TorilMUD Forums

It gets lifted tonight, so who's for it, or who's against it?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/saw-faqs.htm

If one actually reads the text of the ban, they'll see that the weapons it bans are only restricted due to either their model name or accessories.

REAL assault weapons have been restricted since the anarchist scare of the early 20th century. This just kept you from being allowed to have things like both a rifle butt AND a pistol-style grip on the same, semi-automatic weapon. Or a bayonet lug, when even drill sergeants will tell recruits that bayonets are largely useless. In essence, this banned guns on how "scary" some of them looked, not actual lethality.

Banning certain weapons by model number was also a joke. The law banned M-16s, so Colt just reverted to their original model number (M-16 is the military's restring basically), AR-15, and continued to sell the same civilian version they had been all along.

Really, the only noticeable difference the ban made was that prices for preban large capacity handgun magazines went up as supply dried up. This was compensated by many civilian shooters gravitating more towards larger caliber handguns that don't support larger magazines easily. The only real different the ban's sunset is likely to make is that those prices will go down again in time (an initial buying frenzy might negate the surge in supply's effect for a while) and that some people will have fun buying mags that have "Restricted law enforcement/government use only" stamped on them for shits and giggles.

Really, even people against gun rights can do better than this. This was like saying drugs are bad and then banning blue crack pipes.

Yeah this is a non-event event. Kind of funny how the media and some democrats are trying to make into this big story, when if anyone actually does look into the ban as Trel did then the lifting doesn't actually effect anything in reality.

I am pro guns. anyway, if it comes down to each man for his own in the states. you know, if the war came here. which, you never know, it could happen someday. then this would be most beneficial.

muma wrote:I am pro guns. anyway, if it comes down to each man for his own in the states. you know, if the war came here. which, you never know, it could happen someday. then this would be most beneficial.

What the fuck am i talking about??

Woot, now I can get that Famas i've always wanted!

Was muma tripping?

rylan wrote:Was muma tripping?

Does she even need to?

how many personalities does muma have?

Why make it easier to kill a human being? Ban the weapons that are designed to kill humans, duh? Yeah I know guns don't kill people, people do - but the guns help, a lot.

Screw assault weapons. When do I get my rpg launcher and the unlimited right to blow people up that I consider stupid or who piss me off?

Jhorr wrote:Why make it easier to kill a human being? Ban the weapons that are designed to kill humans, duh? Yeah I know guns don't kill people, people do - but the guns help, a lot.

devils advocate here

but lets outlaw cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc that all kill people too, air, food .. the list goes on ...

honestly it's not the WAY of killing people ... just hold people accountable for their own actions ...

Oh, yeah, guns are as necessary for living as air and food... that was a good one.

Let's be truthful, guns' ONLY purpose is to kill. They have no other use except as weapons.

Yeah people kill people, and there's a whole slew of different issues that can be debated in thier own right regarding driving skills, sensible usage of drugs and alcohol, extreme sports, airplcraft statistics and technology, knives and swords safety etc etc.; BUT guns in the hands of any but well-trained and totally sensible folks make it too easy to kill or seriously maim.

Guns (with live ammo in them I'm talkin about) do away with the in-your-face hand-to-hand type personal conflict that would be a much more fun way of resolving (most) issues between your fellow wo/man.
Guns facilitate medium to long-range killing, thus sniping and an element of "surprise" and danger of an extremely high order that has virtually no place in society.

Genuine effective management of all guns (and worse weapons), groups that use guns, eradication of handguns & automatic type weapons in the hands of gangsters and idiots, and especially major overhaul of all military around the world is what the human race needs if we are to have a reasonably bright future.

do you not know what a devil's advocate is?

Artmar wrote:Oh, yeah, guns are as necessary for living as air and food... that was a good one.

Let's be truthful, guns' ONLY purpose is to kill. They have no other use except as weapons.

Not true. they can be used to wound as well. or simply to cause fear in your enemy.

