Welcome to PlagueFest.com! Log in or Sign up to interact with the Plague Fest community.
  1. Welcome Guest! to interact with the community and gain access to all the site's features.

Gun Control

Discussion in Everything & Anything started by Benvolio, Dec 21, 2012

What should the US do in regards to gun control?

Ban all firearms 7 vote(s) 13.5%
Reinforce current gun laws 9 vote(s) 17.3%
Ban "assault weapons" and or high capacity magazines 10 vote(s) 19.2%
Get rid of some gun laws that prevent CCW permit holders from carrying in certain areas 13 vote(s) 25.0%
Other 13 vote(s) 25.0%
  1. Mar 4, 2012
    Posts
    Alright PF, it's time for a discussion on gun control.

    I've talked to my friend's about it, watched non-stop debates on the news and have read articles for and against.

    So PF what do you support in terms of gun control and what information do you have to back up your opinion?

    I have three points to make.

    1) The Constitution protects the US citizen's right to own and bear arms.

    2) Crime rates go up when you ban guns

    3) There is no need for an "assault weapon" ban

    @Highlander and I had a pretty good debate going on which was completely civil. I don't see why this one can't be either.

    Edit: In regards to the poll option "Reinforce current gun laws" I mean better enforce them.
  2. Jul 8, 2012
    Posts
    I agree.
  3. Aug 1, 2011
    Posts
    Honestly, why is there even a debate? Crime will happen, regardless of anything.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Mar 4, 2012
      Posts
      Completely agree. I just want to see what other people think.
    • Apr 4, 2009
      Posts
    • Apr 2, 2011
      Posts
      In the end it comes down to the 2nd Amendment.



      Not to mention that it has been proven that more guns equals less crime... so.. you tell me.
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • May 14, 2012
        Posts
        taking away guns would just make people who get them illegally more powerful.

        personally i think that everyone should just be able to walk around with guns(Pistols), so that people who do try to kill innocent people will just be shot before they get the chance to massacre people.
      • Oct 20, 2012
        Posts
        People with license should at least have a gun because if there is no guns, the more crime there is. dose guns that adam lanza bought was also in black market so ya
      • Apr 4, 2009
        Posts
        I don't think I've seen anyone bring up banning all guns, outside of the uneducated.
      • Feb 18, 2011
        Posts
        Regardless of what people say they constitution is very specific in that people are allowed to have guns, personally I think if everyone carried a gun at all times...There would be less issues.

        Edit: Of course those who have committed crimes should lose this right.
        • Agree Agree x 2
        • Jul 20, 2010
          Posts
          Seems like the US is pretty low :razz:. Look at Mexico with a much higher rate and guess what Mexico has very strong gun laws. You can't even carry the guns out of your own house in Mexico and they have a much higher crime rate.
        • Mar 26, 2012
          Posts
          I am just speaking out of my behind, but don't other countries like the UK ban guns have significantly less homicides? I am sure there are multiple factors since other countries that ban or have strict gun laws still have high murder rates, but I recall seeing just some countries, it worked out.

          If guns were illegal, wouldn't there be less, easier to track, so even if some criminals have it, a lot less of them will have it?

