Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
how bout dem gunz
NOW WITH MY OPINION!
guns are pretty good at killing people.
we should also kinda, get everyone evaluated for mental illnesses.
also, mental illness isn't even the SOLE FACTOR ppl kill ppl. ppl kill ppl for a lot of reasons. i don't feel like getting sources out right now but if anyone wants i will.
so, basically, make it harder to obtain guns.
proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂ ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?
Offline
Isn't it Australia that implemented an anti-gun measure (like extensive background checks, and banning certain extreme guns in exchange for $$$)?
Something makes me think the U.S. can't utilize such a measure, not sure why.
Apparently there's a been more shootings than days in the year (this year). Would limiting guns actually help? Would the opposite help anything? Probably not.
Sounds like a common theme is the need for more background checks. I can see this as being reasonable. People complaining about gun control should be able to stew for 24-48 hours for something like that extra to run.
Offline
Tranquilizer guns would be great.
This is a false statement.
Offline
Would limiting guns actually help? Would the opposite help anything? Probably not.
we have no way of knowing if gun control would help anything if no one's willing to try it out. but, we can see from several other countries that those with stricter gun control do tend to have less shootings.
proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂ ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?
Offline
hummerz5 wrote:Would limiting guns actually help? Would the opposite help anything? Probably not.
we have no way of knowing if gun control would help anything if no one's willing to try it out. but, we can see from several other countries that those with stricter gun control do tend to have less shootings.
Is there enough evidence to persuade the masses of gun control benefits? I mean, realistically we should look to persuade the Congressmen, since we don't have a direct democracy, but it's about the same thing.
I think the fact remains that most people I know of don't have the sorts of guns used; especially me, so there's not much difference.
The way I figure, if we're limiting the guns that can only realistically be used in combat, that's a no-brainer. Reaching into the beyond should then require persuasion. I'm not really sure where the sides lie on this issue (in the U.S., I presume)
Offline
and banning certain extreme guns in exchange for $$$)?
Something makes me think the U.S. can't utilize such a measure, not sure why.
Because that's taking a bribes/extortion, which is illegal. We have laws to prevent it.
Discord: jawp#5123
Offline
hummerz5 wrote:and banning certain extreme guns in exchange for $$$)?
Something makes me think the U.S. can't utilize such a measure, not sure why.Because that's taking a bribes/extortion, which is illegal. We have laws to prevent it.
Sorry, I didn't write quite right. I think you turn in a bad gun and get a small sum. Is that still bribing/extorting?
Offline
hummerz5 wrote:and banning certain extreme guns in exchange for $$$)?
Something makes me think the U.S. can't utilize such a measure, not sure why.Because that's taking a bribes/extortion, which is illegal. We have laws to prevent it.
It wasn't bribing, it was a "buy-back" scheme. i.e. The government basically said "these guns will be illegal after X date, you can give them to us in exchange for what you spent to buy them" (think of it as a refund i suppose) which worked because people didn't have to worry about losing any money they spent buying the weapons, and avoided breaking the law.
:.|:;
Offline
I think the only reason someone would kill another, is self defense, mental illness, or religion/culture.
There are some very reasonable gun control laws, as well as completely pointless ones.
Firearms will always exist, the solution is to remove them from the possession of those unqualified and/or mentally ill.
I believe the solution is to have tasers and pepper spray as self defense weaponry.
Lethality needs to be seriously considered on both sides of the argument, as the basis of the pro-firearm argument is self-defense.
Before any accusations, I am neither pro-guns nor anti-guns.
*u stinky*
Offline
support gun
p-
I think you turn in a bad gun and get a small sum. Is that still bribing/extorting?
Ha, no. This is why Australia has such a huge debt. Their debt grows faster than their rabbit population. It's bigger than some of the spiders they have.
Discord: jawp#5123
Offline
I don't see why they're necessary, and murders go significantly down with stricter gun laws.
I'd be more in the interest of less murders than "less rights".
I don't see why they're necessary, and murders go significantly down with stricter gun laws.
I'd be more in the interest of less murders than "less rights".
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli … d-n1464528
We don't want that do we?
Offline
Magnum .44 master race
Maverick: Started up on a 6, when he pulled from the clouds, and then I moved in above him.
Charlie: Well, if you were directly above him, how could you see him?
Maverick: Because I was inverted.
Offline
Anak wrote:I don't see why they're necessary, and murders go significantly down with stricter gun laws.
