think your fire arm should be inspected to make sure it has not been altered to fire over the legal limit allocated to the guns strength...

Gun law is too relaxed.

They should be banned... But your right, they wont be... So I think they should be super expensive and hard to get hold of, and if you have one without a licence then you should serve time.... Say 2 years.

Yes, Chris Rock makes a valid point.

Thats exactly my point, if you have a gun you reach for it, not only do you get robbed, but the burglar gets spooked and kills you.
Also, swordsmanship is alot like playing an instrument, it's muscle memory, so you wouldn't have to think about anything as much as simply react.

That's not a very good argument. I'm pretty the dude with the sword would get shot. The robber isn't going to say, "What are you reaching for? Oh, its a sword. I'm not going to shoot you then, I'll just steal your stuff." And what are you supposed to be? Crouching Tiger? This is the 21st century here. Learn how to use a sword before you tell me what its like.

Thats exactly my point, if you have a gun you reach for it, not only do you get robbed, but the burglar gets spooked and kills you.
Also, swordsmanship is alot like playing an instrument, it's muscle memory, so you wouldn't have to think about anything as much as simply react.

So that makes it ok to kill someone? If it's with a sword? Death is death.

1. Because high tech weaponry will always be in effect due to military reasons, even with a world wide gun ban, guns will still be produced, and therefore be available to those who want it by illicit means. Armies will always have the most advanced, or suited, weaponries available. If guns are just increased in price, I'm sure the murderers will not mind stealing them.

2. This means that if a full spread gun ban (or price hijacking), the criminals will still have guns and the common people will be left at a high disadvantage.

3. IF there was magically no more guns in the world, you would just be trading a modern tool for an older one. If there where no guns, criminals would simply pick up a knife or sword and learn to use it well, the standard populace will do the same for self defense reasons. You would just be trading one thing for another of the same, general field.

3. In any fight situation, with one holding a gun, the other a sword, I would always choose to be the one holding the gun. If your telling me to learn to use a sword to take on a robber wielding a semi-automatic, you really have no clue or wish of survival.

That's not a very good argument. I'm pretty the dude with the sword would get shot. The robber isn't going to say, "What are you reaching for? Oh, its a sword. I'm not going to shoot you then, I'll just steal your stuff." And what are you supposed to be? Crouching Tiger? This is the 21st century here. Learn how to use a sword before you tell me what its like.

I'm saying you shouldn't have any weapon.

So that makes it ok to kill someone? If it's with a sword? Death is death.

Different subjects, I was answering two different questions.
Hence the "Also".


And as far as the rest of your points go, when I become the king of this planet, things are going to change, thats for sure.

When you become king of the planet, men will all have feathered hair, and wars will be waged through tickle-fight. Sorry, that was spam.

And as far as the rest of your points go, when I become the king of this planet, things are going to change, thats for sure. Wink

Why? Will becoming King give you enough of a brain to actually dispute my points..?


There is no solution of banning guns in our current stage. High powered weapons are needed, they will be needed for a great time, and banning them now will not help.

My point still stands: Banning guns will only take them out of the hands of the good people.



On topic, no more spam.

I can't debate seriously with Elegy, for the simple reason that his opinions seem to be fully flexible. You can delete my spam post if you want to, but like I said before. Its too late. Guns exist, end of story.

800$ doesnt even make a difference. The only difference i see, is the rich getting guns, leaving those with low wages and poor people, in a highly disadvantaged state. Sure we can all go waste our time in Asia and master the arts of sword. Dude, people have lives, why waste their times on swords. I fully support holkeye, we can't ban guns now, we made them, and it's been 200-300 years since we're using them. Also, guns are easily storable, just a lock n a bolt will do, but heh, you dont wanna cut yourself by accident by touching the sharp edge of the sword. Accidents can happen with gun misuse, thats the reason why we need heavy restrictions and limits toward them.

Raising prices would just serve to increase the profits of illegal arms dealers and smugglers.

Guns should be banned...just because they are unfair, well unless you're a sniper, then it's whoever gets shot first.

Sword, knives, shaken, blades, are much more fun, much more painful and require more skill to handle. At least with a blade you can be disarmed and there is less chance of killing yourself or shooting yourself in the foot. Excuse the pun.

