This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
When I say there are other uses for guns I do not mean that all of these uses are an absolute need. Guns can be used for protection, for hunting and recreation.
I think when we get down to that level of discriminance, we've done enough to make a significant dent in the problem. If something is questionable as to whether or not it's designed to kill a human, then I would favor on allowing it. Again, I just want to make a huge dent in our existing huge problem. I don't think everyone killing is ever going to be solved, so I've got no desire to get stuck down in the details.
Must be a lot less black people in Norway.That stat about the fatal police shooting in Norway vs US
looks like a few of you should be applying for citizenship to Norway.That stat about the fatal police shooting in Norway vs US
I just love this line of thinking too.
Right up there with the people telling professional athletes to leave the US if they don't like they way they're treated.
You haven't seen that said before? One of the most popular sayings by them is, "If you don't love it, leave it!" We don't want no change here.
Who's doing that? People sure are weird.
We can only hope they're not.
Not really. It's only because you have a closed mind to see that they both pertain to something that is not necessary, but cause death to innocent people.
Let's stop pretending these are the same things. It gets the discussion nowhere.
Right, but guns and alcohol are two things that a large portion of the population use without killing people. Yet people want to ban only one of them?
I'm not sure your argument here is factually sound. I think any wildlife biologist would tell you a sudden decrease of hunting (deer, if not most/all herbivores) would cause havoc in most ecosystems along with rural and suburban communities . Not saying long term we wouldn't be in better shape, but there would be serious pains in getting to a new equilibrium.
I agree that wildlife biologists would say that. What I'm suggesting is that there are currently hunters who would kill far more game per year if they were legally allowed to. If a lot of hunters no longer hunt because guns aren't allowed, then simply end the game limits and those that continue to hunt can kill more game then they were before. It may be a wash. It might not. But it's certainly not going to be the extreme some are suggesting.
Ahh I see. Thanks for restating that. I guess I didn't get it the first time. I agree with that statement, at least it's worth trying.
If an area is flooding, and people are suggesting solutions to the flooding. would you compare water to beer and ask why they aren't attacking beer like they are attacking water? Would you call people hypocrites because they seem to have no problem with beer but have an obvisious problem with water?
I'm not arguing solutions, just banning. If an area was flooding, would you suggest we ban water for everyone? Even those people that are not effected by flooding?
Does that 1% number sound familiar? Does that fact that innocent kids are being killed sound familiar?
If people didn't need water, yes I would suggest banning water... at least until the problem is under control.
Haven't the links pointed to bans of guns or specific types of guns working elsewhere? Oh, I assume that you are just talking about our country.
It's very possible that the number of shootings go down, I won't deny that. What I do know is that there will still be the manufacture and sale of illegal guns. Guns will will be shipped into the country. The only people with guns will be criminals and no other civilians will have any except for those who rebel against our government and start their own militias. There will be large groups of people who will stand up against the government as they feel their rights will be infringed on.
It's not all from me, I've read various opinions online and a lot of them feel this is what would happen. It wouldn't surprise me at all. We all know the people who have the most guns are the type that would not just give them up on their own. Many are ex-military and feel very strong about the constitution, so strong that they would fight back.
