Metanet Forums

Are you for gun control, or are you against it? State the reason(s) why you are on a certain side, and defend your answer.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp - Some great facts on gun control.

Here's a way of thinking of it. Basketballs are used in basketball,right? And basketball is a sport. So is hunting,and if they took away the right to bear arms,then it would be like making basketballs illegal outside of the sport itself...
Though this isn't the best way of putting it.
Maybe it would be better to say,if they

took away the right to bear arms

or made guns/firearms illegal,then the gun would be the basketball and police and maybe some places(like firing ranges,etc.) would be the actual sport of basketball(in this metaphor)

Simply, my opinion is that firearms/guns,at least ones mostly related to hunting and 'personal defense' should be keep legal,but guns like say an AK47 or a M4/M16,etc... should just be resticted to military use or _possibly_ for police use, and this is because if the police have it then usually gangs will have a way of getting it too.

jinxed_07 wrote: Simply, my opinion is that firearms/guns,at least ones mostly related to hunting and 'personal defense' should be keep legal,but guns like say an AK47 or a M4/M16,etc... should just be resticted to military use or _possibly_ for police use, and this is because if the police have it then usually gangs will have a way of getting it too.

Agreed. Assault rifles have no place in anywhere but war.

Think of a baby. Now think of a chainsaw. That's a shocking transition in your thinking, isn't it?
There, I have just made the only argument that most gun control advocates use.

*mind is fried*

What?
Care to explain?

Tsukatu wrote:Think of a baby. Now think of a chainsaw. That's a shocking transition in your thinking, isn't it?
There, I have just made the only argument that most gun control advocates use.

jinxed_07 wrote:*mind is fried*

What?
Care to explain?

I'll explain. He likes guns.

wow,such a simple explanation for such a complex answer..
lol?

flagmyidol wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:Think of a baby. Now think of a chainsaw. That's a shocking transition in your thinking, isn't it?
There, I have just made the only argument that most gun control advocates use.

jinxed_07 wrote:*mind is fried*

What?
Care to explain?

I'll explain. He likes guns.

Who doesn't?

Hippies, that's who.

Tsukatu wrote:Think of a baby. Now think of a chainsaw. That's a shocking transition in your thinking, isn't it?
There, I have just made the only argument that most gun control advocates use.

Think of a chainsaw. Then think of a gun. They're both pretty fucking dangerous, aren't they?

But one of them has a useful purpose outside of entertainment. Get an Xbox, douchebag.

OMG
Were going of the rails on a crazy train/topic! *insert awesome solo here*
xD

This is for school.

Erik-Player wrote:This is for school.

That's it,you just killed ozzy ozborne

jinxed_07 wrote:

Erik-Player wrote:This is for school.

That's it,you just killed ozzy ozborne

God I wish that guy was dead. But really, Erik, if this is for school, post a little more detail about your project or paper, and we'll help you cheat.

I'm against gun control on principle, but I like it in practice, to some extent. Kinda like nationalized transportation infrastructure and healthcare.

jinxed_07 wrote:Simply, my opinion is that firearms/guns,at least ones mostly related to hunting and 'personal defense' should be keep legal,but guns like say an AK47 or a M4/M16,etc... should just be resticted to military use or _possibly_ for police use, and this is because if the police have it then usually gangs will have a way of getting it too.

I agree with this argument, but i'd take it one step further and say that any weapon capable of firing a lethal projectile should be restricted to military use, while anything non-lethal should be kept legal for personal defense.

I really don't understand why most people draw the line just after semi-automatic handguns and pump-action shotguns. There's a national thought that runs along the lines of "oh yes, lethal projectiles, these provide the perfect balance of self defense and safety." They so do not.

I can't see any good reason for wanting to hurt somebody fifteen metres away. If the person isn't within taser range then its not self defense.
Furthermore, it is not the role of a civilian to be a judge, much less executioner.

More progress needs to be made in the area of self-defense technology, and then we can ditch all these ridiculous notions of civilians armed with lethal weapons.

SkyPanda wrote:More progress needs to be made in the area of self-defense technology, and then we can ditch all these ridiculous notions of civilians armed with lethal weapons.

