TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Debates: Issue #3 - Gun Control
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
The Debates: Issue #3 - Gun Control
It's been a good abortion debate, but I think it's time to move on.
Gun Control - Interesting issue that may apply differently for each country.
Tonight is my friend's 18th B-day, and I just got into San Diego State, so it's celebration time! (AKA lots of booze) So I'll be reading all your fascinating posts tomorrow and posting my stuff.
Keep the debates alive!
as far as i'm concerned, the rules and laws regulating gun control in the USA are just fine. background checks are cool. planning on getting me a 'little pistol' sometime in the near future....
>JM<
So you think nothing should be changed? That it's perfect the way it currently is?
All I have to say is..if u don't live in the U.S. then I don't care what you think about gun control/death penalty. Our culture is different, our history is different. I've debated and analyzed the issue for years and I think we ought to stay with the status quo.
heres my paper i just did on this :
According to a report released in March 1993 by the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate at which American teens (ages 15-19) were killed by guns nearly doubled from 1985 to 1990. It rose from 13.3 per 100,000 to 23.5 per 100,000. High powered semi automatic rifles can fire thirty rounds in a clip. About 50,000 of these are privately owned in the United States alone. I propose that we enforce more strict gun control laws in the United States.
Many people believe there is nothing wrong with the current status quo on gun control. Recent school and office shootings seem to prove otherwise. More guns are being bought now more than ever, and many are being illegally bought. We need to do something about this before it gets out of hand. In 1987, there were 166 times more handgun murders in the United States than in Canada, where the purchase and carrying of handguns are severely restricted. According to the Uniform Crime reports issued by the FBI in 1992, the number of juveniles (ages 10-17) committing murder with guns increased by 79% from 1980 to 1990. This shows a need for change. Many people who believe there is nothing wrong with the status quo argue for the Second Amendment, or the right to bear arms. The truth is, the Second Amendment was written hundreds of years ago in a different time and is therefore no longer relevant to the world in which we now live. Times have changed. You can�t yell fire in a movie theater and claim its free speech. Same with the gun control and people who believe they have a right to bear arms all the time. You need to draw the line. The common good should override the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
I propose that more strict gun control laws be placed on individuals who want to buy a gun. There needs to be a 14 day waiting period on people attempting to buy guns. Anyone now can get a gun as long as they aren�t crazy. This shouldn�t be like this. The background checks should be more extensive and the places you are allowed to carry guns should be more enforced. For example, you aren�t allowed to bear arms in a place of 2,500 people or more. Why is the number 2,500? If there is a person with a gun in 2,000 people then he has he chance of harming 2,000 people, including himself. A person who chooses to have a gun shouldn�t be allowed to harm anyone but himself. If he or she chooses to have a gun, then that is there decision, as long as they are being purchased legally. Many guns are being purchased illegally, though. The FBI needs to crack down on this by investigating more and pouring more money into gun control. If we can cut down on the number of people who purchase illegal guns, then the people who purchase guns for sporting use, who in fact aren�t violent, can enjoy a lower waiting period for the purchase of guns. People caught with illegal weapons or concealing a weapon in a place where the law doesn�t permit should be subjected to a large fine and a significant amount of jail time. If you aren�t a criminal, you shouldn�t have any problem with a waiting period. It is the criminals who illegally purchase guns who have a problem with this, in fear of being caught.
If gun control laws become more strict, the whole country will benefit. It is for the common good of the country to enforce these laws. The safety and security of people in this country is what is supposed to be more important to us. If everyone carried a gun, then violence would go up. More shootings would occur everyday and chaos would result. If the purchase of illegal guns were cut if half, it would result in that much less crime. Any less crime in this country is an improvement. More strict gun control laws can only help the country, and would result in a safer place to live.
I urge you to pass a law on a longer waiting period for gun purchasing and the illegal sale of guns. Are you not moved by the many school shootings in which those students illegally purchased guns? More strict gun control laws will help this country become a more stable, safe, secure place.
Me smells a good debate.
yu we just did this in my dicussion and debate class so i have all the facts and stuff for this. i dont really feel too strongly about it but i had to take a side, as you saw above.
You never have to take sides, just have an opinion.
The Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:
- well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are being ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really think the shooters cared they were breaking those anti-gun laws? By definition, does any criminal care that he is breaking the law? Any law? What possible good can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights?
Freedom has a price. For free speech the price is political dissent like flag burning, for freedom of religion you have to tolerate beliefs that differ from the masses. the right to assemble means that the nazis and clan can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. the price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like when a crime is committed with a gun. Reasonable laws can help limit these occurrences. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom.
We must stop trying to take hand guns away from law abiding citizens and concentrate on taking them away from the criminals. Hand guns are here to stay and no legislation can rid the world of them. Think about it, there is a law making it illegal to own and use many drugs. Has that law stopped the drug problem we have in this country.
Its obvious that someone who's willing to do a major crime like murder, isn't likely to worry about a gun control law. The object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people.
DEVBERT...
are you, blind??????
why do you keep posting threads that have been discussed already.
first it was the "abortion" thing, then , the "religion" thing, now you are going for gun control,I think people need to start searching the topics they want to discuss so bad, 'cause you are just wasting space here.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33706&highlight=gun+control
Here's an idea a friend of mine came up with: don't worry about gun control, just make the ammo very expensive. If it costed $3000 for a bullet and someone got shot, he must have REALLY deserved it. just a thought tho..
Rustang, that was suggested in the other gun control thread. 
I own a firearm, and most of my friends do as well. Making stricter gun laws (for the USA) isn't going to change anything. I'm almost positive that 90% of all crimes committed with a gun are with illegally possessed guns. Its not the ones that you buy in the store that are being used to commit all these crimes.
...And raising the price of ammo isn't going to help either. All the criminals get the shit for practically nothing on the street.
For every criminal that uses a gun for a bad purpose, there are tens of thousands of people who own them for hobby/sport and have done nothing wrong. I happen to have a concealed weapons permit myself, and sometimes carry my piece. I have not shot anyone, ever pulled it, or abused my privilege.
There is a certain maturity required to owning a gun, and most people that shouldn't be getting guns legally are not.
What needs to be cracked down on is illegal weapons. I know this is a hard battle, but writing stricter laws for those of us who are law-abiding is not fair and it won't solve the problem.
I'll post pics of our "arsenal" later.... muahahaha.
-ABT-
Gotta love Americans and their love of guns!
How's that quote by Robin Williams?..."We have the right to bear arms AND the right to arm bears..." 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Gotta love Americans and their love of guns! How's that quote by Robin Williams?..."We have the right to bear arms AND the right arm bears..." |
You don't become one of the most powerful countries in the world by yelling or slapping! 
my opinon
ok. theres 30 kids in the UK under the age of 14 with a shotgun licence i saw it in the paper . If i could walk into a shop now and buy a PSG Sniper Rifle , what the fuck am i gonna use it for , picking off cops from 2 miles away, you know what i mean. � gun is a gun and its the bullets that kill you.
Guns should be banned all together , and there should be a 20 year sentence for a person who is caught without a licence. If they made it legal to carry a firearm and someone shot your child in a drive by buy accident how would you feel. i know in the UK we had an incident where a MAN 'Thomas Hamilton' walked into a primary school of 40 kids aged 4-6 and killed them all. what else can i say. Theres no way UK will ever allow guns to be legal.
If you wanna look hard and have a gun , go into the fucking Marine Corps.
I think that tiesto 14 covered it pretty well, and I'm too lazy to get deeply involved, but I'd like to make one comment.
Name the politicians who have been most successful in implementing strict gun control. They were:
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ABTsportsline I'll post pics of our "arsenal" later.... muahahaha. |
Sorry to post a thread that's been done before, but it's always good to get a fresh opinion on stuff.
