# Guns In America



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

*READ THE EMBOLDENED TEXT BELOW CAREFULLY BEFORE VOTING.*

Given the great divide between the pro-gun and anti-gun, and the sometimes relevant and sometimes irrelevant reasoning supporting each side, I'm creating this poll to find out what the true consensus among SAS'ers is.

*If you believe that gun laws should be much more restrictive than they are now, vote "Yes". If you believe that gun laws are more-or-less fine, vote "No".*


----------



## Killer2121 (Jul 12, 2012)

A few judges recently ruled in favor of guns. So relieved.


----------



## Zeppelin (Jan 23, 2012)

So the yes or no kind of confused me. But I'll explain my position.

I am pro-gun, and I'm a liberal/democrat( kind of ironic lol), but anyways, I think that the laws are fine as it is,I support the right to bear arms and all. I voted no, I hope that that is the correct one since I found it confusing.

The only thing I would be willinging to support is more background/ mental health checks, but that is already being done. 

Also, most Americans don't support gun-control.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

Zeppelin said:


> So the yes or no kind of confused me. But I'll explain my position.
> 
> I am pro-gun, and I'm a liberal/democrat( kind of ironic lol), but anyways, I think that the laws are fine as it is,I support the right to bear arms and all. I voted no, I hope that that is the correct one since I found it confusing.
> 
> ...


Cool.

How do you think I should change the explanation of options to make it more clear?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> Cool.
> 
> How do you think I should change the explanation of options to make it more clear?


Take out the part about "tweaking the laws slightly" when voting no.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Take out the part about "tweaking the laws slightly" when voting no.


Done.


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

I think it's funny that these kinds of discussions get brought up every time a shooting occurs. It's kind of a senseless discussion since it's the maniac behind the weapon that kills people, not the gun. You can be as restrictive as you want, a maniac will always get his hand on a gun.


----------



## Cam1 (Dec 4, 2011)

Oops, voted for the wrong one. Anyways, regardless of the restrictions these psychopaths will find ways to obtain firearms.


----------



## madsv (Mar 19, 2010)

Much tougher laws is the only way to go


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

No, these ******** will always hurt people with guns or not. It's not fair to come down hard on "responsible" gun owners, one bad apple should not spoil the bunch in this case.


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

I don't think that your poll question correctly reflects the title of your message....

The title is 'Guns in America' which makes people think that the poll question is whether or not there should be guns in America.But only by reading the message thread does one find out that the poll question actually is whether the current gun laws are adequate, or need to be stricter....

So people who just skim the poll might be voting 'No' to guns in America.OR they might be voting 'No' to the need for stricter gun laws....


----------



## WalkingDisaster (Nov 27, 2010)

Looks like we got a dead heat...

From here in the UK most people tend to think you guys are a little nuts when it comes to your guns, and that your laws should be similar to ours. Another thing to think about is this story from China:

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/in-china-22-school-students-stabbed_816680.html

A man went on a similar rampage on the same day as the Connecticut shootings, also targeting schoolchildren. The difference is that (possibly) due to China's stricter gun laws, this guy had a knife instead of a gun. The result was that 22 children were wounded, but nobody was killed.

As for my opinion, I don't think anything is as simple as the pro and anti-gun people are making it out to be. I don't know the details of US gun laws, or whether or not they should be changed, but I find it disturbing that for you folks it's easier to get your hands on a gun than it is for you to gain adequate mental health treatment.

Also, this thread, like anything else related to guns on this website, will not end well.


----------



## madsv (Mar 19, 2010)

Piers Morgan +1


----------



## Diacetylmorphine (Mar 9, 2011)

I don't know enough about gun laws to comment really, but it seems like it's an unstoppable force over there. Probably best to further invest in mental health/social services.


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

i never been supportive of guns to be honest.

and what happened yesterday is perfect proof of why we shouldnt have guns.

people manage to find guns, but i did a project last year for school on gun law prevention, yes there are manyy loop holes, however the numbers have gone down. numbers in gun related deaths definitely went down.

we cant stop people from buying guns, but we can manage to lower the number.

the guy got the guns from his mom. if we had stronger laws, so people couldnt have guns, like the mom. those children wouldnt be dead.


