|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:06 pm
I would take it a step further and say that everyone should be trained in the use of firearms from a young age, and by 15, everyone should have a high powered versatile gun on them at all times. (I'm thinking the H&K 416.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:18 am
After reading nearly two pages of opinions, I have little to say except something I heard long ago. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So however it pans out, people are still going to die, the weapon used is of little importance. Take them all away and we still have our hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:01 pm
You are right. A gun in an inanimate object. It can't do anything if there is nobody pulling the trigger. You can't blame a gun for killing someone. You blame the person who pulled the trigger!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:24 pm
DvnT Why should places be banning guns? It makes no sence. Sure, if someone brings a gun, they could shoot the place up, but if the guns are banned, someone can still bring them, and shoot. But if they arn't banned, chances are going to be, some one there will have a gun to shoot back with.
I want your opinions on whether or not guns should be banned, why and why not.
No pun intended. But if the person who shoots back at the guy with the gun and is NOT an officer, he could be charged for murder or manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:08 pm
killerclownmeat DvnT Why should places be banning guns? It makes no sence. Sure, if someone brings a gun, they could shoot the place up, but if the guns are banned, someone can still bring them, and shoot. But if they arn't banned, chances are going to be, some one there will have a gun to shoot back with.
I want your opinions on whether or not guns should be banned, why and why not.
No pun intended. But if the person who shoots back at the guy with the gun and is NOT an officer, he could be charged for murder or manslaughter. Even for self defense? I don't think firearms should be banned. To me, it's a pointless security measure since only the good guys will adhere to it, and the bad guys will bring guns anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 3:57 pm
oh `chaste killerclownmeat DvnT Why should places be banning guns? It makes no sence. Sure, if someone brings a gun, they could shoot the place up, but if the guns are banned, someone can still bring them, and shoot. But if they arn't banned, chances are going to be, some one there will have a gun to shoot back with.
I want your opinions on whether or not guns should be banned, why and why not.
No pun intended. But if the person who shoots back at the guy with the gun and is NOT an officer, he could be charged for murder or manslaughter. Even for self defense? I don't think firearms should be banned. To me, it's a pointless security measure since only the good guys will adhere to it, and the bad guys will bring guns anyway. If its for self-defense, then there can be no charges placed on whoever was defending the establishment and the patrons. If you feel as though you can not retreat, (and you have a right not to retreat from your home or personal/public space) then fire away. Any charges that are placed on your will be dropped and seen as self-defense. Did you know that, in Texas, if someone is robbing your neighbor's house, then, as long as you have the permission of the homeowner, then you can defend your neighbor's home with a firearm? That's what gun control will not accomplish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:35 am
ill be listing two points of veiw
my first point for schools, their are non-lethal alternatives to firearms, not even tazers, their is a sensory over lasser gun that fires strobing lights at where the target is pointed, their is flashbangs, their are also like said tazers, which can imobilize a target, and also dart based non-lethal weapons, that could temporarly paralyze or incomapcitate a person, second, while guns are nice to have, you also have to consider, guns should be regulated, not banned, their bullets should be closley moniterd, and so should the guns, for goverment buildings and other public area's that are in need of security, then metal detectors should be in place, but this also makes the places have slower trafic, and also the guns can be made of ceramic
but let us be reasonable people, guns shouldnt be banned, caus that would cause more problems, people rioting against that, who becuase they are rioting for the rights to use guns, would probably be having guns in it, some guns i would not want to see banned would be hunting rifles, and should only be unlocked in hunting session, a personal defense gun for a home, if their is a reasonable threat in the neighborhood, whu would a white collar neighborhood need a gun in their house unlicked all the time? they can just use a brinks home secruity system untill the cops get their(or what ever security team their is)) also i would rather use a bow then a gun, its a bit harder to hide a bow and arrows then it is to hide a gun
also this self defense thing, carry some knives, they are legal, under 3 inches, and you should carry a form of knive for a tool purpose only. like a swiss army knife, it has attachments on it for other things
also if a criminal wanted to come and shoot you and was determind to, he would succede no matter what,
insted of worring about gun control how about this
worry about getting more job opportunty's to lesser regions where jobs are hard to find, get more jobs and you decrese crime
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 3:16 pm
dreams into nights yami ill be listing two points of veiw my first point for schools, their are non-lethal alternatives to firearms, not even tazers, their is a sensory over lasser gun that fires strobing lights at where the target is pointed, their is flashbangs, their are also like said tazers, which can imobilize a target, and also dart based non-lethal weapons, that could temporarly paralyze or incomapcitate a person, second, while guns are nice to have, you also have to consider, guns should be regulated, not banned, their bullets should be closley moniterd, and so should the guns, for goverment buildings and other public area's that are in need of security, then metal detectors should be in place, but this also makes the places have slower trafic, and also the guns can be made of ceramic but let us be reasonable people, guns shouldnt be banned, caus that would cause more problems, people rioting against that, who becuase they are rioting for the rights to use guns, would probably be having guns in it, some guns i would not want to see banned would be