Artmar wrote:Oh, yeah, guns are as necessary for living as air and food... that was a good one.

Let's be truthful, guns' ONLY purpose is to kill. They have no other use except as weapons.

]

A guns purpose is stopping power. Regardless of how it's used. Either to kill, or to stun, or would like Muma said, it's typically used for stopping power.

Arilin Nydelahar wrote:

Artmar wrote:Oh, yeah, guns are as necessary for living as air and food... that was a good one.

Let's be truthful, guns' ONLY purpose is to kill. They have no other use except as weapons.

]

A guns purpose is stopping power. Regardless of how it's used. Either to kill, or to stun, or would like Muma said, it's typically used for stopping power.

If you mean stopping power as in killing, you are prettymuch 100% on.
Maiming or wounding is just a result of shitty aim. Using a gun to cause
fear or assert power is a use, true. Illegal for any civillian (see laws
regarding "brandishing a firearm" etc.) to do, but works well for the
police.

To all of those who say banning guns would make the US a better place,
think again. Think of all the weapons in the US. Now think of all the law
abiding citizens. The weapons owned by the law-abiding citizens would be
removed, leaving all the illegal (or perhaps legal, but poorly distributed)
firearms in the hands of the dangerous people. And to top it off, the law
abiding citizens would now be using baseball bats or bows and arrows
against criminals with guns. Makes a LOT of sense (/sarcasm). If the US
had banned guns long ago (like canada did) maybe it wouldn't be as big
of a problem, but as it stands now, its completely rediculous.

As for the quote above regarding how cars, food, etc kill people like guns,
but that guns aren't required to survive, i think that is a matter of opinion.
I can't think of ONE police officer that goes out on duty without a gun and
feels prepared for any situation.

You shouldn't fear owning a gun, but you should fear not having one when the time comes.

Jhorr wrote:Why make it easier to kill a human being? Ban the weapons that are designed to kill humans, duh? Yeah I know guns don't kill people, people do - but the guns help, a lot.

Can't we just ban stupid people and pricks instead?

Okay people, raise your hand if you've studied crime patterns over time extensively?

Anyone that hasn't raised their hands should just shut up right now. Esepecially all doctors, lawyers, police, insurance agents, coroners who are typically only going to be seeing one side of things in their line of work on this subject. We already saw this thread several months ago and you can do a search in the general discussion archives you'll see that it wound up basically becoming Cherzra shouting out idiotic comments and never responding to statistics and analyses. Go start your own thread if you want to do that, this was meant to discuss a particular piece of legislation that was just idiotic and pointless no matter what side of the fence you're on.

If your government can't trust you with guns, then you can't trust your government. :)

That was a joke, right? You could replace guns with a million other potentially dangerous things that we outlaw and make the same statement.

And I studied crime patterns involving violent crimes and gun use a few years ago. What I got out of it was you're more likely to kill someone close to you than an intruder or really dangerous criminal (if you're not a police officer)and guns are responsible for many deaths in the US. It's impossible for me to say that the murder rate would rise or lower depending on if guns were banned because it's all speculation. I don't understand the need to have guns because I don't understand the need to have something thats primary purpose is killing (unless you hunt, I don't care about that as long as you keep your guns secured). Still, I'm not against banning them. There are too many people who really really like their guns and I don't wanna listen to them complain.

Mitharx wrote:And I studied crime patterns involving violent crimes and gun use a few years ago. What I got out of it was you're more likely to kill someone close to you than an intruder or really dangerous criminal (if you're not a police officer)

Whenever you read something like that you HAVE to look at how they define things. Studies that aren't just straight analyses of FBI and police records tend to define things a bit differently than what most people would (whereas the FBI and police tend to define various crimes quite well when issuing annual reports). They also don't tend to differentiate cause and effect. If you look at the numbers for suicide rate for example, you'd see a higher rate among gun owners but that's probably because they were suicidal in the first place and bought the gun for that purpose, not the other way around.