Modern society is basically a refined form of slavery.

I suppose so.

My favorite thing about you is the way you cave and change the subject when you have been proven wrong.

Either you're trying to be an idiot or you just don't notice that Elergy obviously knows she was wrong and instead decided to make a comment toward you in the same way Gon does to her.

I think guns should not be banned, it's too late to fix the poor control of them in US but unlike Australia the self-defence laws aren't decent. If I were living there I'd get a gun for protecting myself. And considering I'm living here getting a gun would be nice one day, it's not that safe when the attacker is the only one with a gun.

It doesn't matter if guns should be banned or not. Its too late. They've already been invented, and even if the world goes into some magical utopia where no guns are allowed, people will still have them. Also, even if guns hadn't been invented when they were, something almost identical would've been made soon after. Everything is eventual. If it was possible though, my personal opinion on the matter is no, guns should not be banned. If somebody breaks into my house at night, and he is going to kill me or someone I love, I don't want to have to think back to my "ninja sword training" at 4 am. I want to reach for a gun, shoot him in the leg, and call the police.

I honestly couldn't agree more.

Ds to answer your questin, yeah i been stabbed, it fuckin hurt but i would rather be stabbed then shot, you got a higher chance of dieing from getting shot. Guns are illigal around here but many people carry them, but the last thing i hear of gun crime was a few weeks ago when some guy went around and shot 2-4 people in their sleep, before that all i heard about was how america were doing in Iraq. But around my area it is pretty dangerous to go out when it gets dark, so many people carry knives like me, and if someone tries to mug me i wont have a second thought in killing the bastard, the worst thing about where i live is if you have a hoody dont let the police see you wearing it or they will chase after you... For some reason uit goes for people who are black especially.

Adding from shadows violent post its true as we live bout half a mile from each other, near mine i got gangs running round and standing on street corners, if i went past them id have abuse and crao thrown at me but, commen sence i wouldnt have the power to do anything about it, also gon and elgy stop making quips at each other just argee without resortin to callin elgy a 13 yr old emo or gon a... well proving him wrong in such a harsh way.

Ok, I've moved your little fight over to spam. Keep on topic.

I haven't been proven wrong yet, now have I? Oh wait, no! Since all the points of the opposing side have been defeated and haven't been successfully defended.
I love how when I win these debates I'm accused of flaming and people call me an idiot and say I'm losing. Yet, my points are the viable ones that haven't been disproven. But anyways, back on topic...
Any suggestions on curbing gun (as well as general) violence without banning/overly restricting gun use?

Any suggestions on saving the environment without banning/overly restrincting pollution?

That's an interesting topic. Maybe you should start a new thread about it. Oh, thats right. You don't start debates, you just say ridiculous things in other peoples'.

@ gonorrhea - I think that would be the most relevant discussion, since banning guns is a near impossibility. Perhaps a better form of gun identification is in order. After all, a serial number just gets filed off by people on the street. Stopping stores like Wal-Mart from selling guns could be a good step, but most likely won't help much since most guns involved in murders are stolen and/or unregistered.

BY the way...

I think guns should be banned or not depends on the use, just like what Nightwolf and others said.
If you use guns for self-defense, it's okay.
If you use guns to hurt other people, NOW THAT'S BAD.

You know, in some countries, like Japan, is very strict with weapons.
Even carrying a knife will lead you to Police Office.

Elegy, get off your fucking soapbox and talk about shit that's not the environment. God, don't you think of anything other than 'OMGZ0RZ HUERTZ TEH ENVAIRENMINT' or 'AMERIKKKA SUXX0RZ'?
Holkeye, that would probably be neglible indeed. I honestly don't have any ideas right now to throw out :/
Jap0911 didn't seem to actually have a point to his post?

It's my very first post in this board...
So forgive me if it sounds like 'doesn't have any point'.

oh dear gon's on his throne

back on topic in uk gun crime is rarely a problem not including London though, banning guns is like saying to a kid you cant have that, because then every idiot will want a gun just to prove they can beat the system, if gun crime wants to be stopped or at least calm the shootings down more cops should be on patrol with more freedom to catch criminals, im talking about the uk here. 

