ISideWith 2016 US President Election

[Cappytaino]

We must walk as slow as our slower member to move forward. The reason we have laws in place is because of the few who forget up so badly they ruin it for everyone else. The reason we have laws for automobiles is because a forget up wrecked into another. Yet when we have a mass shooting every few weeks some believe the answer is more guns. If you own a gun and are responsible with it, you are fine. However, some boob decides to take it to a school and shoot another; thats when stricter laws must be in place that reduce the chances of another maniac acquiring a weapon.

If you have guns lying about around your home; they are a danger to yourself and others especially with children around.
If you have guns locked in a safe and think yourself a responsible gun owner; what use are those guns if someone breaks in your home and threatens your family; are you going to ask the guy to hold on a minute while you unlock your safe?
If you feel in constant danger of someone harming your family, how many enemies do you have?
You are statistically more likely to use a firearm on yourself than another person.

Most gun owners are responsible, but its not the responsible ones that are causing the problems.
Again, people forget things up for the majority and thats why stricter laws must be in place. It's unpleasant that your freedom to do as you please must be tightened; but thats how life works.

Even so, though shootings are a tragedy, it's a small price to pay for ensuring freedom. I was taught proper safety procedures while handling firearms and I haven't shot myself or anyone else, accidentally or purposefully. Let me pose to you a question in return; are you betting on the government existing to protect people forever and never acting in self interest, even if it forgets people over? It may not happen in my life, it may not happen in my child's life, it may not happen in my grandchild's life, but if a tyrannical usurpation of power in this country were to occur, what would you do? I hate to burst your bubble, but words don't work. The 2nd amendment is for moments like that hypothetical example; to protect from tyrants. Self defense and hunting are only secondary benefits to the right. The right question to ask is this: how do we stop bad, irresponsible people from acquiring firearms while keeping them in the hands of responsible citizens?

You're now using school shootings to try to justify punishing the responsible majority. If you really do care about keeping people safe, you would know that the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns. Rifles may look "scary" but statistically, handguns are much more dangerous. This is where the left goes wrong. They focus on high-capacity magazines and larger weapons, and I saw this first hand here in Connecticut.

I'm not against gun control, but I want to do SMART things, not knee-jerk things.

[Ad Bot]

[e-maxx]

What if it was a stupid white person?

those don't exist silly.

[Damp]

I really think guns should be controlled, and only non auto pistols should be allowed.

you see a gun buy a M4A1 Assault Rifle and claims he is using it for "self protection"

[Cappytaino]

I really think guns should be controlled, and only non auto pistols should be allowed.

you see a gun buy a M4A1 Assault Rifle and claims he is using it for "self protection"

And why shouldn't someone be able to buy a long rifle? Hand guns are a much bigger problem if you're trying to save people. I'd rather have the ergonomic improvements and greater muzzle velocity and stopping power of a rifle if my life depended on my ability to defend myself.

[Kochieboy]

Gun control is a joke, criminals are going to illegally get weapons if they want to and nothing is stopping them.

[Cappytaino]

Gun control is a joke, criminals are going to illegally get weapons if they want to and nothing is stopping them.

Exactly my point. Murder is illegal, people still kill each other. Criminals don't give a stuff about the law.

[Damp]

And why shouldn't someone be able to buy a long rifle? Hand guns are a much bigger problem if you're trying to save people. I'd rather have the ergonomic improvements and greater muzzle velocity and stopping power of a rifle if my life depended on my ability to defend myself.

because pistols resemble a certain form of power and threat, considering the range and ammo cap

I also think that certain rifles should be allowed with a permit. like for example if a families business relies on hunting

[Cappytaino]

because pistols resemble a certain form of power and threat, considering the range and ammo cap

I also think that certain rifles should be allowed with a permit. like for example if a families business relies on hunting

What of two weapons that are the same caliber? What if I prefer a 9mm carbine to a 9mm handgun?

Handguns are still statistically much more dangerous, despite the weapons being identical in everything except form factor and ergonomics.

[The Resonte!]

the only solution is to give adult in the world a gun

criminals will find it a little troubling when 20 guns are pointed at them by civilians while they are in the middle of committing a crime

[Tenshi]

Even so, though shootings are a tragedy, it's a small price to pay for ensuring freedom. I was taught proper safety procedures while handling firearms and I haven't shot myself or anyone else, accidentally or purposefully. Let me pose to you a question in return; are you betting on the government existing to protect people forever and never acting in self interest, even if it forgets people over? It may not happen in my life, it may not happen in my child's life, it may not happen in my grandchild's life, but if a tyrannical usurpation of power in this country were to occur, what would you do? I hate to burst your bubble, but words don't work. The 2nd amendment is for moments like that hypothetical example; to protect from tyrants. Self defense and hunting are only secondary benefits to the right. The right question to ask is this: how do we stop bad, irresponsible people from acquiring firearms while keeping them in the hands of responsible citizens?

You're now using school shootings to try to justify punishing the responsible majority. If you really do care about keeping people safe, you would know that the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns. Rifles may look "scary" but statistically, handguns are much more dangerous. This is where the left goes wrong. They focus on high-capacity magazines and larger weapons, and I saw this first hand here in Connecticut.