The study in particular that came up with that figure I believe you're refering to happened to include gang members, prostitutes, drug pushers, and other groups that tend to be involved in violence after interacting with someone as "people you're close to." The original number quoted by the author of the report was something like 44x more likely. Then after it was criticized, it was lowered to 17x. But I still wouldn't consider the people included as acquantences in that study acquantences.

Anyway, here's the old thread if you really want to resurrect this topic http://www.torilmud.org:8080/phpBB2/vie ... highlight=

If you're going to keep posting, at least do us all a favor and post something new so you don't waste our time.

I decided to edit this because I was told it was longwinded and overly sarcastic and now it reads kinda choppy, but oh well.

I didn't go off the major studies because I found that they changed too often. Groups that were for very strong gun control used every stat they could to prove their point. Groups that were for little or no gun control used every hypothesis they could to prove that society would go straight to hell without a well armed populace and that guns are awesome and people are messed up. In either case, no one proved anything.

I decided what I had to do was go by the numbers. I included 1/2 suicides in my analysis because it may be the case (and often is) that people who are suicidal aren't necessarily for days in a row. If you put some control on the gun that makes them wait to get it, they have the chance to change their mind. Others use guns that didn't belong to them or were bought for purposes that weren't killing themselves.

1/2 was a guess. A 50/50 kind of thing because the stats on how many guns are bought for the purpose of suicides aren't very well kept. It's guessing regardless of how positive or negative I am with the stats. I don't know anything more about this area than you do.

In short, I didn't prove anything with my study. The only conclusion I made was that it seems like it's more likely to kill yourself or a loved one than a hostile criminal or intruder and that we may be better off with more strict gun laws. It was far from ground breaking, but it was the most conclusive statement I could make.Would the people just find alternative ways to kill themselves? Maybe. It's all speculation.

With this in mind, I really don't understand having guns. I guess I don't feel that scared or the need to defend myself with firearms. I can't say that it's wrong and so I don't support banning them. I would prefer some controls, but banning isn't gonna work for the same reason that banning a bunch of other things doesn't work. People like their stuff and will find a way to get it that is beyond the law.

And since you've already mastered all aspects of the gun control ---

Gun Control Debating (99)

you can stop reading the posts here. I won't stop ya. I promise that no one will, but if you wanna keep posting and reading these then you're going to HAVE to deal with things you may have already seen before.

If you look at the numbers for suicide rate for example, you'd see a higher rate among gun owners but that's probably because they were suicidal in the first place and bought the gun for that purpose, not the other way around.

Actually, there are more suicide attempts by women than men, although men are more SUCCESSFUL because they typically use more violent methods such as shooting themselves.

Having a gun makes killing convenient, whether it's yourself or someone else. I can't wait for the next Columbine to happen soon so that the Republicans and the gun-toting NRA lobbyists who are f__king them and the rest of the country look like the complete retards they are.

Guns make it easier to kill, yourself and others. Why we'd want something that makes it easier to kill people around I don't know.

If your worried about personal security its been shown that dog are the number one deterant to B&E, and your dog isn't likely to kill you or a loved one.

Even if you don't want to ban guns I see nothing wrong with limiting rate of fire or number of rounds before reloading is necessary, or the strength of guns. Do you really want people shooting indecrimantly in a city full of people? Or bullets that will go through building walls and could hit people adjacent? At least if you have limited capacity your more likely to aim your shots instead of just laying into your target with a barage of fire. Maybe it would encourage more people to take gun courses which if you do allow guns I think is wise.

And saying that banning guns would just mean only the criminal types would have them is a terrible excuse, like oh we can't eliminate all guns so lets not try. Making guns illegal would push up the price, supply and demand economics dictates that this would reduce the number of people who buy guns. And maybe, just maybe if you American get scared enough of the criminal element you'll finally start solving the underlying social problems that create crime.
Lilithelle - Would rather not shoot ANYBODY

Lilithelle wrote:If your worried about personal security its been shown that dog are the number one deterant to B&E, and your dog isn't likely to kill you or a loved one.