Elegy, get off your fucking soapbox and talk about shit that's not the environment. God, don't you think of anything other than 'OMGZ0RZ HUERTZ TEH ENVAIRENMINT' or 'AMERIKKKA SUXX0RZ'?
Holkeye, that would probably be neglible indeed. I honestly don't have any ideas right now to throw out :/
Jap0911 didn't seem to actually have a point to his post?

My question was the exact same as yours, only the subject changed, now you see how stupid it is?
You can't change something by doing nothing, we don't live in a magical kingdom of happiness or whatever you've convinced yourself of.

And I don't use "1337-speak".

See, I'm not a geek.

D_S covered everything I had to say on the matter. I believe in fighting fire with fire, so if some asshole breaks into my house with a gun you can be sure I'll want one at hand.

My opinion on guns is (Warning: I live in Arkansas) That people should take a gun safety course like Hunter's Education before they are allowed to own, handle ,or shoot a gun. I have my Hunter's Ed card, and I have never shot anything. Mainly cause I'm a bad shot... By the way, my family owns 12 shotguns and 2 handguns.

My question was the exact same as yours, only the subject changed, now you see how stupid it is?

My question wasn't stupid, and we've discussed why this is above. Of course you ignore those parts.

You can't change something by doing nothing, we don't live in a magical kingdom of happiness or whatever you've convinced yourself of.

You are truly the stupidest person on earth. Seriously, can you comprehend anything?

And I don't use "1337-speak".

:|

I think guns will always be a problem and if you make them banned people will still have them and can still use them. Also it  maybe that a majority of violence is isociated to guns that is not the only threat Ex. Bombs, Knives, large sticks ect.

That is the smartest thing I've seen you say here, even though it was a bit tough to read. +rep.

banning guns, just leads to major chaos, raising prices gets the smugglers rich. also, wouldnt it be like a dictatorship? whereas the gov't can have guns but the citizens can't, and since they don't have any other means of common self defence, excluding elegy's sword, they have nothing to do but sit there, and get shot at by the people who have guns, and intend on using them for violent purposes. Yes, guns create chaos, but its essential for all nation. Ban guns in the U.S, we have one very poorly defended nation.


think of this, A man breaks into your house, and attempts to rob you, you grab your .45 acp, and cap him in the knees. Same applies to the GOV'T, if some idiot country decides to attack America, America would respond with self defense, AKA Weapons. So if they can use guns, why can't we. Also, not every person has time for sword training, guns are faster, more accurate and efficient. You swing your sword at thr gunman, where as he shoots you in the head. And it takes great skill to deflect bullets with swords, thats why we have body armor. So you see, guns are more efficient, and i doubt people will resort to swords if guns are banned, they just will smuggle them and use them, so screw swords.

I also think that people should take FireArms Self Defense tactics classes, so people would know the proper ways of using them. Its gun misuse that leads people into thinking differently, but if people think differently, its elegy.

Countries have practicly banned gunes before australia has done it I think. If we register all the guns then we can trace them and you can only buy them if you have the proper license for that gun.

Most guns used in crimes are stolen.

90% of those guns are, and 5% from another person, leading them to be accused, and the other 5% was bought.

Where do you get these statistics from anyway. Also some company has to make the guns rejister them when they are sold by making them get a real and tested I.D. and credit card

companies only sell weapons to retail stores. the retailers then sell them to you.

I only got 1 thing to say

Thats the point they need to change the way they do that whether or not retailers buy them or not this hole debate is aboute to see if they need to change the gun laws or not

No, its about whether or not guns should be banned. I agree they need to change some things, but I think better identification is the greatest step in preventing gun related crimes. People would be less prone to use them if it was easier to trace them.

bar coding and chipping the guns so they know where, when and who the shot was fired by, but then what happens if the gun was stolon?

banning guns is impossible, hundreds of thousands of people have them. Ban guns, the people of wont have nothing to defend themselves. If elegy ever mentions something about swords again, i got one message:

If people saw you carrying that sword around in the streets, ppl r gonna go (what the hell is he planning to do with that sword). Come one, this aint the midevial times.

Heavy restrictions toward guns is my thing. also better i.d helps, it prevents those not allowed to have guns to get one anyways.  

