Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

That may be true, but, If the govt weren't restricting there rights, there wouldn't be any riots. And a loss of one life is a HUGE deal depending on who you are talking to.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I think that my 26 years have been long and far more traveled than most. I have seen things most people will never see. I am university educated, and come from a poor region of England where gun crime is a reality. Yet I still wish to be unarmed, did you know that most people who carry ANY weapon end up injured by their own weapon when they come to use it?

What I know is; from your posts, you are committed to your beliefs and no doubt, University educated.
For that I truly respect you.

I too, wanted to go to a college in my small town, but I was arrested and at my sentencing was given the choice of 1 year in the state prison or the Marine Corps. The choice was easy at the time. After Parris Island, college never entered my mind again.

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

That may be true, but, If the govt weren't restricting there rights, there wouldn't be any riots. And a loss of one life is a HUGE deal depending on who you are talking to.

You are right, the loss of one life is HUGE. My argument is that we can keep those numbers to a minimum by reducing the availability of lethal weapons. The government weren't restricting their rights, they tried to impose higher taxes because they were failing financially.

I'm posting this opinion as a liberal who sometimes pushes towards socialist. You can't legislate all your problems away. Does there need to be some form of gun control. Absolutely. Is making gun ownership illegal the answer. Never. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, legally or illegally. People should have the right to protect themselves.

Originally Posted by bharner

...A hammer isn't inherently bad. A nail gun isn't inherently bad. But they both get used for bad things from time to time...

How many people do you reckon he would have been able to kill with a hammer? How many people there do you think were CCW ? Were they all engaging in a 'shoot out' with this madman old West style, protecting themselves from 'the Indians'?

I think gun protection for self defence is a little over stated. I know if someone came to my house with a knife, and I had no knife, I'd give them my wallet. I guess if they had a knife and I had a handgun I could pull it on them and get away with keeping my wallet and my family safe. But given the level of gun ownership in some countries, I bet the chance of the offender going to the house WITH a gun is pretty high. If I had a knife and they had a knife I guess I'd STILL hand over my wallet, unless my family were threatened.

I just think guns, auto of otherwise, enable more hurt than many other weapons...

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

You are right, the loss of one life is HUGE. My argument is that we can keep those numbers to a minimum by reducing the availability of lethal weapons. The government weren't restricting their rights, they tried to impose higher taxes because they were failing financially.

Those deaths aren't the fault of guns. People weren't killing people. Deaths happened because of the MASSIVE amounts of people rioting. None of which were intentional I will wager.

Originally Posted by Theseus

I'm posting this opinion as a liberal who sometimes pushes towards socialist. You can't legislate all your problems away. Does there need to be some form of gun control. Absolutely. Is making gun ownership illegal the answer. Never. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, legally or illegally. People should have the right to protect themselves.

Is making gun ownership illegal? That really is the question isn't it. I think here we can agree to disagree, I think it most certainly is the answer. I posted a graph on the first page, it shows that as gun ownership drops, so does intentional gun deaths. This isn't conclusive evidence by any means but it goes a long way to making me happy.

Just like to say, this is a good debate on a serious topic.

Regarding the OP, other BS aside:

I'm for them.

My point exactly, would the numbers of deaths increased if the populous would have had easy access to guns (and probably already owned them)? Most definitely.

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

Those deaths aren't the fault of guns. People weren't killing people. Deaths happened because of the MASSIVE amounts of people rioting. None of which were intentional I will wager.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

My point exactly, would the numbers of deaths increased if the populous would have had easy access to guns (and probably already owned them)? Most definitely.

Why though? If you all were rioting against the same people, why would anyone have any reason to get shot?