BSM wrote i think you should be allowed to have guns but i think that there should be a restriction on the kind of guns.. ok you do not need an ak-47 with a 100 drum mag with explosive rounds with a under mounted shotgun that to fires explosive rounds just to protect your house thats in the city -_-. i think that if you want a gun ok, a semi auto HANDGUN under 10mm. not some assault rifle, or a shotgun. If you want to go hunting fine, a bolt action rifle. im not sure about rifle calibers but something not to large. like a muzzle loader or something

Why would you want to outlaw guns that are involved in almost a statistical zero of all gun crime in America? Handguns are by far the most commonly-used, so wouldn't it "make sense" to ban them? No, because it doesn't make sense to ban any guns.

Also, this is aside from the point, but caliber doesn't have much to do with the actual power of a cartridge. A .22 short round is very nearly the same "caliber" as a .223 round, but [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] they're very different in terms of kinetic energy (.22 LR is pictured, not short. .22 Short is, well, shorter). People that want to restrict rounds based on size (or kinetic energy if they actually want to make a limit that makes any sense) do so out of fear and lack of knowledge of what they're dealing with. Same goes for guns with scary attachments like drum magazines, modern stocks, black furniture, silly rail-mounted shotguns (implying this would be effective at all for anything other than special loads or anti-material purposes).

The point of allowing the citizens to own guns is that we are on an equal footing with our military. Again, if the government can have muskets, the people can have muskets. If the government can have AR15s, the people can have AR15s.

Pretty much every other western or democratic country has stricter gun laws and untill now none of them had serious problems. Its not like you need a gun to live. In other countries crimes committed with guns are actually pretty rare and there is no need for harsh self defense.

AiMxBoT wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote Which is exactly why gun control would fail. Criminals don't obtain guns legally in the first place. They are criminals. A simple law will do nothing but extend the jail sentence that will be cut short anyways due to lack of funding. Or increase the fine that they won't be able to afford to pay.

Absolute rubbish, you telling me all criminals get their guns illegally. That is just stupid to think that. Did you ever hear of Bowling for Columbine. 18 year olds purchased guns legally. Nuff said, then went and shot up a school. Dont say siht that they didn't. I am against your childish topic views, guns have always been the ones killing people, sure you can say people are the ones in control but in the end if there was no guns there would be no GUN VIOLENCE hear me no GUN VIOLENCE. All that being said americans are just stubborn idiots. Oh i have a gun to protect my self, ever think that guy could use it against you? Its as easy as saying it was self protection. Rant over

Not all criminals, no. The thing here is that if there is a gun ban, criminals would still get the guns that they want. Black markets will boom. One does not simply get all of the guns out of a country. Criminals will flourish in America without legally owned guns. If you have a gun to protect yourelf, how would someone know where it is? If someone can find it that easily, you're doing it wrong. If they ban guns, you will just have people stabbing others like in other countries. Was it in China or Japan? One of those countries saw a man enter a school of little children and he stabbed 20 of them. Tell me where that is a difference? Morally speaking, I'd rather people be shot and killed instantly than to be stabbed to death. All in all, guns are there to protect ourselves from the government. People like to say hunting and protecting yourself from everyday criminals, but it's not there for that. It's there for a tyrannical government. We are the superpower of the world as of right now. Corruption of the government is very easy. America isn't immune to something like that. Never will be. All we can do is have the protection for if that day ever comes.

General_Q wrote Pretty much every other western or democratic country has stricter gun laws and untill now none of them had serious problems. Its not like you need a gun to live. In other countries crimes committed with guns are actually pretty rare and there is no need for harsh self defense.

The United States is unlike those countries because of the fact that guns have been a crucial part of our culture since... Always. The phrase "Come and take it" in my signature originated during the Revolutionary war. It's also been proven that restriction does not improve the violent crime situation in America.

General_Q wrote Pretty much every other western or democratic country has stricter gun laws and untill now none of them had serious problems. Its not like you need a gun to live. In other countries crimes committed with guns are actually pretty rare and there is no need for harsh self defense.

Take away guns and crime shoots up in other areas, no pun intended.
You can see this in the UK with knife crime.