----------



## madsv (Mar 19, 2010)

Chieve said:


> i never been supportive of guns to be honest.
> 
> and what happened yesterday is perfect proof of why we shouldnt have guns.
> 
> ...


Agreed


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

The title confused me, voted 'no' by mistake.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

Disarray said:


> I don't know enough about gun laws to comment really, but it seems like it's an unstoppable force over there. Probably best to further invest in mental health/social services.


I feel so sorry for the people who'll have to lead the support groups for the parents who lost their kid and for the kids who saw their classmates get shot.


----------



## peacelovemusic (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm a liberal but I believe in gun rights.


----------



## Soilwork (May 14, 2012)

I can't believe how close the poll is. Only a day after 20 kids were slaughtered thanks to lax gun controls and people still think nothing should be done. I'll never understand Americans and their obsession with guns.


----------



## Ali477 (May 7, 2012)

Soilwork said:


> *I can't believe how close the poll is. Only a day after 20 kids were slaughtered thanks to lax gun controls and people still think nothing should be don*e. I'll never understand Americans and their obsession with guns.


These shootings actually have the opposite effect in the US, support actually increases for the NRA as Americans look to combat any pressure for more gun control that might develop from these incidents. Quite worrying really that support for tougher gun control has actually gone down over the last 10 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/15/newtown-shooting-tighter-gun-control-laws



> Support for stricter gun control laws is at an all-time low. The percentage of Americans who want stronger gun laws is currently below 50% in the vast majority of surveys. The proportion of Americans yearning for tighter gun controls has been dropping by a point or two every year since 1990. Nearly three-quarters of US citizens, 73%, believe that the second amendment guarantees citizens the right to own guns.


----------



## peacelovemusic (Apr 13, 2012)

Soilwork said:


> I can't believe how close the poll is. Only a day after 20 kids were slaughtered thanks to lax gun controls and people still think nothing should be done. I'll never understand Americans and their obsession with guns.


The bottom line is, someone who wanted to shoot up a school would have found a way to get a gun, whether it was legal or not. The gun the recent shooter used wasn't even his, it was his mother's. And if someone at the school had been armed, they could have shot the shooter before he killed 27 people. I am not obsessed with guns at all; I actually hate guns and wish they never existed but since they do, you have to be realistic about it. While gun laws make it harder for the average, everyday citizen to get a gun, there will always be people who are determined to get them and I think we should be able to protect ourselves from them.


----------



## Ali477 (May 7, 2012)

peacelovemusic said:


> The bottom line is, someone who wanted to shoot up a school would have found a way to get a gun, whether it was legal or not. The gun the recent shooter used wasn't even his, it was his mother's. And if someone at the school had been armed, they could have shot the shooter before he killed 27 people. I am not obsessed with guns at all; I actually hate guns and wish they never existed but since they do, you have to be realistic about it. While gun laws make it harder for the average, everyday citizen to get a gun, there will always be people who are determined to get them and I think we should be able to protect ourselves from them.


If this nutcase lived in somewhere like the UK this would never have been allowed to happen, handguns were banned here and the police force launched a major campaign and confiscated the majority of handguns that where not handed in, this effectively made the ability to purchase a firearm on the blackmarket next to impossible, To say gun control wouldn't work is idiotic because it has been proven to work in countless European countries.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

You people for gun control really scare me. Just the fact that you think the government should have more power to intervene in people's lives. It's truly disgusting. If you have this stance on guns it's hard telling what else you'd be for. :no


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I think the laws are fine the way they are now.
The Brady Bill, that part with the seven day investigation, is good enough.
Felons aren't allowed to have guns or to vote, so that part is taken care of, too.

I was in a U.S. District Court jury pool where the case was about a guy who did like a carjacking thing.....he was already a felon, so one of the primary reasons he was in Federal Court was because of having a gun as a convicted felon. It was an additional Federal charge.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> You people for gun control really scare me. Just the fact that you think the government should have more power to intervene in people's lives. It's truly disgusting. If you have this stance on guns it's hard telling what else you'd be for. :no


Certainly they'd be for saving a kid over an adult.