I'd be more in the interest of less murders than "less rights".http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli … d-n1464528
We don't want that do we?
What kind of website is that
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Tfw that was over a decade ago
blizzard wrote:Anak wrote:I don't see why they're necessary, and murders go significantly down with stricter gun laws.
I'd be more in the interest of less murders than "less rights".http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli … d-n1464528
We don't want that do we?What kind of website is that
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Tfw that was over a decade ago
I know. But, when it happened really doesn't matter now does it? I'd like your take on how you think this will not be a recurring event.
Offline
but, we can see from several other countries that those with stricter gun control do tend to have less shootings.
and less people
ZOEY DOESNT ACCEPT ANYTHING
Offline
hummerz5 wrote:Would limiting guns actually help? Would the opposite help anything? Probably not.
we have no way of knowing if gun control would help anything if no one's willing to try it out. but, we can see from several other countries that those with stricter gun control do tend to have less shootings.
"The U.S.’ index of 0.12 per 5,000,000 places it behind Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland – at half the ratio.
Another thing one might note: The top 5 countries for mass shootings per capita all have “restrictive” gun policies."
Offline
People should be allowed to buy most kinds of guns if they want to. However, I think background checks should be mandatory, and you shouldn't be able to buy an obvious killing machine (like a high-capacity assault rifle) unless you have a specific reason to, and some sort of license.
Offline
Anak wrote:blizzard wrote:Anak wrote:I don't see why they're necessary, and murders go significantly down with stricter gun laws.
I'd be more in the interest of less murders than "less rights".http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli … d-n1464528
We don't want that do we?What kind of website is that
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Tfw that was over a decade agoI know. But, when it happened really doesn't matter now does it? I'd like your take on how you think this will not be a recurring event.
Well it kind of does, bc if it was ages ago then it's kind of irrelevant. And it is.
Obviously it's not a recurring event because I haven't heard of a mass shooting in a long time here on the news and I don't think it will be because we banned guns.
blizzard wrote:Anak wrote:blizzard wrote:Anak wrote:I don't see why they're necessary, and murders go significantly down with stricter gun laws.
I'd be more in the interest of less murders than "less rights".http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli … d-n1464528
We don't want that do we?What kind of website is that
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Tfw that was over a decade agoI know. But, when it happened really doesn't matter now does it? I'd like your take on how you think this will not be a recurring event.
Well it kind of does, bc if it was ages ago then it's kind of irrelevant. And it is.
Obviously it's not a recurring event because I haven't heard of a mass shooting in a long time here on the news and I don't think it will be because we banned guns.
You can check this out: http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur … in-europe/
I certainly don't want this in America. Also check out the proof I gave to Zoey. Make sure to think through your answer.
Offline
long
I don't know where you're getting your info from (looks like shady sites, hit me up with something like BBC) but where I'm looking, our gun control is tight and gun related deaths are minimal. The article mentions Dunblane, Scotland, which seems to be the only school shooting that's actually happened in this country.
Seriously, I don't know what you're trying to disprove me with. Gun laws work.
blizzard wrote:long
I don't know where you're getting your info from (looks like shady sites, hit me up with something like BBC) but where I'm looking, our gun control is tight and gun related deaths are minimal. The article mentions Dunblane, Scotland, which seems to be the only school shooting that's actually happened in this country.
Seriously, I don't know what you're trying to disprove me with. Gun laws work.
Understand if you don't wanna check it out. Just letting you know, I've given you proof that gun control has hurt countries/cities in a lot of cases yet you refuse to give it a second thought. Believe what you want, but I certainly will believe multiple cases over Anak's word, sorry.
Offline
Anak wrote:blizzard wrote:long
I don't know where you're getting your info from (looks like shady sites, hit me up with something like BBC) but where I'm looking, our gun control is tight and gun related deaths are minimal. The article mentions Dunblane, Scotland, which seems to be the only school shooting that's actually happened in this country.
Seriously, I don't know what you're trying to disprove me with. Gun laws work.Understand if you don't wanna check it out. Just letting you know, I've given you proof that gun control has hurt countries/cities in a lot of cases yet you refuse to give it a second thought. Believe what you want, but I certainly will believe multiple cases over Anak's word, sorry.
"Multiple cases" which weren't actually what you said them to be. Gun control isn't hurting anyone, it's helping, and I've countered your proof with actual fact so I don't know what you're chatting lmao
[ Started around 1732246065.3934 - Generated in 0.130 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.84 MiB (Peak: 2.11 MiB) ]