And link, thats why they have forensic specialists.

yeah but still gang fights, and all that crap or well planed murders? thats more what im getting at

thats why we have law enforcement, but the cops dont have time to report to crime and hostile incident, that why we need to protect ourselves.

back to original point bar coding and chipping 

Then they send the entire gang fight to prison becuase it is a tad on the illegal side. If it was well planned then there would still be less murders your never going to get rid of all the murders because there other things than guns to kill with you just havee to try to minimize them.

exactly, thats why we need other means of protecting ourselves, like.... GUNS, stick to the point, should guns be banned or not?

banning guns is impossible, hundreds of thousands of people have them. Ban guns, the people of wont have nothing to defend themselves. If elegy ever mentions something about swords again, i got one message:

If people saw you carrying that sword around in the streets, ppl r gonna go (what the hell is he planning to do with that sword). Come one, this aint the midevial times.

Heavy restrictions toward guns is my thing. also better i.d helps, it prevents those not allowed to have guns to get one anyways. 

And link, thats why they have forensic specialists.

As I said people in holland aren't supposed to have guns too you know..
STILL people will get shot and all because they can get it through people who CAN get them legal like in America .
And having guns for self defense is pointless, if guns are  banned you wont need to defend yourself do you ?

yeah but still gang fights, and all that crap or well planed murders? thats more what im getting at

Yes getting all guns out is very hard as everyone has a gun now .. Getting them all back would take years and alot of riot

I was thinking more along the lines of a tracking system. Something similar to gps, that goes off whenever a gun is fired. This way, the gun could be tracked, by following the blip resonating from the signal. It would be simple for a person legitimately firing a gun to have turned off, but if the gun is stolen, or used in a murder, I doubt the criminal want the police to come and turn it off.

Whats the point, people will still smuggle them and cap your ass, as i've said, banning guns takes away protection from the law abider, and gives the bad guys more oppurtunity to strike. Holkeye, that is good idea, but implementing that into all technologies would take time and money, its worth it, but im not sure if the gov't would agree.

Alot of countries have strict laws against owning firearms, some countries even have laws stating that even if someone hits you, you're not allowed to retaliate or attack them back in any way.
And in all of these countries, crime rates are much much lower than anywhere in the US.

Thats all the proof anyone needs to show how utterly idiotic guns are.

the only one utterly idiotic is you, wouldn't you want to protect yourself from someone that attacked you by retaliating. heck, you're the one mentioning swords for self defense, this isnt final fantasy.

I think we should ban guns. Only the cops and the army should have guns. Then the question arises, how will you defend yourself? I live in Canada, and nobody I know has a gun. Everyone who gets robbed doesn't have a gun. If you don't have gun, then there is no fire fights. When someone robs you, will you be able to get your gun from your drawers? NO! You won't be able to reach. Then what is the point of having a gun? A gun is a weapon that acts, not reacts.

Read before you post. You've broken the flow of the conversation. Even though there wasn't much of one to begin with.

I think we should ban guns. Only the cops and the army should have guns. Then the question arises, how will you defend yourself? I live in Canada, and nobody I know has a gun. Everyone who gets robbed doesn't have a gun. If you don't have gun, then there is no fire fights. When someone robs you, will you be able to get your gun from your drawers? NO! You won't be able to reach. Then what is the point of having a gun? A gun is a weapon that acts, not reacts.

How many times do i have to say.... take away guns, you give more oppurtinities of killing innocents (law abiders) to the ones that use guns for awful purposes. who said they'd have to get their guns from their drawers, theres a reason why people have several guns, for easy access. 

America= yes to guns = big crime rate
Rest of the World (expect some)= no to guns= low crime rate

I can't dumb it down any further.

the only one utterly idiotic is you, wouldn't you want to protect yourself from someone that attacked you by retaliating. heck, you're the one mentioning swords for self defense, this isnt final fantasy.

No, I've never mentioned swords as a valid means of self defence, I've stated that swords would be preferable to guns, seeing how you're infinitely less likely to hit a bystander with a sword and to be effective it requires training, meaning not any monkey could use it.

That doesn't mean no weapons at all wouldn't be preferable to swords.

It's only in the US where everyone has guns, almost all other I-countries have banned guns among civilians and they are far better off.

Unfortunately, the US isn't and will never be as civilized as the rest of the world.

You live in a fantasy world. Wake up.