I'm pushing for self-defense technology, but until then I don't support gun control.

flagmyidol wrote:

jinxed_07 wrote:

Erik-Player wrote:This is for school.

That's it,you just killed ozzy ozborne

God I wish that guy was dead. But really, Erik, if this is for school, post a little more detail about your project or paper, and we'll help you cheat.

This topic should be in the projects' forum.

Wight wrote:

SkyPanda wrote:More progress needs to be made in the area of self-defense technology, and then we can ditch all these ridiculous notions of civilians armed with lethal weapons.

I'm pushing for self-defense technology, but until then I don't support gun control.

lols

Pepper Spray? Stun Guns? Tasers? Baseball Bats? GIANT HOSES?

What the frak else do you need? If guns weren't allowed into the hands of the people so frequently, people wouldn't have as many guns. Viddy this: Most of the guns held by common thieves and rapists are registered and do not come from some proposed black market trade where they met at sunbreak and they traded their soul for a 9mm. Stricter gun control would eliminate a large number of guns from the country. Couple that with the idea that most of those self-defense weapons are just as if not more effective at disabling a criminal and then you see why there are only a few weak arguments left by the gun crowd.

1) THIS IS COUNTRY OF LIBERTY (lols false)
2) What if we need to hunt shit? (DON'T NEED A GAT FOR THAT, BRO.)
3) I like recreationally shooting shit. (I like recreationally shooting heroin. Change the law.)

SkyPanda wrote:I agree with this argument, but i'd take it one step further and say that any weapon capable of firing a lethal projectile should be restricted to military use, while anything non-lethal should be kept legal for personal defense.

Now that's a good concise definition we can all agree with. COMPLICATED SEMANTICS TRANE GO.

Slaps wrote:Pepper Spray? Stun Guns? Tasers? Baseball Bats? GIANT HOSES?

What the frak else do you need?

Pepper Spray? Stun Guns? Tasers? Pistols? Baseball Bats? UZIs?

Do you really need hoses?!

I support the government's right to take away any random one of the items on that list. Because there's six other items on the list that you can still use!

Slaps wrote:If guns weren't allowed into the hands of the people so frequently, people wouldn't have as many guns. Viddy this: Most of the guns held by common thieves and rapists are registered and do not come from some proposed black market trade where they met at sunbreak and they traded their soul for a 9mm.

This is kinda a backwards argument here. Presently, gun controls are light in the US; as a result, people don't have to attain their weapons from a black market, so no strong market exists. Prior to the prohibition, bootleggers didn't exist. There was no fear that outlawing alcohol would enable a black market, because such a market didn't yet exist. But, lo and behold, they outlawed booze and booze was sold in equally high amounts, only using Tommy Guns and cool mafia cars.

flagmyidol wrote:

jinxed_07 wrote:

Erik-Player wrote:This is for school.

That's it,you just killed ozzy ozborne

God I wish that guy was dead. But really, Erik, if this is for school, post a little more detail about your project or paper, and we'll help you cheat.

The teacher gave us the topic gun control for our debate, which we will be debating in five days. She assigned teams for and against the argument. I was assigned against gun control, so I have to make three statements as to why there shouldn't be a limit to guns, and defend my answer. I have to study both sides of the argument to get a good picture of what to say.

Keep it going, guys!

blue_tetris wrote:Now that's a good concise definition we can all agree with. COMPLICATED SEMANTICS TRANE GO.

I'm sure that a few time-consuming, expensive committees can put their heads together and eventually come to the conclusion that a weapon that fires a metal bullet is more lethal than say, a weapon that fires an irritant spray. Citizens like you would be more than welcome to submit a strongly worded letter complaining that a can of pepper spray is potentially lethal- possibly by inserting it up your arse and blocking your digestive system? And of course, if pepper spray is also lethal, then we should all just get guns. Right?

blue_tetris wrote:I support the government's right to take away any random one of the items on that list. Because there's six other items on the list that you can still use!

But wait, it's not random. We've already established killin powa as one of the key critirea for removal from the usable weapons list. Guns shouldn't be on there for the same reason that nuclear bombs shouldn't be on there. Too much killin powa, bro.