          Personally, I don't think everybody needs a gun, I wish they didn't exist in real life (no problem with it in movies and CS:S though, lol), but I don't really give an arse and try to change peoples mind about it.
        • Apr 2, 2011
          Posts
          Couldn't I kill just as easily with my Ka-Bar? I am just saying... the same day that the horrible shooting in Sandy Hook happened... 20 people were stabbed in China... Somehow they Survived... but the point remains, you don't need guns to commit crimes... without guns, folks will just find bloodier methods of killing/beating the shit out of folks...
        • Mar 4, 2012
          Posts
          For the most part they have less gun related homicide but their overall violent crime rises.
        • Aug 1, 2011
          Posts
          Guns would also be almost impossible to track as if they are illegal you would not have to register them.
        • Jul 20, 2010
          Posts
          Frankly this isn't a gun issue, what the real issue is that society as a whole has degraded so much that it's not even funny. You can take guns away from the equation but that won't solve anything it just makes it easier for criminals who don't give a shit about the law to break the law even easier. There's a reason why people pick gun free areas to commit shootings its areas where they know no one will have a weapon and thus its like shooting fish in a barrel. But you never hear of someone trying to rob a gun shop or shooting range because they WILL get shot in the process. All that gun laws do is place a burden on law biding citizens, so you punish the many for the actions of the few. Mainly because people live in a bubble and think the world is a happy place and nothing bad can ever happen. People need to realize the world isn't all flowers and sunshine, the world is a cruel and harsh place.
          • Agree Agree x 2
          • Like Like x 1
          • Funny Funny x 1
          • Aug 1, 2011
            Posts
            I think the world is sunshine and lollipops, rainbows everywhere!
            • Funny Funny x 2
            • Good Idea Good Idea x 1
            • May 14, 2012
              Posts
              This
            • Jan 12, 2011
              Posts
              For me it comes down to a few things: (Incoming words)
              • Should people be allowed to carry guns? If so, what kinds?
              • Are people going to be responsible with chosen guns?
              • What should we do for people who cannot carry guns?
              Point one:
              My interpretation on the 2nd Amendment isn't terribly exclusive, but it does beg the question of how you define "arms" in modern times. When most people refer to the 2nd, it's usually for the discussion of guns, so I'll start there. "Guns" are a very broad and very advanced category now, what with semi-automatics, automatics, pump-action, and arguably electronic and explosive kinds. It's really hard to draw the line on what people should and shouldn't have, especially since most of our modern weapons are beyond what the Writers anticipated. I can't give a definitive "yay" or "nay" on specifically what I think since I'm still working it out, but I will say that it's reasonable enough that some things are banned, such as explosives (at least without license). That's worked well enough so far and it's a good idea to have people trained and given a license before using the big stuff, just because it can obviously cause the most damage. Other powerful things (delivery or similar) are obviously beyond the scope of portable and personal defense (or sanity), so I'll let those be that and move on.

              Next up, and talking more broadly for "arms," things such as blades, tasers, pepper spray, and whatever else that isn't really a "gun," most of these I'd look more favorably onto since they're probably not as deadly as a gun. I'm not saying you can't kill people with these, but they're not as efficient as a gun and they tend to have less range than a gun. Generally speaking, for example, I have no issue with people who carry average size pocket knifes or the like, assuming everyone is given that ability. In GA, I believe we have something in place so that no one can have a blade longer than 2-3" without a permit, which I think is worthless. Any blade is better than none, I suppose, but if you're going to be mugged, raped, or killed, more than likely the person breaking the law won't care about the 2" law anyway and will opt for something a bit bigger, so as to ensure the success of whatever they're doing over the other person (victim). Back to my point (no pun intended), I'd define "average" as sensibly not ridiculously large (like 20"+). The average pocket knife is somewhere between 3" and 6" I think (blade length from handle to tip) so if you assume most people could have one, given the opportunity, I'd imagine people would less likely to get into a scuffle knowing they'd probably get hurt. Same could be said for tasers or pepper spray. I will, however, say that training with all the aforementioned devices (use/disarm) should be encouraged so as to further secure someone's confidence and ability in a fight, should one arise, and further discourage them from starting in the first place.

              Yes, I'm going on a few assumptions, and no I can't count on people being sane with these. This brings me into my next point-- -

              Point 2:
              No, we can't count on everyone being responsible with their guns or arms all the time. However, I would like to think most of us aren't of the medically disturbed kind, so I wouldn't restrict guns or types of arms based on the actions of the individual or of the few. Yes, we can learn from things that go awry when the handful of nutjobs decide to follow the system and stab in the back with it, but we shouldn't punish everyone for their actions which aren't representative of the whole. Just because everyone is capable of murdering everyone else doesn't mean we should treat everyone as if they will. If in the event something goes wrong, we have laws and justice system. That is how we (or are supposed to) deal with the handful who endanger others. Passing new laws to restrict what we can do to defend ourselves in such situations that a crazy person might take advantage of is hurts us as a whole and gives more power to those who would abuse it.