Yes, I'm making this up, places with guns are obviously far safer than those without. /sarcasm

You generalize far too much.

stop fantasizing, you and oneray, seriously.

So what you're saying Ruhani is that you honestly belive that if two people are having a "fight" it's easier for a bystander standing 20m away to get hit if they are using swords, than if they are using guns.

There's a quote for the history books, pure wisdom.

That is the stupidest thing that I have heard yes a sword can kill some one but not like a bullet can from 20m away

America= yes to guns = big crime rate
Rest of the World (expect some)= no to guns= low crime rate

I can't dumb it down any further.

I don't want to write this again...

people dont have the time for training, that why more people prefer guns than swords. faster and effecient. Also swords create heavy blood loss, and vital organs are more likely to be damaged, rather than such a small bullet, which depends on where it is shot on the victim, and the bullet's size. Seriously, you're really the only one to speak for swords.

onray thats not how it works. take away guns, you give more oppurtinities of killing innocents (law abiders) to the ones that use guns for awful purposes.

its piss annoying when people ignore import points, and post whatever they wish.

No it doesn't.  Like i said before, a gun is an act, not a reaction.  Plus, barely anyone, besides the US, have guns. You can't deny it. Those countries with less "law abiders" owning guns have a lower crime rate. Your "oppuritinties" theory doesn't work then.

you think those less law abiders are afraid of killing someone? thats why people need guns to protect themselves. And a gun isnt an ACT its a tool used for killing, as well as swords and sticks. Its people that kill, and thats why i reccommend heavy restrictions upon them.

people dont have the time for training, that why more people prefer guns than swords. faster and effecient. Also swords create heavy blood loss, and vital organs are more likely to be damaged, rather than such a small bullet, which depends on where it is shot on the victim, and the bullet's size. Seriously, you're really the only one to speak for swords.

onray thats not how it works. take away guns, you give more oppurtinities of killing innocents (law abiders) to the ones that use guns for awful purposes.

its piss annoying when people ignore import points, and post whatever they wish.

Why are you going into the mechanics of swords and guns, who gives a fuck about the user of the weapon, let them kill eachother, it's all the innocent people who are the important ones.

If you're stupid enough to pick up a weapon, then I sincerely hope you get killed by one.

is that supposed to be a freakin threat, you have a higher chance of being killed than I, because i am to defend myself. If you're thinking about letting them kill each other, why argue against guns. Get that shit through your thick head.

You really are ignorant, READ the posts.

Guns = Bystander might get shot.
Swords/nunchucks/normal nuns/kittens/hands/nothing/banana = Bystander doesn't get shot!!


Do you understand or do I have to draw you a picture?

If you make a wide swing/let go you might accidentally cut them.

Try to have some dignity in your posts, both of you. (Not @ Djang)

it depends on whom you're gonna use the gun on. It doesnt matter the weapon, its just that all weapons kill, and i feel gun's shouldnt be banned. A guy with a sword is more of a hostile threat than a guy with a concealed weapon. You think ppl are actually gonna go fight with stix and rox? Hey look, im robbing this dude with a stick, where as he has a gun to defend himself with!

Your form of dignity appears to be complacency and ass-kissing, I'm better off without it.

I'm the only one who creates any real entropy around here, if you want someone to agree with you go talk to a wall.
Arguments are about disagreement and that is what I provide.

This isn't about disorder or arguments, twat. It's debating. It ought to be polite.

Your form of dignity appears to be complacency and ass-kissing, I'm better off without it.

I'm the only one who creates any real entropy around here, if you want someone to agree with you go talk to a wall.
Arguments are about disagreement and that is what I provide.

pffft, arguements are about debate, and you're the one kisses ass. i bet if you talk to real americans, i damn well guaruntee they'll choose guns over swords. because why waste time on them, and i bet 99% of the people dont know how to use a sword any way.

You can be rude to each other, just do it without sounding so childish.

This thread has taken a turn for the STUPID.

Lock?

I'm the only one who creates any real entropy around here, if you want someone to agree with you go talk to a wall.
Arguments are about disagreement and that is what I provide.

No, you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing. You do nothing but add ridiculous arguments that rarely make any logical sense. If you're going to play devil's advocate, you should at least be intelligent enough to do so, which is one thing you're not.