I'm not against gun control, but I want to do SMART things, not knee-jerk things.

The second amendment made a lot of sense when everyone only had muskets.
Governments have drones and tanks now.


If you want to go toe-to-toe with a drone be my guest.

Did you read what I said? It's the minority that forgets it up for the majority, laws are put in place because those people cannot use something responsibly, such as the case for automobiles. Why is it laws regulating automobile use are fine, but gollee don't touch my gun. You can cut down a swath of people with high-capacity weapons and magazines. There is no need for a citizen to own an assault rifle or high capacity magazines.

Exactly my point. Murder is illegal, people still kill each other. Criminals don't give a stuff about the law.

The goal of gun control laws is to reduce and deter firearms being placed in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It is not a perfect solution, however if you want to give a gun to every jane and richard; i'm sure that'll go over well.

[Ipquarx]

I agree that people need to be properly trained to own a gun, I was referring as to why strict gun control doesn't work. Background checks, psych evaluations and the like don't apply to the black market. The people it will mainly effect are law abiding, safety-concerned citizens and it will not effect the availability of guns on the black market. The price may rise by 20-30%, but in reality it won't have any major effect on organized crime or anyone with resources.

[XR-7]

Thats the thing, having a simple handgun to defend yourself is not a problem. Having stricter gun control laws to filter who is capable of purchasing a firearm should be accepted by all as it is rational to want to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not mentally stable enough to use them responsibly. Also who the hell needs an assault rifle. They are called ASSAULT rifles for a reason. I don't hear anyone wanting to buy a DEFEND rifle.

Well I think my dad has assault rifle(s), but he only uses them for recreation target shooting. I don't have a problem with that, but no one should be allowed to carry them in public unless it's operated by law enforcement or military personnel during a major standoff or time of war. Concealed handguns are okay though, considering what I said earlier about being certified.

[Damp]

I agree if you totally outlaw guns, crime rate may even go higher (i mean look at what happened when prohibition happened).

but the only possible way i could really see a better way to stop the terrorist is by working a a grander scale. its hard to find who is the terrorist and who is not

Well I think my dad has assault rifle(s), but he only uses them for recreation target shooting. I don't have a problem with that, but no one should be allowed to carry them in public unless it's operated by law enforcement or military personnel during a major standoff or time of war. Concealed handguns are okay though, considering what I said earlier about being certified.

thats not going to help,
you can still buy a assault rifle, and hide it in your house until the day you shoot people

[Otis Da HousKat]

Thats the thing, having a simple handgun to defend yourself is not a problem. Having stricter gun control laws to filter who is capable of purchasing a firearm should be accepted by all as it is rational to want to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not mentally stable enough to use them responsibly. Also who the hell needs an assault rifle. They are called ASSAULT rifles for a reason. I don't hear anyone wanting to buy a DEFEND rifle.

The term assault rifle has come to mean to people a long gun that is semi-automatic (each pull of the trigger fires a bullet) and capable of holding a few+ rounds at once. Typical hunting rifles can fall under this definition.

I really think guns should be controlled, and only non auto pistols should be allowed.

you see a gun buy a M4A1 Assault Rifle and claims he is using it for "self protection"

Serious question, when is the last time you saw a crime committed with a fully automatic gun that wasn't by a group like a drug cartel? They aren't exactly public access and are incredibly expensive ($10,000+ for many common ones) to buy.

[Cappytaino]

The second amendment made a lot of sense when everyone only had muskets.
Governments have drones and tanks now.


If you want to go toe-to-toe with a drone be my guest.

Did you read what I said? It's the minority that forgets it up for the majority, laws are put in place because those people cannot use something responsibly, such as the case for automobiles. Why is it laws regulating automobile use are fine, but gollee don't touch my gun. You can cut down a swath of people with high-capacity weapons and magazines. There is no need for a citizen to own an assault rifle or high capacity magazines.
The goal of gun control laws is to reduce and deter firearms being placed in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It is not a perfect solution, however if you want to give a gun to every jane and richard; i'm sure that'll go over well.

Tell me where the second amendment says the word "muskets," please. The second amendment was created so that, in effect, the people could mount some form of resistance.

You're clearly asking the wrong questions. You're assessing on the basis of "need." "Why would you NEED that?" Need is completely irrelevant. Why do you "need" to express your opinion? You don't, but you have the right to do it. Same applies here. We have the right to bear arms, and that should not be assessed on the basis of need.

I agree if you totally outlaw guns, crime rate may even go higher (i mean look at what happened when prohibition happened).

but the only possible way i could really see a better way to stop the terrorist is by working a a grander scale. its hard to find who is the terrorist and who is not

thats not going to help,
you can still by a assault rifle, and hide it in your house until the day you shoot people

Everybody ever acting en loco parentis for said individual would be responsible for not recognizing sociopathy. Everybody involved in determining whether to give this individual a gun who said yes would be responsible. The vast majority of people who buy a weapon legally never use their firearm to commit a crime.