Though the anti-gun are ruling, I'm surprised it's this close.


----------



## Soilwork (May 14, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> You people for gun control really scare me. Just the fact that you think the government should have more power to intervene in people's lives. It's truly disgusting. If you have this stance on guns it's hard telling what else you'd be for. :no


Yeah, we're such terrible people because we don't want to see more innocent people lose their lives. :roll


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> I think the laws are fine the way they are now.
> The Brady Bill, that part with the seven day investigation, is good enough.
> *Felons aren't allowed to have guns or to vote, so that part is taken care of, too.*
> 
> I was in a U.S. District Court jury pool where the case was about a guy who did like a carjacking thing.....he was already a felon, so one of the primary reasons he was in Federal Court was because of having a gun as a convicted felon. It was an additional Federal charge.


That part is not taken care of at all. There are plenty of felons who were not only NOT convicted of violent felonies, but who are not violent individuals in the first place who are having their rights stomped all over. Gun ownership is one of them.


whattothink said:


> Certainly they'd be for saving a kid over an adult.


They would because they have their priorities *** backwards. No surprise there.


Soilwork said:


> Yeah, we're such terrible people because we don't want to see more innocent people lose their lives. :roll


Sure you do. You want to see innocent people not be able to defend themselves against a greater threat and die in the process.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> That part is not taken care of at all. There are plenty of felons who were not only not convicted of violent felonies, but who are not violent individuals in the first place who are having their rights stomped all over. Gun ownership is one of them.


That's the way it is, unfortunately. It was likely set that way to prevent loopholes. Felonies are pretty serious.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> You people for gun control really scare me. Just the fact that you think the government should have more power to intervene in people's lives. It's truly disgusting. *If you have this stance on guns it's hard telling what else you'd be for*. :no


QFT (Especially that last part)

Any one of the basic rights is a good test for what kind of person you are in my book. If someone is against any fundamental right, I take that as evidence they'd against them all if someone merely pushed the right buttons. Give it a hundred years and such people would have us all living in chains. And they'd deny any responsibility whatsoever.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

whattothink said:


> Certainly they'd be for saving a kid over an adult.





SomebodyWakeME said:


> They would because they have their priorities *** backwards. No surprise there.


I think you'll be hard-pressed to find more than two people who agree with that 'backwards' statement, anti-gun or pro-gun. You're in a class of your own.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

Luke688 said:


> These shootings actually have the opposite effect in the US, support actually increases for the NRA as Americans look to combat any pressure for more gun control that might develop from these incidents. Quite worrying really that support for tougher gun control has actually gone down over the last 10 years.


Very indicative of the backwards thinking that many pro-gun use to justify their ideas.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> I think you'll be hard-pressed to find more than two people who agree with that 'backwards' statement, anti-gun or pro-gun. You're in a class of your own.


IMO, only a moron would value a young life more than a more mature and more established one. To each his own. My opinion on that is not a rare one either. Why do you think abortion only applies to unborn babies?


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> IMO, only a moron would value a young life more than a more mature and more established one. To each his own.


Pat yourself on the back: you're probably the only one on this forum who isn't a moron.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> Pat yourself on the back: you're probably the only one on this forum who isn't a moron.


If you're gonna ignore the question (because you see the flaw in your theory), at least do it with class by not saying anything at all instead of making yourself look foolish.


----------



## 0589471 (Apr 21, 2012)

Marlon said:


> I think it's funny that these kinds of discussions get brought up every time a shooting occurs. It's kind of a senseless discussion since it's the maniac behind the weapon that kills people, not the gun. You can be as restrictive as you want, a maniac will always get his hand on a gun.


It's true, and I posted something about villagers in China that are killing children for a 'political statement' using knives. Crazy people are going to be crazy and use whatever to make violence happen, unfortunately.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> IMO, only a moron would value a young life more than a more mature and more established one.


Does anyone else agree that it's better to kill a 6-year-old kid than a 45-year-old?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> Does anyone else agree that it's better to kill a 6-year-old kid than a 45-year-old?


Why don't you reword the question so it doesnt involve murder? Such as "if you had to chose, who's life is more important"?


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Why don't you reword the question so it doesnt involve murder? Such as "if you had to chose, who's life is more important"?


