Ban On Guns

[dw6xl 0]

Do Yall think Guns Should Be banned In The Us? Why Or why not.........im doing this for a report 4 skool

[Mighty BOB! 5]

No! I want my .50 BMG sniper rifle!

[Luk3us 63]

Ban guns. Yeah right, I'm not even an American and I can see that ain't gonna happen anytime soon over there...

[Louis EX 0]

Never gonna happen.

[Alphabear 11]

Not in america anyway

[Redmond Boyle 0]

I think it couldn't make any difference wheter they are bannend or not

[Alphabear 11]

Very heavy gun restrictions did good here in Australia

[Louis EX 0]

Same here in Singapore. You won't see any murder cases that involve guns.

[Sonic 296]

Banning guns solves nothing. People who want them will find ways to acquire them by other means.

 

Narcotics and drug paraphernalia are banned but it doesn't stop people from getting them.

[Alphabear 11]

The thing it does prevent is crazed killings like that virginia tech, port arthur etc.

[mormreed 0]

I must disagree with that, he really wanted those guns, and it would have happened much much sooner if guns were banned because he would have gone to some guy on the street who would sell him both guns at the same time.

Instead of waiting 4 weeks to purchase a second gun as warranted by the state of Vriginia (or the US I'm not sure which) but I think the only thing banning guns would do in the US is bring in some more illegal business. Smugglers would start bringing in more guns than would have been purchased legally and it would also drive up the price of guns considerably.

[TheBlackOut 7]

It would just create a blackmarket for guns in the U.S. and would cost law enforcement MORE money to stop the market and trade.

 

I think the war on drugs is a waste of money. Ban major drugs but allow hash! Meh.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

The thing it does prevent is crazed killings like that virginia tech, port arthur etc.

No it doesn't. This is a lie. Things like this would still happen even with a ban.

 

Think about "Prohibition." I rest my case.

[Alphabear 11]

I was talking about heavy restrictions on guns. You can still get guns here too but unless you have a valid reason for owning one it can take quite some time in getting one

[Doctor Destiny 41]

You make it sound like we have free reign on gun purchasing. We have waiting periods, permits, that sort of thing. Not everyone can even buy a gun.

[F15pilotX 4]

The thing it does prevent is crazed killings like that virginia tech, port arthur etc.

no, it CAUSES those things to get out of control; it just ONE person had had a gun (which they couldn't because of gun control), then not NEARLY as many murders would have happened

 

As sonic said earlier, it doesn't prevent people from illegaly obtaining them; it just prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining them :roll:

[TheBlackOut 7]

You make it sound like we have free reign on gun purchasing. We have waiting periods, permits, that sort of thing. Not everyone can even buy a gun.

 

Yup, you got anything criminal on your record you're rejected I believe.

[General Leang 0]

I put this up for the Virginia Tech thread and believe it to be relevent here.

 

 

 

The two issues that always arise with shootings such as this, definetly the school shootings such as last week's tragedy as well as Columbine, Paducha, ect is the control of weapons particularly those used in these incidents and whether film and video games have an influence. Now the issue of gun control, on the one hand all the military rifles, all the high powered type of stuff you can get, people don't need this sort of thing. What legal reason can the same rifles and sub machine guns used by people such as SWAT teams, special forces, the people who are trained specifically to kill and to use force to enforce the law, what legal reason can people outside those organisations have for owning or wanting to own such a weapon? On the other hand the ideas surrounding gun control is all wrong. I find it ironic that if someone else had a gun then they could have stopped Seung-Hui Cho before it got anywhere near where it did, but outside of that people look at something like the Port Arthur massecre that occured eleven years ago and they banned automatic rifles, in light of the Virginia Tech shooting they want to ban Glock handguns because that was the weapon used. You don't need a Styer AUG or 18 autofire to commit a shooting, you can achieve the same result with a revolver or a bolt action rifle or a single shot Derringer you have to reload after each shot. Much of the reason for this comes from the panic people have in these situations, in just about every instance like this people have been trained almost too well to be completely scarred and they, rightfully I might add react with panic. The issue lies in how easy it is to obtain guns and this is a war on two or three fronts. One, there is the right to bear arms and it is a right that should stand, the issue lies in whether or not specific weapons should be made avalible. Now this might sound contradictory to the notion that gun control is wrong by banning certain weapons, but the issue with that is the belief that if weapon X was banned then the problem would go away. The larger issue is how avalible guns are. Rather than allow everyone to have guns as has been proposed if guns were a lot harder to access then there wouldn't be the problems we face with guns. Now this leads to the second point in restricted guns finding their way into the hands of criminals. The black market is rife with the types of weapons people simply shouldn't have and is an issue that must be addressed. The third point lies in whether or not certain people should be allowed to have guns. Seung-Hui Cho appeared normal by all accounts but the signs were there. The disturbing writing, setting fire to his dorm, posing like the characters in violent films, which I'll get to in a minute. These type of things are what's known as having form, in that it delves into the type of character these people are. Someone like Seung-Hui Cho could easily commit the crimes given his mental state. The same goes for other mentally ill people, such as how dangerous it would be for someone who is suffering from depression, or maybe show leniancy and push the case to them attempting suicide, to own a gun. In this case, as well as the cases of incidents like Columbine and Paducha the people felt they had to take revenge for the torments they suffered, and very much power grows from the barrel of a gun. Not only would these incidents have been averted if people like the Trenchcoat Mafia hadn't been able to get their hands on guns as I said but a fourth point is to look at the causes of these rampages. Why did Seung-Hui Cho kill all these people before killing himself? Because he thought he was bullied and singled out. Why did Columbine happen? Because the perpetrators blamed others, they set out to right the wrongs they felt they suffered. It's no excuse, less than no excuse in the case of Columbine as going by their videos they wanted to do it because, well, because they could, because they thought it would be great fun to kill as many people as they could. People like that deserve a bullet, but the point I'm making here is that these people in their minds were victimised, and they sought to take matters into their own hands. It's a desire of everyone who's suffered bullying at school, and while killing is never a valid excuse one of the triggers we see from these school shootings is bullying. Cut this cancer out and you will go a long way to stopping the problem.

