Continuous wrote

Mr_Robot wrote

Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.

You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun

I completely agree, but you will probably get a reply from someone like Motivational saying that you are just paranoid and the government would destroy you and your little guns.

@Axl

What is wrong with buying from craigslist? And last time I checked Craigslist, they did not have a guns section. But I understand what you mean.

There are places like that, and they are how every gun deal should go. You go and meet someone that you want to buy a gun from. They make sure that you are over the age limit. And they do not knowingly sell to a felon. Sure there are negatives to that deal, but there are also positives. If you have to go through a federal background check, like you do at a licensed gun dealer, then there is a record of you buying that gun. Then when they come and grab our guns, then they know who has guns, and who does not. Then when you say that you do not have the gun anymore, then you are going to have a bad day.

I would not want to live in a country that does not allow guns.

To the people like Motivational... If the government wants our guns, then they are going to have a hard time. Not every body is going to give up guns. Just face it, banning guns is not a reality.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Some people will sell firearms over such websites without even making sure the other person has a license because they just want to get rid off it to make some money.

Motivational wrote The problem is, for someone like 002 to own a semi-automatic rifle, someone like Adam Lanza can also get one (The guy that did the Sandy Hook shooting which killed 27 people). Now, I know he supposedly stole those weapons from his mother, but why the hell, does a fifty two year old need a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle for? The house she lived in cost over $1.3 million dollars, yet all the security isn't enough for her and she still needed guns. I completely fail to see what a semi-automatic rifle would do that a pistol wouldn't in close range, except be heavier, bigger and just more of a nuisance.

Guns are like a double sided knife. You have those who use and own guns for the right reasons, but there are also bad people with guns. What does age have to do with anything? Take a look at Jerry Miculek, he is 62, and is like a God in the gun world.

He is 62 years old, and owns/shoots a variety of guns. He does not have what you would consider a legitimate reason for owning a gun. You would probably say he could just use air soft guns or something stupid like that. Living in a expensive house is even more reason to have a gun, you have valuable things that others want, you need to protect your self, and your property. You could have the best security system in the world, but that did not stop her son from stealing her guns did it? She does not need a reason to have more than a handgun. Look at Jerry Miculek for example. According to you, he does not need those guns. But the mans whole life is based around guns.

I never ever, suggested banning all guns. That wouldn't work and is just a bad idea. Instead, simply put more restrictions after restrictions and after years and years, you'll see a huge decrease in the amount of weapons.

We have so many restrictions, that people are just banning things, and they do not even know what they are. You said that you do not want to ban guns, then you go on to say that you want to ban guns in your next statement? Partially banning something is still banning.

Would it be that hard to just own hunting rifles and put bans or reductions on pistols and semi-automatic weapons? Not necessarily completely ban them, just stop production of them or make it illegal. America has a huge budget, they could also offer to pay people for exchanging their pistols or rifles. The majority of people prefer money over guns anyway.

A hunting rifle could be anything. It is just a rifle that you go hunting with. If I had the choice of a semi auto gun and a bolt action for hunting, I would choose the semi auto. I have already explained why. The gun industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, imagine how many people would suffer. If people prefer money over guns, then why did they buy guns in the first place? They could have just saved the money.

Exactly what I suggested happened in Australia and it worked perfectly. They paid people to hand in their weapons and the majority of them did, and the ones who didn't were usually elderly and weren't going to cause anyone any harm.

There are many statistics that you could look at. But lets look at the rape rate of Australia versus the U.S. Australia has a higher rape rate than America. A gun could have stopped a good amount of those rapes. The majority of people who gave back their guns did so because they did not want to become criminals since the guns were made illegal. Not because they wanted the money.

There's really not any point in me replying to any more of the posts here, you seem to have no idea what I'm trying to suggest and keep misrepresenting me as some sort of gun hater. As I've said multiple times, I've got no problem with guns if they're in the right hands, the only problem is that for them to be in the right hands, they're also going to be in the wrong hands.

Then just stop replying, it is as simple as that. I know what you are trying to suggest and have called you out on it multiple times. I am not misrepresenting you, you want to ban guns. All guns should be in the right hands, but that is just not going to happen.