SlappyMcGee wrote:

Wight wrote:

SkyPanda wrote:More progress needs to be made in the area of self-defense technology, and then we can ditch all these ridiculous notions of civilians armed with lethal weapons.

I'm pushing for self-defense technology, but until then I don't support gun control.

lols

Pepper Spray? Stun Guns? Tasers? Baseball Bats? GIANT HOSES?

What the frak else do you need? If guns weren't allowed into the hands of the people so frequently, people wouldn't have as many guns. Viddy this: Most of the guns held by common thieves and rapists are registered and do not come from some proposed black market trade where they met at sunbreak and they traded their soul for a 9mm. Stricter gun control would eliminate a large number of guns from the country. Couple that with the idea that most of those self-defense weapons are just as if not more effective at disabling a criminal and then you see why there are only a few weak arguments left by the gun crowd.

1) THIS IS COUNTRY OF LIBERTY (lols false)
2) What if we need to hunt shit? (DON'T NEED A GAT FOR THAT, BRO.)
3) I like recreationally shooting shit. (I like recreationally shooting heroin. Change the law.)

Well if guns are ever banned beyond the military then uh,
I could see us going back to the post-medieval crossbows... :\
Possibly, Imagine a angry crowd of people with crossbows?

SkyPanda wrote:But wait, it's not random. We've already established killin powa as one of the key critirea for removal from the usable weapons list. Guns shouldn't be on there for the same reason that nuclear bombs shouldn't be on there. Too much killin powa, bro.

We'll need a committee to decide the killing power of a knife. I think that's got a fair amount of killing power. Tylenol is a slow-acting poison, but an effective one. Cheaper than any gun. It's all about killin' powa, baybay, and (if you think the purpose of the government is such) you need to establish how easy we should be able to do it. Like, if it takes three steps to kill (cock, point, and pull trigger), is it more lethal? Opening the bottle of lime and rust cleaner takes a bit longer, so it's less killy? Knifing is extremely lethal. It's, like, a one-step maneuver. Which objects are inherently illegal because they're too easy to make killy with?

By the way, ever notice how much property and human damage you can do with a car? Goddamn. If I wanted to kill dudes and wreck stuff up, I'd use a car.

Let's get some criteria out there for how killy something has to be before it's illegal. Then, let's make a list of things that fit those criteria. Yeah, it seems like a hassle. But when you're making something illegal, you need to justify it. We can't have one dude throwing a second dude into a prison for just anything.

blue_tetris wrote:

SkyPanda wrote:But wait, it's not random. We've already established killin powa as one of the key critirea for removal from the usable weapons list. Guns shouldn't be on there for the same reason that nuclear bombs shouldn't be on there. Too much killin powa, bro.

We'll need a committee to decide the killing power of a knife. I think that's got a fair amount of killing power. Tylenol is a slow-acting poison, but an effective one. Cheaper than any gun. It's all about killin' powa, baybay, and (if you think the purpose of the government is such) you need to establish how easy we should be able to do it. Like, if it takes three steps to kill (cock, point, and pull trigger), is it more lethal? Opening the bottle of lime and rust cleaner takes a bit longer, so it's less killy? Knifing is extremely lethal. It's, like, a one-step maneuver. Which objects are inherently illegal because they're too easy to make killy with?

By the way, ever notice how much property and human damage you can do with a car? Goddamn. If I wanted to kill dudes and wreck stuff up, I'd use a car.

Let's get some criteria out there for how killy something has to be before it's illegal. Then, let's make a list of things that fit those criteria. Yeah, it seems like a hassle. But when you're making something illegal, you need to justify it. We can't have one dude throwing a second dude into a prison for just anything.

Wait up, R-Tard, because you missed the idea. Knives? Tylenol? Cars? These all have functional roles in society. They actively benefit people.

So if something's sole purpose is to kill, then it should be illegal. Otherwise, (mostly) regardless of its lethality, people can be trusted with it. Because, although phenomenally deadly, we can trust them not to use it for that.

All we need to do, then, is come up with a second use for guns other than murdering humans.

*gets out encyclopedia*