Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Roo

But just as with many other things freedoms come with responsibilities. I don’t know what kind of personality gets off from shooting an AK47 but I do believe they should be responsible for keeping it out of the hands of a criminals.

*

Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

 

Roo

Why tired?

I mean your answer again doesn’t seem that well thought through.

You do need to prove you are able to drive a car and drivers are responsible for giving that proof (if you don’t pass your driving test you don’t get a licence to drive).

People don’t have an automatic ‘right’ to be able to drive a car on the public highway. They have to prove they are a supposedly ‘responsible’ drivers by being able to produce a current driving licence which can be taken away if they show themselves to be irresponsible.

What I’m saying is that before someone can own a gun they must prove they are going to be responsible gun owners (for example by having a current gun licence and having a gun safe, etc).

 

How about we all be democratic on this issue and respect the poll results, should guns be outlawed in the U.S.A.? yeas - 56 nays - 185 Present/Not voting - 24
The nays carry, be it resolved, Guns will not be outlawed in the U.S.A.

 

Indie

I’ve never disputed that there are many pro-gunners in the US I’m only wondering if it is healthy for US society to have so many pro-gunners.

 

yes

 

I don't see pro-gunners or guns themselves as a problem, but instead see the problem being those who put guns to use with intent to harm or take from another. People are killed, maimed or injured by various other tools or means frequently. It is the individuals more so than the weapons they use that need to be removed from society.

 

I suggest you check out the gun ownership stats in Denmark, and other European countries.You can indeed follow the way it's done in Europe. You may want to re-state your stance. Apparently, gun ownership does not equate to the percentage of violent crimes



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence[/URL]

 

:smilielol5:

Unbelievable. It was a joke. You really need to lighten up. Whether you like to drink tea or coffee has nothing to with this thread or gun control and so I thought I would just try and add a note of humor and suddenly I'm dishonest. You need to get a grip.

 

they do not mean the same thing, as I already explained and I'm sorry if your friends don't know English any better than you do.

Okay, strictly from a individual rights standpoint, a person would have to misuse their right to own a gun in order to have that right revoked. So one way to misuse a gun would be to use one in a violent crime. But the word "misuse" would leave open a discussion of what could be considered misuse of your right to own a gun. For instance, reckless use of a gun like a hunting accident might be considered misuse of a gun and lead to the removal of a person's right to gun ownership.

Where as it would seem intuitive that people that have "committed other crimes or have shown a tendency to violent acts" would be candidates for the removal of the rights for that person to own a gun, that would seem to violate the principle of "innocent till proven guilty".

I'll put this as simply as I can put it.

I never said that you said that you want guns banned in the US.

Telling you that I never said that you said that you want guns banned in the US, isn’t a rational or reasonable argument?

To even try to show that I might have implied that you want guns banned in the US, you had to jumble together several of my posts an even then it is doubtful that it shows that I implied you want guns banned in the US, and you consider that to be a rational or reasonable argument?

Since I've already answered this question, before I answer it again, perhaps you could explain what you were implying when you several times said; "Now according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns."

If you hadn't started saying over and over again; "I have nothing to hide", I would have had nothing to "hint darkly" about but it seemed strange that you kept saying it so I commented on it. If you don't want something commented on perhaps you shouldn't say it repeatedly.

 

The first half of your post is just meaningless personal attacks and space-wasting, without explaning itself.

As for the second half: Anyone who feels like it can own a car, you need a license to DRIVE a car on PUBLIC ROADS.

If you don't have a license, you can drive a car to save the life of you or another.

Using this analogy, anyone should be able to own a gun, but to fire it (or, even, fire it on property not belonging to themselves) they should need a license, but you could still defend yourself with a gun and not run afoul of the licensing laws, because licensing doesn't apply when you must act to save yourself or someone else from death or harm.

Pretty simple.

So, the analogy's tired because A, it doesn't apply to this so well, and B, even if it does, you're totally ignoring (again) how it doesn't support what you're saying. If anything, it supports what I'm saying.

Oh: we do have cc permits, as it is, often with more stringent licensing than drivers licenses, or in some states, not available to the public at all.

 

I think I said before because I did say it before.

I first said it in post #686. Then you even quoted it in post #693. The phrase was again used in post #696.

Perhaps you can share with us what you were implying.

 

Well let's see.
You don’t believe there ever has been a totally anarchist state.
There have always been rules.
Then you tell me what my argument is.(Not really my argument)
You believe in regulation.
It doesn't seem to matter to you if the law abiding and responsible own a gun.
Some pro-gunners believe in gun regulation.

My question was "Doesn't any kind of gun control, by definition, "limit the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible”"? I didn't really see the answer in your post, could you point it out to me?

Well you were the one I was discussing the subject with and also you were the one loudly proclaiming over and over that "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible."

 

I didn't say that you were a liar, in this case but that you weren't being truthful with yourself and that had nothing to do with that your "rules would be different from another persons set of rules".

It had to do with your not understanding that gun control, any gun control not just yours, does effect the rights of the law abiding and responsible to own a gun.

And your saying that is silly is just, well silly.

 

Where in the world did you get the idea I don't know why many in the US are racist? Where in the world did you get the idea that I don't even want to understand what I already understand? What do you hope to accomplish with this?

You need to stop assuming people are saying what ever you want them to say and start actually trying to understand what is actually said.

 

And would imagine you believe that what you said in this post is "honest debate".

Perhaps in the interst of "honest debate" you would be so good as to point out how in anyway you have been honest in this post?

There is almost nothing honest in this post, you take something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, that I have not spent a lot of time in "Your Most Holy Precious Political Forum" and with a lot of insinuation and snide remarks try to turn that into some kind of reason to ignore what I have to say and then you have the unmitigated gall to say I'm not carrying on an "honest debate". I suggest that you take a good long hard look in the mirror.

 

I second the motion!

 

and i third it... hoping that one day, we in the UK will be able to own guns... ← not very likely

 

This thread is moving faster than i have time to answer

SO i will put forward an Aphorism..
One known to most

"I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one"

Joachim AKA 'notsure'

 

I agree. But if the results went the other way would many ppl sacrifice their guns and yield to the majority?

 

In keeping with the Constitution I would hope not. I know that I would not. The simple solution would be to write an amendment to the Constitution and send it to the States and see if it would pass by 3/4 of them. However in this case, if it did pass I would then become a lawbreaker.