You also quoted a whole post from me on the last page which wasn't even addressed to you, it was instead a response to glock.

Okay? You posted it on the internet, I can say what ever I want to say. And I disagree with almost everything that you have said, of course I am going to tell you how I feel.

You are making ridiculous statements, and I am going to call you out on them. Like how someone who is 52 years old has no reason to own a gun. That is just complete bs, look at Jerry Miculek.

@002, I did not mean to dislike your reply, you were the wrong person.

Axl wrote I don't think you understood what I meant. Some people will sell firearms over such websites without even making sure the other person has a license because they just want to get rid off it to make some money.

Those types of things happen, but it is not supposed to happen.

Axl wrote

Mr_Robot wrote

Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.

You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun

Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?

As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.

Continuous wrote

Axl wrote I don't think you understood what I meant. Some people will sell firearms over such websites without even making sure the other person has a license because they just want to get rid off it to make some money.

Those types of things happen, but it is not supposed to happen.

Exactly. You just said it but doesn't mean it won't happen. There still will be those shady people that will sell guns without actually making sure that the buyer is eligible etc. You get the point.

002 wrote

Axl wrote

Mr_Robot wrote

Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.

You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun

Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?

As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.

You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.

Continuous wrote We have so many restrictions, that people are just banning things, and they do not even know what they are. You said that you do not want to ban guns, then you go on to say that you want to ban guns in your next statement? Partially banning something is still banning.

I said I did not want to ban all guns. The key word here is all. I have no problem banning some guns, (semi-automatic etc.)

Continuous wrote A hunting rifle could be anything. It is just a rifle that you go hunting with. If I had the choice of a semi auto gun and a bolt action for hunting, I would choose the semi auto. I have already explained why. The gun industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, imagine how many people would suffer. If people prefer money over guns, then why did they buy guns in the first place? They could have just saved the money.

Why in the hell, would you want to shoot the animal more times? If you're hunting then you want to damage the animal as little as possible so you have more meat.

And please, our ancestors hunted with knives and spears and you're complaining about having to use a bolt action rifle. If you can't kill the animal in one shot to the head, don't hunt. Or work on your target practice, which you Americans love so much.

Continuous wrote There are many statistics that you could look at. But lets look at the rape rate of Australia versus the U.S. Australia has a higher rape rate than America. A gun could have stopped a good amount of those rapes. The majority of people who gave back their guns did so because they did not want to become criminals since the guns were made illegal. Not because they wanted the money.

The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime

Only around 10% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men, and often by someone who the survivor has previously trusted or even loved. People are raped in their homes, their workplaces and other settings where they have previously felt safe. Rapists can be friends, colleagues, clients, neighbours, family members, partners or exes.

If you want to defend yourself from rape, it's called pepper spray and self defence classes. There's no need for a woman to be carrying a loaded gun in her handbags.

Nobody, is going to shoot someone that they love or have known for a long time. It's that simple. Not to mention, nobody has time to go into their handpul, pull out a gun, take off the safety and point and shoot before they've been attacked and disarmed.

Having a gun on you also gives the rapist a story to makeup for the police, e.g the woman pulled the gun during an argument and he disarmed her hence the bruises. Or it gives the rapist a weapon to kill the victim with.

No matter what way you put it, having pepper spray or a taser is far far more effective than using a gun to defend a rape. And even if the statisitcs were true, I'd rather have slightly higher rape statisitcs than 100 more mass shootings, higher crime rates, obesity rates etc.

Continuous wrote All guns should be in the right hands, but that is just not going to happen.

Exactly. That's where we differ. I would rather nobody has guns and they're not missued and no shootings happen than lots of people have them and use them for completely pointless reasons.

I don't see how this is even an argument, your country has a higher crime rate than mine and more mass shootings and we have stricter gun control. It's that simple, if you'd rather you can have a gun but you're at the risk of being shot in public then that's fine but don't try and bring some sort of logical reasoning behind it becasue it wont work.

Say whatever you want but Japan has banned all weapons and America is the total opposite and the crime statistics aren't even comparable. Japan beats you in every single section, rape, homicides, shooting, drugs etc.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

A country without guns if safer and the statistics prove it.