Because that was my original question to which you answered that you'd save the 45-year-old.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> Because that was my original question to which you answered that you'd save the 45-year-old.


Well whatever, i still stand by that. And my opinion is supported by the answer to MY question that you failed to respond to.
Trying to get opinions from others to base your answer off of because you can't think for yourself or what? I don't get it. :stu


----------



## Malek (Oct 4, 2012)

Chieve said:


> i never been supportive of guns to be honest.
> 
> and what happened yesterday is perfect proof of why we shouldnt have guns.
> 
> ...


I concur


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Well whatever, i still stand by that. And my opinion is supported by the answer to MY question that you failed to respond to.
> Trying to get opinions from others to base your answer off of because you can't think for yourself or what? I don't get it. :stu


Where do you get this idea that I can't think for myself? I don't rely on other people to "base my answer off" :?. I'm quite capable of thinking independently. It seems to me that you're confusing not having outlandish and bizarre ideas (such as yours) with an inability to think independently. :stu


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> Where do you get this idea that I can't think for myself? I don't rely on other people to "base my answer off" :?. I'm quite capable of thinking independently. It seems to me that you're confusing not having outlandish and bizarre ideas (such as yours) with an inability to think independently. :stu


Alright..then why don't you simply answer the question? If matured life isn't held in higher regard than young life, why aren't we aborting the lives of the more developed instead of the less developed? Simple question. You're the one who claims that i'm the only one who thinks this way, so you should be able to answer it. I'll be waiting for your response.


----------



## Soilwork (May 14, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Sure you do. You want to see innocent people not be able to defend themselves against a greater threat and die in the process.


If you are referring to someone breaking into your property then you should know that the person will only have a gun because 1. he has easy access to one 2. he knows it is likely that you will also have one.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Soilwork said:


> If you are referring to someone breaking into your property then you should know that the person will only have a gun because 1. he has easy access to one 2. he knows it is likely that you will also have one.


maybe he/she who is breaking into your home or threatening your life on the streets doesn't have a gun at all? maybe they have a damned samurai sword or a razor sharp 24" machete. or maybe he/she is just a king kong of a person who could pop you head like a zit. your logic says, "sorry about you luck dude, deal with it, who cares if ya die".


----------



## BeyondOsiris (Nov 2, 2012)

Lol, exactly 50-50. I guess that's to be expected. I voted no though, because these people would still get their hands on guns regardless of how restricted they are. In most cases, the guns these people use are either stolen or borrowed. All making gun control even stronger would do would create a scenario in which "only criminals have guns", i.e. illegal black market gun activity. It's already difficult to obtain a class 3 permit which is required in order to obtain automatic weaponry.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Alright..then why don't you simply answer the question? If matured life isn't held in higher regard than young life, why aren't we aborting the lives of the more developed instead of the less developed? Simple question. You're the one who claims that i'm the only one who thinks this way, so you should be able to answer it. I'll be waiting for your response.


To compare a grown adult with an embryo that can be legally aborted is bizarre. You're asking why an embryo is allowed to be aborted yet we don't go about murdering grown adults. Well, depending on your specific legislation, the definition of when an embryo becomes a human varies depending on the various stages of development as determined by a wealth of information and debate. Why aren't adult children murdered by their mothers you ask? I admit ignorance, go ask them.


----------



## Soilwork (May 14, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> maybe he/she who is breaking into your home or threatening your life on the streets doesn't have a gun at all? maybe they have a damned samurai sword or a razor sharp 24" machete. or maybe he/she is just a king kong of a person who could pop you head like a zit. your logic says, "sorry about you luck dude, deal with it, who cares if ya die".


Why would someone break into your house and then kill you? If you don't upset a burglar then they are most likely just going to take your stuff and leave. If you think about taking them on (when they will almost certainly have a gun) then there is a good chance you could find yourself in the cemetery.


----------



## RelinquishedHell (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm a gun owner and I support gun ownership, but at the same time I am sickened by these mass shootings and feel that something should be done about it. 

But what can be done? During the assault weapons ban, gun crime was actually higher and mass shootings still happened anyway. There are almost as many guns as there are people in the US and more ammunition than you could fathom. Any bans would be completely pointless and would likely change nothing.

