Speaker Geeks! discussion
Ethical Debates
>
View on gun control
message 1:
by
Arwen
(new)
Mar 19, 2013 11:57AM
why do you need them? i mean i live in nz. and we don't kill each other that often.
reply
|
flag
gun control would cause more harm than good.
Mod
Yes. Don't completely ban guns. I mean, that's even a little scary... the government would get a lot more power... O.o
Look. They want to make laws against guns because of the incident in the school with the kindergarteners.
This man stole his mom's gun. Which is illegal.
He killed his father. Which is illegal.
He broke into a school. Which is illegal.
He killed thirty children. Which is illegal.
He was shipping guns. Also illegal.
He then killed himself. Illegal.
And they want to make more laws against guns. As you can tell, people like this don't care about the law.
This man stole his mom's gun. Which is illegal.
He killed his father. Which is illegal.
He broke into a school. Which is illegal.
He killed thirty children. Which is illegal.
He was shipping guns. Also illegal.
He then killed himself. Illegal.
And they want to make more laws against guns. As you can tell, people like this don't care about the law.
Ninja: Kassi Valdez: LEO LOVER!!!! He's mine! wrote: "Look. They want to make laws against guns because of the incident in the school with the kindergarteners.
This man stole his mom's gun. Which is illegal.
He killed his father. Which is illegal.
He..."
YEEEEEEEEEEEES!!! Exactly...
This man stole his mom's gun. Which is illegal.
He killed his father. Which is illegal.
He..."
YEEEEEEEEEEEES!!! Exactly...
If you take guns away people would want to get them and no matter what they will find a way. If you have more guns, will it be safer?
Whether we have guns or not, there's always gonna be a way to get them. There's always gonna be a way to kill. Me and my family like to hunt. And we can hunt without our guns. My family feels safer with our guns. My dad has and lessons and could defend our family if someone broke in. So we should be allowed guns, but we should be precautionary about who we give them to.
In a certain state, (can't remember which one...) when you buy a gun, you have to wait ten days to get it....so that you think about what you will do with it. Do you think that that would help?
Agreed. I was just wondering opinions.
I think that every person who buys a gun should have to have a background check, to see if they seem like that type who would ever think of killing someone, or maybe they have. Right now, all you need is an ID.
I see no need for guns. I think giving people an inspection would be no good. For example if someone has a mental health problem, that is not always visible and easy to cover up could just go out one day and shoot people. I am not saying that all people with mental heath issues want to kill before people start attacking me for saying that.
ITS FUCKING OUTRAGUS it sucks we have.the right to bear arms
Is the right more important than the right to live?
if a cramanal wats a gun he can get one so when he breaks in and you have nothing tobdefent yourself with
We are not only talking about criminals. Would you have the same argument when it comes to all these schools where individuals have went in and shot dozens of children. I live in the UK where people do shoot people but i doubt the incident level is far higher in those countries where it is legal to have one
It'd be breaking our constitution, though! Seriously. We need a lot more background checks, we don't have to get so extreme yet that their illegal.
here is what I posted after Sandy Hook----------
HOW TO HAVE THE GUN DEBATE SO PRO GUN PEOPLE WILL "GET" IT: 1. get a large room 2. one side put the pro gun/pro NRA/pro assault weapon people 3. on the other side put the distraught, grieving relatives of the 5 year olds at Sandy Hook, the parents of the people at other shootings 4. ONLY ARM the grieving relatives. that's right, the gun people are NOT ARMED
5. lock the doors, let no one out.
NOW, see how fast the pro gun people want to start the discussion about controlling guns.
This is how the rest of us feel, EVERY DAY. The people most likely to shoot us are holding the weapons. Figure it out, people.
Some people are irrsponsile with guns... My Mum and Dad talk about it all the time. People who have mental issues or any issues with anger or any thing like that AT ALL should NOT have a gun or be taught to use one. That is how this mess started in the first place.Agree? or Disagree?
John wrote: "here is what I posted after Sandy Hook----------
HOW TO HAVE THE GUN DEBATE SO PRO GUN PEOPLE WILL "GET" IT: 1. get a large room 2. one side put the pro gun/pro NRA/pro assault weapon people 3. ..."
No I think its the idiots who let mentally unstable people have guns
TotalWhovian TARDIS girl wrote: "No I think its the idiots who let mentally unstable people have guns "my point was that this scenarior was the only way pro gun people will understand how we feel, and that it would help us come together on common ground to discuss the problem in a constructive way.
Mod
----------
HOW TO HAVE THE GUN DEBATE SO PRO GUN PEOPLE WILL "GET" IT: 1. get a large room 2. one side put the pro gun/pro NRA/pro assault weap..."
"Mental" people are not the only ones who shoot up places, a lot of the time there is no indication of mental instability.
Mrs.Crazy wrote: ""Mental" people are not the only ones who shoot up places, a lot of the time there is no indication of mental instability."you're not even getting my point, I think. Are you?
I'm saying that that scenario is a mental excercise to try to get pro gun people to arrive at what scares us about pro gun people. To "get it".
why don't you "get it".
Mod
you're not even getting my point, I think. Are you?
I'..."
I totes get what you are saying, John, but I wasn't talking to you, infact I was talking about something completely different. :)
Mrs.Crazy wrote: "John wrote: "I totes get what you are saying, John, but I wasn't talking to you, infact I was talking about something completely different. :) "
I'm so sorry, I got confused who I was talking to. oops.