I have dog + gun : D

Well I am not sure how to address this topic. I am not highly educated in statistics, but when the time and if the time comes that you have to protect something you ither need or love, I don't think your education in statistics and social studies is gonna be a fesable defense. When it comes to weapon control I think people need to be more responsible. Take the responsiblity to do what needs to be done. Radicals exsist.. welcome to the real world. If you really want to control the problem of gun deaths then you need to make guns nonexsistant... but lets step back into the real world. Reguardless of what is said, I think it really depends on what side of the line your on in this case. Reguardless of what side of the line your on we are still all part of the same circle. Even if the gun control laws are implemented people will still find ways of cause death. It is something that this world would proably be better without... but then again would we even be advanced in technology to this point if it wasn't for the weapons and deaths involved with the founding of this country.

In my opinion people are gonna find something to bitch about and blame for the problems that accur in this country no matter what. You wanna fix the problem... fix the people not the things of the people. Education in this country seems to have become limited to memorazation of facts and multiple choice. Teach morals and principles instead of laws and you might find some change in american society for the better in all aspects.

Though better education will help that is only the smallest part of the problem, alot of crime comes from the divide between rich and poor and people who feel alienated and trapped in poverty. What is needed is more equity in society. And the people breaking into houses aren't radicals, they're either people who are addicted to drugs looking for money or people who are poor who don't see another way for themselves to attain the affluence society flaunts. All people are someone's son or daughter, I will not be the one who chooses which life is more valuable than another, no person has that right. It is this us against them mentality which causes the existing problems, we need to help others not simply react against them with violence.
Lil

Jhorr wrote:I can't wait for the next Columbine to happen

Uh-huh....

This is one of those subjects that rates right up there with Religion, it creates debate, and sometimes makes people get very angry and hot headed with another since they think their view matters and no one elses.

I'm glad so far it's staying "Debatable"

Now my 2 cents. I am pro-gun owner. Several years ago a gun saved my life from being taken, Laws in the states even if you're a police officer are if your gun is used in Self Defense, your gun is forever a piece of evidence and you never get it back. Police officers, have their gun removed at the Scene and are issued a new gun on the spot. To continue on this, I was found not guilty and in the right, since the offender had a weapon himself.

I went through training courses at the early age of 5 and taught to respect them for the "Tools" that they are. Mine are kept locked up in a nice fireproof safe. So like any tool, keep them put away safely, where they cannot be disturbed.

This Media hype over this was just hype, they need something else to deflate the political race on the television, and every presidental election it comes up.

Guns kill people (saw earlier comment) if guns were outlawed Murder would still happen, in the same degree. If someone has the intent to kill you they will do it with a potato if they can manage it. In fact, more people are murdered by other means then Guns in the United states then being shot.

Still, being Pro-gun owner, there is one thing I would like to see and let me say it first then I'll explain a good example as to why:

Every gun owner should be required to have a license like a drivers license with recertifacation every 10 years or less to own that gun, get the great little license picture on there and everything else fun with that.

The reason I say this is what happened here 2 summers ago, there are extreme idiots that own guns. A adult man was out target shooting at a local gravel pit and he had his 8 year old son holding a target when he shot him. People like this are the ones that make others flip out and think all guns should be banned. I don't doubt this guy would have killed his son in some otherway if guns were outlawed or not, and when the media got ahold of it, the story just exploded into ban this and that, guns kill everyone hype.

I live near the store that sold the rifle to the East coast sniper a few years ago. That store was threatened to be shut down and the owners Firearms license revoked. It SHOULD have been, this is another case where wrong is just wrong. They found lack of over 200 records for guns sold which should have been on file. This is extreme irresponsibility once again, and probably yearly record inspections should be made just to make sure the number sold match up with the number on paperwork.