When you really think about it there are no laws that can be passed in the US that will magically make gun crime go away.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

ThatOneQuietGuy said:


> I'm a gun owner and I support gun ownership, but at the same time I am sickened by these mass shootings and feel that something should be done about it.
> 
> But what can be done? During the assault weapons ban, gun crime was actually higher and mass shootings still happened anyway. There are almost as many guns as there are people in the US and more ammunition than you could fathom. Any bans would be completely pointless and would likely change nothing.


I agree, an outright ban isn't viable right now. There should instead be more focus on eliminating the high number of guns and ammunition in circulation. After enough legislation is passed and the amount of guns has gone down significantly, and also after the enthusiastic gun culture is suppressed (we're talking several generations), then a ban becomes much more viable.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> To compare a grown adult with an an embryo that can be legally aborted is bizarre. You're asking why an embryo is allowed to be aborted yet we don't go about murdering grown adults. Well, depending on your specific legislation, the definition of when an embryo becomes a human varies depending on the various stages of development as determined by a wealth of information and debate. Why aren't adult children murdered by their mothers you ask? I admit ignorance, go ask them.


Who says i'm specifically comparing a grown adult to an unborn child? Even a small child is still a more matured life than an embryo or larger unborn fetus isn't it? So again, even if we're comparing a small child to an unborn one, more developed life is still held in higher regard, correct? Sorry bub, you're done.



Soilwork said:


> Why would someone break into your house and then kill you? If you don't upset a burglar then they are most likely just going to take your stuff and leave. If you think about taking them on (when they will almost certainly have a gun) then there is a good chance you could find yourself in the cemetery.


You've gotta be kiddin me! You'd actually give the benefit of the doubt to someone who _violently_ invades your personal space armed or unarmed, that he/she is not gonna harm you? Wow. You live in a fairy tale world my friend. 
Are you the same person who suggested that nonsense a couple weeks ago to me in another thread?


----------



## RelinquishedHell (Apr 10, 2012)

whattothink said:


> I agree, an outright ban isn't viable right now. There should instead be more focus on eliminating the high number of guns and ammunition in circulation. After enough legislation is passed and the amount of guns has gone down significantly, and also after the enthusiastic gun culture is suppressed (we're talking several generations), then a ban becomes much more viable.


What I can't wrap my head around is why my country has so many of these shootings, but in other countries where gun laws are also very relaxed, gun crime is extremely rare.

In some northern European countries you can own fully automatic weapons, yet mass shootings don't happen there.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

ThatOneQuietGuy said:


> What I can't wrap my head around is why my country has so many of these shootings, but in other countries where gun laws are also very relaxed, gun crime is extremely rare.


 Expediency?


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Who says i'm specifically comparing a grown adult to an unborn child? Even a small child is still a more matured life than an embryo or larger unborn fetus isn't it? So again, even if we're comparing a small child to an unborn one, more developed life is still held in higher regard? Correct? Sorry bub, you're done.


Applying an over-simplified and inflexible logic without taking into account the extremely complex and sensitive system of morals is absurd and isn't done in the real world, only in your head.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

ThatOneQuietGuy said:


> What I can't wrap my head around is why my country has so many of these shootings, but in other countries where gun laws are also very relaxed, gun crime is extremely rare.
> 
> In some northern European countries you can own fully automatic weapons, yet mass shootings don't happen there.


We're not exclusively discussing mass shootings, we're talking about gun-related crime in general, which rates as very high in America.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

whattothink said:


> Applying an over-simplified and inflexible logic without taking into account the extremely complex and sensitive system of morals is absurd and isn't done in the real world, only in your head.


You can try to flex it anyway you want to man. Underdeveloped life isn't gonna become more developed or vice versa using words.


----------



## FabiusMaximus (Dec 15, 2012)

Can I ask why guns are so important to Americans?

I've heard of ideas such as protecting yourself against a tyrannical government or to protect your house/family against criminals.