 

Now for the other issue that always comes up with these incidents, whether film and video games have an influence. I know of at least two serious investigations of this concerning video games. The first involved whether games made you dessensitised to violence and taught you skills nessecary to kill. I would say yes on both counts, the same as something like a driving game can teach you to drive. Games for the most part are pretty basic, with the possible exception of flight simulators. Racing games for example don't usually have how much you push the accelerator and brake, or something like basketball where you can't roll the ball with your fingers so that it has the right direction of spin to help the shot. The concern of how much games may teach arised in the Rainbow Six games, where with the first one it was about giving the full complete impact of elite counterterrorism (planning, one shot kills, proper tactics, ect) but it left out things (far more operatives are used, helicopter support) though you learn a lot in the game or even seeing a real team go through a real kill house. When making Raven Shield the point was raised on whether the games could teach terrorists anything. The defense was that all the things in the games are really common sense and they worked to leave out anything sensitive. The same arguement have been used in books where tactical procedures are altered, but I maintain people can get an idea of how people would act in those situations, an idea of what something might do, ect. The other test was how games affect our behaviour. A group of children played kiddy games and we saw how they played afterwards, it was all very calm, civil, and then adult games, shooting games, and they were much more aggressive. This suggests that violent games can make us violent. It could also from my point of view be from the anticipation of playing these games, that the children are excited about something they usually don't get to do. Now pretty much the same line of thought can be applied to films. I would say that films and video games can be influential, they can give ideas, they can even be educational in a negative way. However I would argue that the problem lies in those who haven't the self control to not commit these acts and those who cannot see what is right and what is wrong.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Games, music, television, movies and other associated media teach you nothing. To sit behind a computer screen or television, playing or watching is very different from the act itself. There's more lurking beneath the surface of certain individuals than playing violent games or watching movies. I play enough shooters myself but am I a killer? I might be one example, but you'll see more people like myself than the wackos in the news that rampage through institutions, firing upon the hapless people. Columbine, Paducha, VA Tech... they're all the minority of gamers and movie patrons.

 

In all of these incidents, the people involved were, in some way, predisposed to this sort of behavior. All they needed was a trigger and it turned out to be video games... and numerous cases about movies having the same effect. It's not the media causing the big issues... no, no, it's something else. It would be more accurate to say inattentive parents are contributing largely to this problem. If the parents don't ****ing step in and actually pay attention to their children, this begins to happen.

 

In short, it takes more than simply playing video games to be a rampaging lunatic. Besides, take a look at the time before video games were so commonplace, you still had plenty of wandering wackjobs.

[TheBlackOut 7]

Can't blame video games and movies tbh.

 

All these people who killed, or 98 percent of them had a grudge against PEOPLE. They hated them or a group of people for w/e reason.... The games and movies just gives them ideas to how to do it, not why, not when, not anything else.

 

And even then, hardly ever. Most of them know exactly what they were gonna do, game or none. It's not that hard to figure out load, pull trigger, reload, repeat.

 

SS hit it in the nuts.

[Guest Rabbit]

Well, it's basically a representation of "A murderer may be a gamer, but a gamer doesn't have to be a murderer"

[Thierry 0]

I don't think banning guns will help much, the real killers will get them anyways, and it will force other people to use more illegal means to get a gun.

Banning guns also prevents people from defending themselves and their homes, to which I feel if a burglar enters a home and the resident is armed, he should be aware of the risk of getting shot.

[Commando112 2]

like the viginia Colledge massacre.

[VampireA05 0]

then stop manufactur gun then...which is impossible.

 

anything can be weapon, even as simple as sling shot.

 

whos to blame? the person himself.

[F15pilotX 4]

I don't think banning guns will help much, the real killers will get them anyways

Yep, pretty much what the general opinion of the thread is, which I think is right as well