Assault weapons, personally I see no rhyme or reason someone would need full-auto but the military. Ammo gets expensive :) and you don't want to hunt with it because it would massacre the animal to be unusable. Besides, shooting a semi-auto or whatever you want to call it yourself, single-shot etc... is alot different once you pick up a assault weapon and fire. (I got to shoot M16's and M60's off the deck of the Enterprise). I own a Civilian AR15 done in the likeness of the M16 but single shot, and it's "Auto" mode is 3 shot. Comparing the 2 even though simular are way different to shoot, and Full assault, should remain military only.

My meaning is getting lost in this here and I am sorry, so I will simply end there. Maybe I missed alot of issues posted above but it's becomeing a long discussion.

My 2 cents and perhaps a Nickle thrown in for good measure.

I completely agree with Jhorr and Lilithelle. We must be saved from ourselves. Why, just yesterday I thought about killing myself, but luckily I don't have a gun. So I just kind of shrugged it off and went about my business and today I feel much better. If not for government intervention you would probably be putting up a statue in my memory today!

Our government really dropped the ball, however, when it comes to automobiles. There are over 40,000 automobile related deaths in the USA each year. It amazes me that they would allow ordinary people without any special or extensive training to operate vehicles weighing often in excess of two tons at speeds of up to 65 mph or even greater. And not only can you hurt yourself when you operate a vehicle improperly, but you can hurt innocent strangers! Driving a car is an extremely dangerous activity that should have been banned YEARS ago.

Corth

What!!!?
What!!!?
What!!!?
OK!
YEA!!!

Reguardless of strict gun laws or not.. people our gonna murder,make mistakes and have accidents.... it is human to error. Laws from what i have seen are nothing more than a temporary fix that is later exploited to benift those it was created against...

When the time comes that I have to defend myself... I want the ablity to defend myself with what ever means gives me the best chance to save my life and the lives of others... I don't give a good damn hell what it is... if it is a gun,a rope and tree,a car,a gallon of drano,a cup of coffee.. I really don't give a damn scarlet.

Put it in my hand and forgive me for my choice...

Mitharx wrote:I decided what I had to do was go by the numbers. I included 1/2 suicides in my analysis because it may be the case (and often is) that people who are suicidal aren't necessarily for days in a row. If you put some control on the gun that makes them wait to get it, they have the chance to change their mind. Others use guns that didn't belong to them or were bought for purposes that weren't killing themselves.

First of all, i don't see why this got into a debate on "assault weapons".
Cant think of one person who actually committed suicide with an assault
weapon. Seems like it'd be a bit overkill, and more difficult than a
handgun or the like. But, if you want to go there, we will go there...

Most suicides aren't done with guns. Hell, most violent crime is still done
with knives, and bats, and fists (look at domestic violence). Of all the
attempted (and successful) suicide calls i've gone on, 90% have been
with pills. Tylenol is a long slow, excruciating death, wherein, after a
certain amount of time, is irreversable. Opiates, such as heroin, morphine
codine, hydrocodone, and the like, are quite effective as you just
don't breathe anymore. Too bad we have a drug that can reverse their
effects. Seems guns are rare, but effective. Almost 100% success. That
is, for the ones that actually go through with it. Most of the time we get called, police disarm them, and they get a week or so in the mental
ward of a local hospital. Equally effective means appear to be jumping
in front of large automobiles in traffic, trains, etc.

And this one is for lili and all the other canadians:

Wouldn't you rather have them shoot themselves in their own home
rather than stand on a bridge, and eventually jump, and fuck up
traffic for the entire day? i sure know i would.

Most suicides aren't done with guns.

I think Delmair meant most suicide ATTEMPTS do not involve the use of a firearm. My point earlier was that most SUCCUSSFUL suicides are due to firearms. In fact, most homicides are due to firearms, as well. A quick Google for 'suicide statistics' leads you to the CDC website:

Mortality (U.S.)