I'll start a thread for debate topics that haven't been done, so that this doesn't happen again.
well I, for one:
a)dont have a gun, and dont see myself getting a gun in thhe near future (alt this IS america and things change), and...
b)find it impossible to 'outlaw' guns in the US, as well as keep them away from crimnals. both of these ideas are nice and good, but as ABT said - this country was built on firepower, you cant take them all away - there are too many guns. and you cant 'keep them away from criminals' cause their guns arent legal already! late/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 The Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads: - well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are being ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really think the shooters cared they were breaking those anti-gun laws? By definition, does any criminal care that he is breaking the law? Any law? What possible good can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights? Freedom has a price. For free speech the price is political dissent like flag burning, for freedom of religion you have to tolerate beliefs that differ from the masses. the right to assemble means that the nazis and clan can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. the price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like when a crime is committed with a gun. Reasonable laws can help limit these occurrences. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom. We must stop trying to take hand guns away from law abiding citizens and concentrate on taking them away from the criminals. Hand guns are here to stay and no legislation can rid the world of them. Think about it, there is a law making it illegal to own and use many drugs. Has that law stopped the drug problem we have in this country. Its obvious that someone who's willing to do a major crime like murder, isn't likely to worry about a gun control law. The object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people. |
people keep saying "outlaw ALL Guns and that will solve the problem".... but what you guys fail to realize is that most crimes are committed with illegal guns! outlawing all guns isn't going to prevent guns from being in this country! a couple of things:
1) the public won't stand for it. Remember what happened during prohibition in the 30's? The public will cause a huge uproar b/c of the unjustness of the new law. Rioting and illegal racketeering everywhere...
2) Guns are just like drugs. The illegal ones are not hard to come by. Say you do outlaw "all guns" like our all-knowling friend DJ Rozzer suggested..... the criminals will still get them. Perfect example is drugs. Crack and heroin are illegal, and those are easier to find than a gallon of milk on the street. What makes you think if you outlaw "all guns", that all the guns will magically disappear? And what are you going to do for all those gun collectors, who have owned and never fired any of their guns for years? will you confiscate their guns and pay them for them? You'd need a very big budget for that.
I just think everyone needs to stop being so naive and "tree-huggerish".... sure it would be IDEAL for everyone to not have guns, but it wouldn't be fair nor right. They may outlaw guns in the UK, but i guarantee you a large population of the undesireables has guns! In any country. If any of your suggestions would have been rational, i assure you the governments would have implemented them by now. Remember the real guys running our countries are smarter than most of us put together... it doesn't just come down to "thinking of a new law", it also comes down to thinking of the consequences, what will be the outcome?
Too many factors, too much disagreements. Let's be realistic people.
-ABT-
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Kia Kaha Hey Tiesto14 - nice, grown up post! I think that you ought to know sir that your little son has been using your computer and your user id, he's been acting like an immature tosser over on the music forum ... he's gonna get you a bad name ... I would spank his ass if I was you Now for my 2 cents worth : I reckon all guns in the hands of private citizens should be abolished. What are they good for anyway? There are three types of people that want to have guns in my opinion ... 1. Criminals 2. People that want to protect themselves from criminals 3. Gun nuts, red necks, and all that collective group of jerk offs that want to go wander round in the forest and assert their manhood by blowing away wildlife for 'sport' It's generally agreed that if you take the guns off the crims, they'll go and steal them from the hunters and the gun nuts. If any politician had the balls to seriously outlaw ALL guns from EVERYBODY then in the long run the access would be cut off for the crims as well. Sure the right wingers would rant and rave about their freedoms being trampled on but fuck 'em. I don't think that the people that wrote the second amendment had seen the Columbine massacre on their TVs somehow. Sure it might take a few years and some pretty harsh justice from the courts in order to get the majority of the guns out of the hands of the criminal population, but some politician has got to at least try it. This debate has been going on ever since the Al Capone days, meanwhile the death-by-gun statistics have been getting worse every year. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Devbert If people couldn't own guns, people would fear the government could just be in total control. |
Okay, your interp of the American gov't is kinda wanky. The president isn't a monarchy, he's democratically elected. The Supreme Court isn't an oligarchy, it's a politically insulated institution that is based upon the results of a democratic (okay, technically the Electoral College is a democratic republican method) election procress.
the government is oppressive if 51% of people vote to strip the entire population of their guns, which are their personal property. That's a violation of rights. Rights should only be violated as a penalty for violating others' rights (you can't live in society if you're a murderer, you give up that right and get to sit in jail.)
this is great... two guys from minnesota duking it out on TA....
fight fight fight! my money's on Marc!
-ABT-
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.