There is no point aruging with you because we're getting nowhere, all you're doing is replying to my posts with long replies and they're almost completely opinion based or the facts are easilly refuted like your Japan statistics were you tried to claim that one mass killing in Japan which killed seven people is horrible, yet there's been hundreds of americian mass shootings.

Honestly, you can tell the maturity level difference between people who pro guns and who are against. Nobody who's against guns dislikes other's opinions or downvotes their posts but anyone who argues against guns gets two to three dislikes per post. Really shows which side is more childish.

Cioran wrote

002 wrote

Axl wrote

Mr_Robot wrote

Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.

You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun

Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?

As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.

You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.

I don't know him, therefore I can't comment on if he's mentally stable or not. Also, I think you would need to classify the different mental illnesses. PTSD is FAR different from schizophrenia. There are none, no, zip, zero nada issues with a mentally stable person allowing a mentally unstable person to handle a firearm. The mentally stable person should have enough common sense to make sure it's unloaded and on safe. At that point it's nothing more than a glorified baseball bat.

Motivational wrote

Continuous wrote We have so many restrictions, that people are just banning things, and they do not even know what they are. You said that you do not want to ban guns, then you go on to say that you want to ban guns in your next statement? Partially banning something is still banning.

I said I did not want to ban all guns. The key word here is all. I have no problem banning some guns, (semi-automatic etc.)

Continuous wrote A hunting rifle could be anything. It is just a rifle that you go hunting with. If I had the choice of a semi auto gun and a bolt action for hunting, I would choose the semi auto. I have already explained why. The gun industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, imagine how many people would suffer. If people prefer money over guns, then why did they buy guns in the first place? They could have just saved the money.

Why in the hell, would you want to shoot the animal more times? If you're hunting then you want to damage the animal as little as possible so you have more meat.

And please, our ancestors hunted with knives and spears and you're complaining about having to use a bolt action rifle. If you can't kill the animal in one shot to the head, don't hunt. Or work on your target practice, which you Americans love so much.

Continuous wrote There are many statistics that you could look at. But lets look at the rape rate of Australia versus the U.S. Australia has a higher rape rate than America. A gun could have stopped a good amount of those rapes. The majority of people who gave back their guns did so because they did not want to become criminals since the guns were made illegal. Not because they wanted the money.

The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported. According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime

Only around 10% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men, and often by someone who the survivor has previously trusted or even loved. People are raped in their homes, their workplaces and other settings where they have previously felt safe. Rapists can be friends, colleagues, clients, neighbours, family members, partners or exes.

If you want to defend yourself from rape, it's called pepper spray and self defence classes. There's no need for a woman to be carrying a loaded gun in her handbags.

Nobody, is going to shoot someone that they love or have known for a long time. It's that simple. Not to mention, nobody has time to go into their handpul, pull out a gun, take off the safety and point and shoot before they've been attacked and disarmed.

Having a gun on you also gives the rapist a story to makeup for the police, e.g the woman pulled the gun during an argument and he disarmed her hence the bruises. Or it gives the rapist a weapon to kill the victim with.

No matter what way you put it, having pepper spray or a taser is far far more effective than using a gun to defend a rape. And even if the statisitcs were true, I'd rather have slightly higher rape statisitcs than 100 more mass shootings, higher crime rates, obesity rates etc.

Continuous wrote All guns should be in the right hands, but that is just not going to happen.

Exactly. That's where we differ. I would rather nobody has guns and they're not missued and no shootings happen than lots of people have them and use them for completely pointless reasons.

I don't see how this is even an argument, your country has a higher crime rate than mine and more mass shootings and we have stricter gun control. It's that simple, if you'd rather you can have a gun but you're at the risk of being shot in public then that's fine but don't try and bring some sort of logical reasoning behind it becasue it wont work.

Say whatever you want but Japan has banned all weapons and America is the total opposite and the crime statistics aren't even comparable. Japan beats you in every single section, rape, homicides, shooting, drugs etc.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

A country without guns if safer and the statistics prove it.

There is no point aruging with you because we're getting nowhere, all you're doing is replying to my posts with long replies and they're almost completely opinion based or the facts are easilly refuted like your Japan statistics were you tried to claim that one mass killing in Japan which killed seven people is horrible, yet there's been hundreds of americian mass shootings.