              This segues into my next point-- -

              Point 3:
              If people are restricted in what we can carry, our "arms" as they be, then we must seek protection elsewhere. As mentioned above, we would find ourselves increasingly vulnerable to people who otherwise don't care about the law or the safety of others. As after many shootings, a common solution is to restrict or ban weapons in some form or another. This isn't actually a solution since often the people who were wounded or killed were already following the law and were likely lightly or unarmed, in contrast to their assailants. By removing their offensive and defensive capabilities, there is an imbalance in the overall safety of the people in question, and the only solution to that is to increase civilian protection through local agencies. This means if we, say ban all guns in an office building, we would need to address that insecurity by increasing the on-site authorities. Not the local police department, since they aren't all where the ban is and would be of little use in an emergency, but the immediate security force of that building. Then, if a madman decided to walk into the building and start unloading his magazines into the hallways, it wouldn't be a shooting gallery but hopefully instead a brief firefight. True, there will likely be injuries or casualties as a result of the shooting, but not nearly as many as there would be if the building had no/insufficient armed security.

              This argument depends on having "adequate" security for the number of people it should be looking after. I don't define "adequate" as six officers to look over a few hundred, unless they're all in one room for some reason. The ratio would need to be much higher to allow for full and overlapping coverage for everyone, assuming they are spread out over the space of one or more buildings or floors that are separated by walls/entrances/etc. I can't specify what would be a good ratio since different environments permit different levels of coverage, but it should be enough to respond well and immediately to, say three armed intruders. Not respond and send security after intruders, but already be there when a problem is presented.

              This then leads to some problems in practice. Finding people might not be too hard, but having the time to train them all effectively might be an issue. Another issue would be the cost to maintain such a force at all locations that have personal restrictions. Where would the money come to fund it, especially in a time when the state or federal budgets are constantly being scrutinized? Another, and more latent, issue is what kind of impression this would set on people who work or lives in these restricted areas? People may be free of the responsibility to defend themselves in those situations, but how could this affect people's actions when presented a threat? Furthermore, how will they respect those who hold their protections?

              I mean not to pose multiple questions to incite hysteria or paranoia, but simply to have us consider the future consequences of our actions. (Of course there are several more to ask, but those can be debated later.) It's easy to say we should do something to fix an issue, but it's never that simple to actually fix society. At best, it'd be a bandage while we try to figure out what we really want.

              ----------------------------------------------------------------

              I know I was wordy up there and was probably a little confusing, but I hope I got the gist of my thoughts across. I'm not very specific in what we should or shouldn't do, since the line falls in different places depending on the situation. Overall, I think it's unwise for people to act rashly or emotionally when deciding the law for everyone within a region. Things like shootings are horrible, but time needs to be given to people so they can think clearly and not act out of a spur of righteousness. Gun control is a debate that will go on as long as guns in some form exist, and there really is no definitive right or wrong since we're talking about people's senses. Intelligence, responsibility, ability, upbringing, social norms, and any number of things can change the equation for a person's opinion. The best we can do is agree that some things are bad and some things are necessary. What is considered which, however, is ongoing.

              My official stance on "it" would have to be very specific for the situation. In addition, considerations would have to be made for the laws already in place for a region, why they're in place, and their interactions with other regulations (or the 2nd Amendment, as it were). "What if's" are a popular thing to bring out, and not unreasonably so, but they should be taken with a grain of salt when discussed for how likely they are to happen.

              Edit: I suppose one of the largest things this issue boils down to is trust. Can we trust each other?
              Vadleon, Dec 21, 2012 Last edited by Vadleon, Dec 30, 2012