All suicides:
Number of deaths: 30,622 (2001)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.8 (2001)

Firearm suicides:
Number of deaths: 16,869 (2001)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.9 (2001)

Suffocation suicides:
Number of deaths: 6,198 (2001)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.2 (2001)

Poisoning suicides:
Number of deaths: 5,191 (2001)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 1.8 (2001)

MOREOVER:
Mortality (U.S.)

All homicides
Number of deaths: 20,308 (2001)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 7.1 (2001)

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,348 (2001)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.0 (2001)

You know, without looking at repeat offenders, how many were a result
of gang violence, how many were self defense, etc. Just looking at the
numbers doesn't say MUCH other than that "people that kill people,
prefer to do it with guns"(even if that person is themself). As the numbers
show, guns are indeed the most effective at getting the job done. Should
that mean that people shouldn't own them? See previous comment above
about what banning guns would do to the US currently. to sum it up
short: The criminals would have em, the law abiding citizens wouldn't.

As far as suicide, depression has been on the rise across the US and
North America for years. Not sure about other regions, but are we going
to blame that on guns too?

Do we need assault weapons? probbably not. But the brady bill didn't just
cover assault weapons. The brady bill also covered the magazine
capacity for semi-automatic weapons. Why does it matter how many a
particular cartridge can hold? Just have a belt or a backpack with plenty
of extras. Not like it takes any time at all to reload! Also, what is the
difference between 10 and 15 bullets? (10 being max brady bill allowed
and 15 being max magazine capacity in a 9mm full size pistol, might
be 16 in some models, but i think 15 is pretty standard) Either way the
no-good-hippie tree-huggers are upset. The only way to make them
happy is to ban all the weapons that kill their precious woodland
creatures! Anyway, back to reality here, either way if the guns get into
the wrong hands, people die. This is the case of about anything. Look
at what happened when an airplane got into the wrong hands? Banning
guns isn't the issue. Its education, having PARENTS that give a shit,
and other influencing factors of people growing up.

Delmair Aamoren wrote:The criminals would have em, the law abiding citizens wouldn't.

Think you forgot to mention, the law abiding citizen's children wouldn't have them either.

Bowling anyone?


Del, you've always been a big supporter of how stupid most people are. Are you sure you want these types of people with access to assult weapons?

"people that kill people, prefer to do it with guns"

I couldn't agree more. As for what banning guns would do, you're speculating. You can compare it to other elements of the black market, but transportation and hiding these others elements are often much easier (aka try filling a balloon with guns and hiding it to where customs can't find it). As for trade that goes over the border and other undetected methods, I agree that it most likely will never be stopped. This doesn't mean that we don't try to prevent things that we consider harmful from coming in. Still, we would let some law abiding citizens carry fire arms. Our police can have them.

"Its education, having PARENTS that give a shit, and other influencing factors of people growing up.

Again, I couldn't agree more. So, until we fix this problem, perhaps we should put limits on the amount of guns out there.

"As far as suicide, depression has been on the rise across the US and
North America for years. Not sure about other regions, but are we going
to blame that on guns too?"

No. I don't blame suicides on guns either. I do recognize that it makes the success rate of suicides increase.

And I was speaking of guns in general. It's my understanding that killing large amounts of people very quickly can be done with any type of gun.

Once again, cars aren't weapons. Sure, they can be used as weapons, but they have other valid uses (although I do have to concede the point on homer opening his beer with his gun and guns possibly being used as hammers - if hammers are ever outlawed, I'm buying guns to keep around the house). I could find a nice hiding spot and start sniping like crazy with my rifle. I couldn't do that with my car.