Honestly, you can tell the maturity level difference between people who pro guns and who are against. Nobody who's against guns dislikes other's opinions or downvotes their posts but anyone who argues against guns gets two to three dislikes per post. Really shows which side is more childish.

Oh dear god! Where do we start? Let's start with the hunting thing. Taking an animal out is supposed to be quick and humane. Look at a bullet. It is a small projectile that can get tossed around in the wind. It's not like CoD where it hits exactly where the cross hairs are. They drop, they move left and right, etc. If you shoot and a gust of wind picks up that bullet and places it in the gut of the animal, now it's suffering while you're comprehending it, pumping another bullet it, and re-gaining the target. With a semi auto rifle (yes I now hunt with semi auto), you stay in the scope to make sure the animal is down before you even move. It's all about taking the animal out as quickly and humanely as possible, not with knives and spears.

Next, your comment about "If you can't kill the animal in one shot to the head, don't hunt" just baffles my mind! That is literally an insult to all hunters. NO ONE in their right mind would aim for a headshot. It is a tiny place easy to miss. That deer can move its head a lot faster than its heard. A hunter always aims for the hear. Watch any hunting program, it's always shots placed in the chest. You shoot the animal more times if you need to so that it is dead.

I trust my life to a gun far more than pepper spray. If you want to play with your life, that's your choice. You pull out pepper spray and you have to hope its still charged, and even when you do pull it out the person doesn't just stop and beg you not to use it. With a gun they do. You don't just pull a gun and BAM. You pull the gun and zero in on the target. In that time their hands should be up. If not, shoot.

Here in the US, women are princesses. She could literally stab a guy and have nothing wrong with her but the police will side with her, it's how bad our structure is set up. Just look at what happens to men and women in divorces.

Pepper spray and tasers are not more effective. With a taser you have to be up close. With pepper spray and tasers, it's never 100% people drugged up on cocaine sometimes don't even get effected. A gun effects everyone. A gun has better stopping power than a taser or pepper spray making it more effective.

Again, guns are not pointless, but we've went over this already. We are way too far from no body having guns, so that will never happens.

Do you know why my country has more crime than yours? WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE!

So you want to bring Japan into this now? Let's bring Switzerland in as well.

A country with guns is not safer and statistics prove it. I can play this game too.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

We're not down voting opinion, we're down voting misrepresented facts.

002 wrote

Cioran wrote

002 wrote

Axl wrote

Mr_Robot wrote

Axl wrote I think that everyone has the right to own a firearm unless they breach the requirements for it but the other thing that comes in is the fact that some people may buy a firearm over websites like Craigslist because they want to make some money.

You said "Unless they breach the requirements" . What would you say should be the requirements for owning one?

I personally there should be little if any at all. The "requirements" is how the goverment is going to start disarming the public. By adding requirements, they are making it harder and harder to legally obtain one. Some states are even going as far to not let medical marijuana patients own a gun

Well, do you want someone with a mental illness to hold a firearm?

As long as they are accompanied by someone who is mentally stable, I see no issues.

You mean like Chris Kyle and veterans with PTSD?

But yes, I know that the numbers are going to be minuscule. Instead of saying, "I see no issues" it would have been more accurate if you had said, "I accept the issues but don't think they warrant a ban on mentally unstable people owning guns."

And that's fine.

I don't know him, therefore I can't comment on if he's mentally stable or not. Also, I think you would need to classify the different mental illnesses. PTSD is FAR different from schizophrenia. There are none, no, zip, zero nada issues with a mentally stable person allowing a mentally unstable person to handle a firearm. The mentally stable person should have enough common sense to make sure it's unloaded and on safe. At that point it's nothing more than a glorified baseball bat.

I'm surprised that I have to explain who Chris Kyle is to you but alright.
Chris Kyle is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US military history. He returned after 3 tours (I think it was 3) to help veterans with PTSD work through their issues. Part of this involved going to a shooting range with them. However, while he was at a shooting range one of the veterans he was helping shot and killed him.

So that is a mentally stable person supervising a mentally unstable person with a weapon.

Obviously we are talking about them firing the weapons.
Why on Earth would you think we were talking about empty weapons which might as well be replicas?