Personally in my opinion (I told others that live around me the same thing and they argued even though they are against it as well) that if you are going to purchase a gun anywhere, they should do a full background check. I know in some cases like Pawn Shops, Flea Markets, and just selling on the streets will not be affected as much. But make it affect them as well. They should make a law where it is illegal to sell guns on the streets (Which Flea Markets will go under this category because you buy and leave there) And for the Pawn Shops, they should have to do a full background check. I know this could take some time, but this way it will be effective as well and cause the gun crime to go decently lower then it is right now.

I know I sort of rambled a little in the middle, but I hope you get what I mean.

[quote="Yin"]

AiMxBoT wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote Which is exactly why gun control would fail. Criminals don't obtain guns legally in the first place. They are criminals. A simple law will do nothing but extend the jail sentence that will be cut short anyways due to lack of funding. Or increase the fine that they won't be able to afford to pay.

Absolute rubbish, you telling me all criminals get their guns illegally. That is just stupid to think that. Did you ever hear of Bowling for Columbine. 18 year olds purchased guns legally. Nuff said, then went and shot up a school. Dont say siht that they didn't. I am against your childish topic views, guns have always been the ones killing people, sure you can say people are the ones in control but in the end if there was no guns there would be no GUN VIOLENCE hear me no GUN VIOLENCE. All that being said americans are just stubborn idiots. Oh i have a gun to protect my self, ever think that guy could use it against you? Its as easy as saying it was self protection. Rant over

Umm... What planet are you living on? I never said ALL criminals do. But open your eyes a little bit. MOST criminals obtain guns through illegal actions. Making purchasing of firearms illegal would cause the black market to skyrocket. There would be people that never intend on using firearms for illegal actions purchasing guns from the black market just to stay safe.
My childish views? Turn on your TV, walk outside, ride a bike around town. This topic is not childish nor am I a child. It has been a debate in CONGRESS AND THE GOVERMENT... Not teletubies...

How many gun related deaths were caused last year in america? How many knife related deaths were there? .... Enough said. your views are the childish and limited.

"If there were no guns there would be no gun violence." If you are implying that if guns were not invented there would be no gun violence, then yes, that would be one of the first correct things you have said. But, if you are saying that there were no guns in the hands of civilians. You are wrong. Ever heard of a military dictatorship? That's where civilians have no guns and the military does, and if you can find a historical military dictatorship that had no gun violence. Please, enlighten me.

"Americans are stubborn idiots" hmmm... That's an interesting sentence. care to elaborate?

Sure a person could use my own gun against me. But, I'd rather the odds of him getting my gun then me being un-armed with the same guy pointing some stolen weapon at my face.

BSM wrote i think you should be allowed to have guns but i think that there should be a restriction on the kind of guns.. ok you do not need an ak-47 with a 100 drum mag with explosive rounds with a under mounted shotgun that to fires explosive rounds just to protect your house thats in the city -_-. i think that if you want a gun ok, a semi auto HANDGUN under 10mm. not some assault rifle, or a shotgun. If you want to go hunting fine, a bolt action rifle. im not sure about rifle calibers but something not to large. like a muzzle loader or something

It isn't the bill of needs. The 2nd Amendment was not made for hunting. It was made for fighting a tryannical government. So why are we not expected to at least have the same rifle, except semi-automatic? Explosive rounds? haha good luck getting those. And saying you don't need to protect a city house look at Chicago. I wouldn't step foot in that city. FYI, hunting calibers are typical larger than "assault weapon" calibers. Hunting calibers are meant to kill, military rounds are meant to wound. Assault Rifle =/= legal AK47's. Assault Rifles have been illegal since 1930's.

General_Q wrote Pretty much every other western or democratic country has stricter gun laws and untill now none of them had serious problems. Its not like you need a gun to live. In other countries crimes committed with guns are actually pretty rare and there is no need for harsh self defense.

There is no such thing as "harsh self defense". If someone wants to attack me, my family, or my home, there is no doubt in my mind that I will attack back with a legal firearm. The fact that you even said "harsh self defense" makes me question why people who dont know anything about the subject at hand, need to flood the topic with stupid responses like that. So your telling me, if a criminal attacks you with a knife, you should be "fair" and defend yourself with a knife as well? I guess we should be fair to the people that are trying to harm us, and to not be harsh and hurt their feelings too. :facepalm:

I would also like to add this:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Video towards the bottom of the page.

I think that there shouldnt be regulations on guns.