To Brits, we fear these things too but it's very unusual (except for the ultra-right) to find someone who supports guns. After the Dunblane massacre in Scotland we tightened gun laws, and a school shooting hasn't happened since, thank God

I voted for more restrictive gun laws :um


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

As of now it's a tie ball game 25-25. I haven't voted yet. Hmmm ... how should I vote? Anyone want to buy my vote? I'm open to being bribed.


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

theseventhkey said:


> No, these ******** will always hurt people with guns or not. It's not fair to come down hard on "responsible" gun owners, one bad apple should not spoil the bunch in this case.


if he used something other than a gun, the numbers would probably be lower. Lets say he had a knife, he could probably of killed one or two, but not 27. One, it's almost impossible to run from a bullet, not a knife. two, if someone was brave enough to try to stop the guy, it will be difficult with a gun, with a knife, maybe someone can be stronger to stop the guy.

Thing is, we can't trust who is responsible and who isn't. People pass the tests to have a license, yet people are still dumb enough for others to grab. A lot of people think they are "responsible," but they aren't.

Remember the case 2 years ago where a 10 year old boy found his parents gun, and played around with it and accidently killed his 11 year old brother?

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Boy-Accidentally-Kills-Brother-With-Dads-Gun-85766022.html

Those who are more responsible about tend to keep it locked up. However, people who keep guns in their house makes homicide 2.7 times more likely, and 21 times more likely by someone they know.

it's funny how people are saying "if someone wanted to shoot up a school, they will find one way or another" but think about it. If we had tougher rules, it will be harder to get a gun, making it take a longer amount of time to get the gun in the first place. this guy got it from his mom. if we had tougher laws, maybe he would of decided to not shoot up the school, maybe he would of been caught and gone to jail, or maybe since christmas break is coming up soon, it would of been to late, and possibly even decide to not do it after all.



SomebodyWakeME said:


> You people for gun control really scare me. Just the fact that you think the government should have more power to intervene in people's lives. It's truly disgusting. If you have this stance on guns it's hard telling what else you'd be for. :no


Disgusting? as you see above, guns cause more harm then good. Again, people are 2.7 more likely to kill their spouse if a gun is around.

The government should control this part of someone life because I don't know if you get this, guns take away lives and control other lives.

People who use intend to use a gun, many use it to control others to do what they want, even major groups, because it's a intimidation factor, I mean come on, this is common sense.



> Sure you do. You want to see innocent people not be able to defend themselves against a greater threat and die in the process.


You do realize, if it is harder to get the gun in the first place, their will me a much lower amount of people who will need to defend themselves.

Only a minority of people need to use a gun for self-defense, most people don't even use their gun. they are rarely used by most people. causing more harm than good. if we loosened these laws, we will see an increase in murders.



SomebodyWakeME said:


> Alright..then why don't you simply answer the question? If matured life isn't held in higher regard than young life, why aren't we aborting the lives of the more developed instead of the less developed? Simple question. You're the one who claims that i'm the only one who thinks this way, so you should be able to answer it. I'll be waiting for your response.


This is an odd question....

How can you compare a fetus to a fully developed adult? Your comparing a child to a fetus, if the child is already alive, thinking, feeling, dreaming, basically living life like any born child(unlike the fetus who isn't even born yet, or fully developed, ranging from motor skills to mental processes depend on its age) than why kill it. The child could get somewhere, they are our future. Why allow them to die to over an adult, these children make up our future more than the adults. In the long-run, we are going to need these children more than the adults. This is an obvious fact, but your chance to die increases every moment you get older. The adult is more likely to die than the child. The child is just getting it's life started, and who knows type of impact the child could have.

It just seems like your trying to be a wise guy.

To be honest, your question makes no sense and is not well thought out.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Chieve said:


> This is an odd question....
> 
> How can you compare a fetus to a fully developed adult? Your comparing a child to a fetus, if the child is already alive, thinking, feeling, dreaming, basically living life like any born child(unlike the fetus who isn't even born yet, or fully developed, ranging from motor skills to mental processes depend on its age) than why kill it. The child could get somewhere, they are our future. Why allow them to die to over an adult, these children make up our future more than the adults. In the long-run, we are going to need these children more than the adults. This is an obvious fact, but your chance to die increases every moment you get older. The adult is more likely to die than the child. The child is just getting it's life started, and who knows type of impact the child could have.
> 
> ...


