Gun possession

Post Reply New Topic

Guns kill people.

http://calnra.com/lifeclock
Just let the clock run for a while and watch how the stats pan out. The sources are listed, and as you can see they are not biased sources.

So do rocks, knives, axes, clubs, swords, poisons, electricity and fire.

ruveyn

Knives/edged weapons kill what....10 times the number of people compared to firearms (FBI's own data)?

Don't see "knife control" being pushed, do you?

You know, I just had this idea for a dystopian story set in a future U.S. where virtually everyone is packing heat, and gun control laws are nonexistent.

Actually there would be few problems if there were no gun control laws. There would be a couple years of the gangs and other criminal elements going through a natural selection process, but other than that it would work out alright.

Automobiles and fast food kill many more people than guns.

ruveyn

I think it is a good thing, Gun control should be abolished as it is a violation of the 2nd amendment. For example, there is a law which prohibits those who are "Insane" from buying a weapon. I am wondering what would qualify as "insane" under this law, the military also has a rule that upon leaving the armed forces you are not allowed to keep your firearm simply because you might (and the key word is MIGHT) come home with PTSD. Exactly how many soldiers actually get it and show symptoms out of the 1000s of soldiers currently in the army (not to mention the countless number of citizens signing up for it every day)?? They need to check the constitutionality of that rule, IMO. I think the government should examine any bills on Gun bans before signing them into law. You have a right to defend yourself, period, end of statement.

If I could drive to work, slice a loaf of bread, or get some kind of nourishment from a gun I might consider having one.

That's pretty much the Wild West - would you describe that setting as "dystopian"? Real life dystopias (albeit a subjective definition. To make it easy: non-democratic) have some of the toughest gun laws on earth, just look at North Korea, China, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. It's hard for a government to be dystopic when its people, whom always greatly outnumber it, are armed.

Take away the guns from good men, and only the government and bad men gets them. Bad men can strike anytime and anywhere - wot are u going to do then?

Guns for all I say! (Excluding the convicted and deranged, of course)

Since the world has demonstrated time and again that the criminals and the deranged frequently have many opportunities to get into governmental power the exclusion does not seem to be very effective.

The terms "good" and "bad" are not particularly useful in determining who should be trusted with lethal power and who should be prevented from doing so. Would "bad" infer people with bad eyesight who are not skillful at aiming properly? Or people who cannot distinguish between their irrational fears and an actual threat? Or people too emotionally immature to react properly in an equivocal situation.?

The gun people have it exactly right when they proclaim that it is people who kill people, not guns. But they fail to carry the thought forward in specifying who and why people can and should be trusted with guns. It is people who are the chance element and how can we be sure that people who obtain guns will remain reliable and will always retain rational motivation?