Like I said, I don't think bans will work and I'm not sure banning guns is the way to go. It's all speculation. I'm just saying I don't understand the want to have one outside of hunting. You say guns make you feel safer. I guess that's good. I'm just not that scared to start off with.

edited for my stupid spelling/grammar errors

The problem is that laws cannot be written simply because it would seem to be a good idea.

As with most issues with government, good laws are those that are written for all of society only when absolutly necessary.

Weapon control is a subject of necessity for government to legislate. People are not responsible enough to own their own nuclear missiles. Furthermore, the nation's transportation system is poorly designed for tanks, and people's homes aren't built to stand up to the collateral damage caused by someone else shooting a missile into your neighbor's home.

I would like to point out several things.

1) Guns are not evil.

There is nothing evil about a gun. They're used to protect as well as assault, by policemen and criminals.

2) Guns are not dangerous whatsoever.

When they are not loaded.

Eh. i was going to type a full comprehensive arguments including the benefits of banning guns but to hell with it
if the arguement comes down to it i have one and you don't



heh

anyway
hitler took away the jew's guns
and stalin took away the peasant's

Sesexe wrote:

Delmair Aamoren wrote:The criminals would have em, the law abiding citizens wouldn't.

Think you forgot to mention, the law abiding citizen's children wouldn't have them either.

Bowling anyone?


Del, you've always been a big supporter of how stupid most people are. Are you sure you want these types of people with access to assult weapons?

As i mentioned above, the parents are also an important part of the
solution. The weapons should definately be kept out of the hands of
children. Locked in safes with combinations, etc. always preferred.
If you can't prove you have a secure place to store the weapon, you
shouldn't have access to it. But good luck enforcing that one too...

teflor the ranger wrote:People are not responsible enough to own their own nuclear missiles.

Most people that want to buy guns are also not responsible enough to own them (neither are their children, for that matter)

teflor the ranger wrote:2) Guns are not dangerous whatsoever.

When they are not loaded.

Well, neither are nukes... when not armed (who the hell buys guns without ammo anyway?)

And as with laws - there's lot of them that are even less necessary.

Artmar wrote:
Well, neither are nukes... when not armed (who the hell buys guns without ammo anyway?)

Yeah, because radiation is good for you!

Artmar wrote:Most people that want to buy guns are also not responsible enough to own them (neither are their children, for that matter)
And as with laws - there's lot of them that are even less necessary.

I think you are wrong. Perhaps it is your bias against guns. As noted in
your post above

Artmar wrote:Oh, yeah, guns are as necessary for living as air and food... that was a good one.

Let's be truthful, guns' ONLY purpose is to kill. They have no other use except as weapons.

No, guns do more than kill. Perhaps only if you are a terrible shot, but
guns also blind, maim, and intimidate. At least two of those options are
used effectively (some of the time) by law enforcement.

Would this entire world be a better place without them? I can only
speculate, but i would have to say yes. Now that they have "tainted"
(and i use that term loosely) our society i don't see how we could
survive as a democracy without them. Teflor made some really good
points at the bottom of his post, i suggest you take them to heart.
Essentially, part of the reason you have the ability to have your own
opinion, is because of guns.

No, police use tazers on people who aren't wielding a gun and when someone is wielding a gun they don't go for shots that just wound they don't want to get shot so they shoot to kill.
Lil

muma wrote:

muma wrote:I am pro guns. anyway, if it comes down to each man for his own in the states. you know, if the war came here. which, you never know, it could happen someday. then this would be most beneficial.

What the fuck am i talking about??

ROFL. This reminds me of a debate my friends and I throw around sometimes.

If the U.S. were invaded by some outside force, who would give them a greater cause of fear? City thugs and gang bangers with hand guns and semi's? Or backwoods southern rednecks with rifles and shotguns? Think about territory too now!

Oh, and for something more on topic. Yeah, ban guns, killings will drop because it's easy to just whip it out and pull the trigger when you're pissed. But don't you think people would just find other ways to fight and kill?

If they ban all guns, the machete wielding freaks are going to have a field day!