The idea is to compare underdeveloped life to more developed life, no matter what state it's currently in. It can range anywhere from an unborn fetus to an old man. Matured life is held in higher regard, as it should be. To think otherwise is idiotic.


----------



## Invisiblehandicap (Jul 31, 2011)

Yes. How do guns make you safer if everyone has them? At least if no guns are there, you can have strategies to save yourself. If someone has a gun, its over.


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> The idea is to compare underdeveloped life to more developed life, no matter what state it's currently in. It can range anywhere from an unborn fetus to an old man. Matured life is held in higher regard, as it should be. To think otherwise is idiotic.


How can you compare a fetus to an adult?

Second, why are you bringing an pro/anti abortion topic to a pro/anti gun topic.

What do guns have to do with abortions and how could you relate one to the other.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Chieve said:


> How can you compare a fetus to an adult?
> 
> Second, why are you bringing an pro/anti abortion topic to a pro/anti gun topic.
> 
> What do guns have to do with abortions and how could you relate one to the other.


exactly my point. underdeveloped life cannot possibly be compared to more mature, more established life. i didn't bring it up, whattothink did, from a discussion on another thread. ask him/her.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Yeah, I really don't see how guns help you to protect yourself. It's not like you can walk around with a gun on you. Home invasions are pretty rare. Most of the time you get mugged/murdered when out of the house. And of course, the attacker has the upper hand in that they know they are going to attack and you don't. So unless you can grab the gun before being disabled or whatever by the attacker it is of no use.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> exactly my point. underdeveloped life cannot possibly be compared to more mature, more established life. i didn't bring it up, whattothink did, from a discussion on another thread. ask him/her.


You're right, I did bring it up to illustrate a point.



SomebodyWakeME said:


> You people for gun control really scare me. Just the fact that you think the government should have more power to intervene in people's lives. It's truly disgusting. If you have this stance on guns it's hard telling what else you'd be for.


Noting your negative tone towards people rallying for tighter gun regulation, I used your previous statement to underscore my opinion that _your_ ideas are bizarre.



whattothink said:


> Certainly they'd be for saving a kid over an adult.


And then it began...

BTW, I'm a guy. Nice to meet ya.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

The problem with guns is that everyone should have one, or no one should have one. The middle ground, with some having guns and others not (and crazy people) are what contribute to massacre's like this.

If they're to remain legal, everyone should have one and be taught how to use it. Bet 20 kids wouldn't have died yesterday if the teachers there were armed and educated.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

the cheat said:


> The problem with guns is that everyone should have one, or no one should have one. The middle ground, with some having guns and others not (and crazy people) are what contribute to massacre's like this.
> 
> If they're to remain legal, everyone should have one and be taught how to use it. Bet 20 kids wouldn't have died yesterday if the teachers there were armed and educated.


Mixing firearms and elementary school classrooms: a recipe for success.


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

the cheat said:


> The problem with guns is that everyone should have one, or no one should have one. The middle ground, with some having guns and others not (and crazy people) are what contribute to massacre's like this.
> 
> If they're to remain legal, everyone should have one and be taught how to use it. Bet 20 kids wouldn't have died yesterday if the teachers there were armed and educated.


i wonder how many kids would accidently kill one another


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

whattothink said:


> Mixing firearms and elementary school classrooms: a recipe for success.


If the people holding the guns are prepared and educated, there's no problem. 
I already know what I suggested would never happen.

Even taser's would help. Right now there is ZERO defense.



Chieve said:


> i wonder how many kids would accidently kill one another


I wonder, too. But how many students have died this year, at school, from no one at the school being able to protect them?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Chieve said:


> your point doesnt make sense
> 
> your still making it seem like a child is like a fetus...but it's not.


Nah, a fetus is most definitely not like a child, just like a child is most definitely not like an adult. I'm guessing you would make some sorta twisted argument that once a child exits the womb, it has the same role in life as an adult, even though it's still not mentally or physcially capable of anything(just like a fetus). *That's* what doesn't make sense.