H99 wrote: "I would hope that the grieving relatives wouldn't kill someone who had nothing to do with what happened at Sandy Hook. That would make them no better than murderers themselves."ok, I'll try to say it again. The POINT of the piece, which I labeled it as such IN THE PIECE and again after, is to come up with a scenario that will let pro-gun people know how we feel, to arrive at a common ground to THEN talk about gun control. I am NOT suggesting we actually DO what is in the scenario. That would be dangerous. Which is kinda the point.
the point.
the point.
John wrote: "TotalWhovian TARDIS girl wrote: "No I think its the idiots who let mentally unstable people have guns "my point was that this scenarior was the only way pro gun people will understand how we feel..."
I wish that people would have better safety with guns. I love hunting with my parents with these new gun laws its ridiculous. But i see what you mean.
they're making people more vulnerable by banning the guns...Totally against it.The government wants all the power, they want to make us impotent for some reasons..
and of course guns is prohibited for those with mental issues.
Leah wrote: "We have the right to bear arms. Taking them away would be un-Constitutional."that's the abbreviated version of the amendment. If you read it in depth, you'll find:
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.
many pro gun people forget the bolded part, which is vital. Well-regulated includes things like background checks, etc.
Guns are what allow people to protect themselves, not just from criminals, but from their own government that threatens their God-given freedom. The second amendment was granted to us in the Constitution for a reason. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood, ya know?
Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood, ya know?"ok, what part of "Well regulated" is not understood?
Our current administration (and most democrats if that is the composition of the next administration) favors vast expansion of federal government powers (the state). The right to bear arms was envisioned so a wary populace could protect itself from unreasonable intrusions by said state. Because the country's current trend is toward the relinquishment of liberties, to keep mine intact, I'll keep my powder dry!
I think that people should have the rights to shoot a gun if they are permitted to with a better system of liscensing and not letting the mentally disabled people get hold of guns
Yep. It is supposed to be our right. And I think once the government starts to take away one right, they'll take away another.... and then another...
John wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood, ya know?"ok, what part of "Well regulated" is not understood?"
That is understood, but I think background checks are unecessary. Especially when it includes health records and such. We have a right to bear arms. I don't think the Constitution was signed, "the right to bear arms. But only if we know everything about you."
Mod
ok, what part of "Well regulated" is not understood?"
That is understood, but I think bac..."
You'd rather innocent people die?
Mrs.Crazy wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "John wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood, ya know?"ok, what part of "Well regulated" is not understood?"
That is u..."
I'd rather not have the government know everything about me because I like something known as privacy. Just a bit of it. No, I don't want innocent people to die, but without the right to defend ourselves, there won't be LESS crime. It will escalate.
Mod
ok, what part of "Well regulated" is not under..."
I never said to take guns away. But obviously something needs to change because too many people are dying do to poor gun control.
Mrs.Crazy wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "Mrs.Crazy wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "John wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood, ya know?"ok, what part of "We..."
It's not due to gun control. Sure, parents may want to place their guns in a safer location like safes and stuff, but stricter gun laws won't help. It'll be like handing them over to criminals. I really doubt they are going to abide by the laws. If those teachers in Conneticut had been armed, alot less lives would have been lost.
Kaylee wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "John wrote: "Shadowhunter Girl wrote: "What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood, ya know?"ok, what part of "Well regulated" is not understood?"
That is u..."
Standard, yes. But they would like to include all medical history as well.
My police officer says that he has a bad guy that he can take anywhere. Anywhere he drops his bad guy off, he can find illegal drugs in two minutes. That means it would probably be easy to get guns if they were illegal. Banning guns gives us, the good guys, one less source of protection against the bad guys.
I live in Canada where there used to be a gun registry. That does not exist but we still don't have NEAR as many guns as in the states. After the "incident" in Connecticut, I would think that this would mean that they would try and get rid of guns, but no! Instead they think all of the teachers should have guns! HOW SHOULD THAT HELP!? I don't see a reason for guns. Everyone would be better of without them, don't you think?
Yes, and we'd be better of without malaria, and aids, and hurricanes, and murderous religious fanatics, but this isn't Fantasy Island so we'd better find a realistic way to deal with a fait accompli like guns.
Robert wrote: "Yes, and we'd be better of without malaria, and aids, and hurricanes, and murderous religious fanatics, but this isn't Fantasy Island so we'd better find a realistic way to deal with a fait accompl..."It's a point but not a good one. People are trying to find a cure for malaria and aids, shouldn't we try and find a "cure" for guns, to!
Annie - and what was "realistic way" referring to?
Robert wrote: "Annie - and what was "realistic way" referring to?"What do you mean?
Annie - you stated you wanted a "cure" for guns. Fine, I'm all for that when you can provide a substitute device for our military and police to carry. Unless you want "a cure" for them too, they need some weapon to counteract the actions of our (meaning a civilized society) enemies. The "realistic way" I was referring to is very elusive. It gives the general populace a means to hunt and defend themselves, but cannot be used as an avenging mechanism by unstable people. Like all tough dilemas, the "cure" has warts, and the "realistic way" depends upon whose ox is gored.
Robert wrote: "Annie - you stated you wanted a "cure" for guns. Fine, I'm all for that when you can provide a substitute device for our military and police to carry. Unless you want "a cure" for them too, they ne..."Police men could use tazers, and if their were no guns, THEIR WOULD BE NO WAR!!!
there will always be war without guns or with humans are so filled with hate we'd find away
Ianto wrote: "there will always be war without guns or with humans are so filled with hate we'd find away"I guess your write