hunting rifles, and should only be unlocked in hunting session, a personal defense gun for a home, if their is a reasonable threat in the neighborhood, whu would a white collar neighborhood need a gun in their house unlicked all the time? they can just use a brinks home secruity system untill the cops get their(or what ever security team their is)) also i would rather use a bow then a gun, its a bit harder to hide a bow and arrows then it is to hide a gun also this self defense thing, carry some knives, they are legal, under 3 inches, and you should carry a form of knive for a tool purpose only. like a swiss army knife, it has attachments on it for other things also if a criminal wanted to come and shoot you and was determind to, he would succede no matter what, insted of worring about gun control how about this worry about getting more job opportunty's to lesser regions where jobs are hard to find, get more jobs and you decrese crime You must not realize how many self-defense cases there are every year that involve a firearm. On average, there are 2 million self-defense cases that involve a firearm each and every year in the United states. Typically, there are around 400,000 crimes committed with a firearm. Still think firearms should be regulated? Regulating them is pointless. The criminals are still going to get them, regardless of the law and regulations, and they will be used on the people who are abiding the law. For schools, why not have the principal have a License to Carry a concealed weapons permit and have him obtain a firearm. In most cases, all it takes is the presentation of said firearm to deter a criminal, if that doesn't work, then injuring the assailant will be a deterrent. If a potential criminal knows that every homeowner in a neighborhood has a firearm, then stats show that he won't rob a house in that neighborhood. A Brinks Home Secruity System won't do that for you. A home security system only alerts the police after the burglar has entered, so damage has already been caused and theft may have already happened. Don't overestimate home security systems. They aren't as reliable as most people think. Not as reliable as a firearm, in my eyes. And, for the criminal wanting to shoot you part, why would taking a gun away from me help if a criminal wanted to come and shoot me? "Oh, some guy is going to shoot me. I'm going to throw away my gun so that I can defend myself with my 3 inch knife." Yea, there's your ticket to a grave right there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 3:50 pm
This is just something that supports the first post on the forum:
I actually saw a presentation about that at school. They were doing a project and talked about a situation like that. It was talking about a couple bombers trying to basically bomb a market place, but were unsuccessful because when they were starting to do so, they were shot at by the crowd.
My idea on why they ban guns in places:
I think that guns are banned at places, not because people will shot it up anyway they are going to do it anyway, but to stop stupid people from doing something just plain idiotic and stupid with that gun. Because we all know that there is one person that will do it if there is nothing "wrong" with it. Even though we all know the quote "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." There are people who will do it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 7:50 pm
Its because of said "stupid people" that we have gun control to begin with. There are going to be stupid people regardless of the time and place. Why ban them? If you think about it, where have most of these mass shooting sprees occurred? In "Gun-Free Zones", which are supposed to be safe-zones from said firearms. Remember the school shootings? None of the teachers or the principal had a firearm to defend themselves while the killer rampaged in their school. It reminds me of a quote I once read: "In a time when seconds matter, the police are minutes away."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoon of the Hells Gate
|
Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:01 pm
A 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.
That is what the second amendment states.
Now if we want to start training everyone at a young age how to shoot why not just make it mandatory military service at the age of eighteen or completion of high school?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:15 pm
Dragoon Of The Elders A 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. That is what the second amendment states. Now if we want to start training everyone at a young age how to shoot why not just make it mandatory military service at the age of eighteen or completion of high school? Because of several reasons: 1) Because that is a government militia, not a citizen militia. The Second Amendment means a "Civilian Militia," not a militia run by the government. 2) Because that would infringe upon the citizen's right to choose to be in the militia or not, aka, the freedom to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:34 pm
15 kids died in this "gang" fight of estimated 30 people at this parking lot of a school in my city.(school pretty much stands out the idea of no guns, just in case you didn't know that) So, yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:59 am
I personally think guns should be only allowed and concealed at certain places like a home, car, or maybe even a college.
Other places should ban firearms, but still allow personel to carry one.
Places like a public school, bank, stores, ect. Places where a consumer or visitor would likely bring a gun.
Ofcourse this is only my opinion, but the right to bare arms is slowly going out of date and being overly manipulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:10 pm
xTAURUSx I personally think guns should be only allowed and concealed at certain places like a home, car, or maybe even a college. Other places should ban firearms, but still allow personel to carry one. Places like a public school, bank, stores, ect. Places where a consumer or visitor would likely bring a gun. Ofcourse this is only my opinion, but the right to bare arms is slowly going out of date and being overly manipulated. "Out of date"? "Over manipulated"? Hardly. Do you think our freedom of speech is out of date? No? How about the right of religion? Its the same thing. It was written down when our country was formed, it has been in place for a while now and has been pretty hard to manipulate. Though it can be viewed differently, based on that second amendment right, a law-abiding citizen of the United States of America can carry and bear a firearm wherever he/she wants to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