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

the cheat said:


> If the people holding the guns are prepared and educated, there's no problem.
> I already know what I suggested would never happen.
> 
> Even taser's would help. Right now there is ZERO defense.
> ...


kids tend to like toy guns

i bet some would love to play with the real thing.

the amount of children killing one another would probably be more over whelming than those who died in another school shooting


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Nah, a fetus is most definitely not like a child, just like a child is most definitely not like an adult. I'm guessing you would make some sorta twisted argument that once a child exits the womb, it has the same role in life as an adult, even though it's still not mentally capable of anything. That doesn't make sense.


no. i read it wrong. i see what your saying. thats why i deleted my previous post.

i dont really want to state if i agree or disagree, because its just an opinion i have no opinion on lol, in reference to your "a child should die over an adult" comment


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

Chieve said:


> kids tend to like toy guns
> 
> i bet some would love to play with the real thing.
> 
> the amount of children killing one another would probably be more over whelming than those who died in another school shooting


Yeah, I really don't agree that accidents would be so prevalent but it's pointless to debate that as there's no answer. I just know, if I lived in America and I had two options: send my kid to a school with armed, trained teachers, or not...I know what my choice would be. Give me the chances of a gun accident over the chances of a school massacre, any day.

My next idea is for America to, I dunno, stop going to war, and use their military for domestic reasons. Protecting schools seems like a good thing, and right now, there is no protection.


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

the cheat said:


> Yeah, I really don't agree that accidents would be so prevalent but it's pointless to debate that as there's no answer. I just know, if I lived in America and I had two options: send my kid to a school with armed, trained teachers, or not...I know what my choice would be. Give me the chances of a gun accident over the chances of a school massacre, any day.
> 
> My next idea is for America to, I dunno, stop going to war, and use their military for domestic reasons. Protecting schools seems like a good thing, and right now, there is no protection.


good luck to your child...


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

We don't need more gun laws, just more common sense. And dare I say it...morals. *GASP*


----------



## Metus (Dec 6, 2010)

komorikun said:


> Yeah, I really don't see how guns help you to protect yourself. It's not like you can walk around with a gun on you.


Actually, in most places in the US, you CAN.


----------



## Metus (Dec 6, 2010)

the cheat said:


> If the people holding the guns are prepared and educated, there's no problem.
> I already know what I suggested would never happen.
> 
> Even taser's would help. Right now there is ZERO defense.
> ...


You know, there was a time in the US when guns were in schools. Kids actually had rifles in their lockers. Schools had shooting teams. And school shootings never happened. Our culture has advanced so far since then.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Metus said:


> Actually, in most places in the US, you CAN.


I have never seen anyone walking around town with a gun on them.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

Poll has concluded: SAS majority against guns.


----------



## IcedOver (Feb 26, 2007)

The only gun laws I would favor would be a renewed emphasis on strict background checks and maybe a longer "cooling off" period (I think it's a day right now, but should be extended to 3-5 days). Absolutely no restrictions should be placed on any kind of weapon. The ratio of the amount of people who own guns to those who commit violence with them is probably very wide.

I'm really sick of hearing all the stupid liberal news pundits arguing for gun control or crying that in the wake of the school shootings, "something has to be done to save the children" (as if some armed nut is waiting to kill their kids). No, nothing extreme should be done. Sh!t happens. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Every time a crisis happens, someone tries to find ways to limit people's rights. As the ******* Rahm Emanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." obama resents all gun owners and has clearly been waiting for such a moment; now he's licking his chops. It shouldn't sit well for any American (or a citizen of any country, for that matter) to have all arms at the disposal of one man. It's not as much a matter of survivalist defense against a dictator as it is fairness. Governments who favor the citizenry being unarmed want to keep it cowed and under its thumb; it's a government that looks down on citizens as being unworthy and incapable of making its own choices, and it's the kind that people like obama and michael bloomberg (soda ban) support.


----------



## DesertStar91 (Feb 1, 2012)

Oh great, I accidentally voted no. I meant that they should be stricter, especially since what happened with school shooting. There's no way they shouldn't be. It would be so dumb to keep them as it is already.


----------



## typemismatch (May 30, 2012)

Shouldn't the Yes bar be blue and the No bar be red?


----------

