Political Polls [Pt.2: Political orientation]

[-Blok-]

In a darker vein, people that wish to end their lives are going to kill themselves regardless. This won't lower Self Delete rates, either. If someone is to shoot themselves, they are not endangering anybody else and collateral damage both physically and psychologically is as minimal as it can be. I don't want people jumping off an overpass or in front of a train or slitting their wrists in the bathroom, which could hurt many other people and cause trauma for anyone that witnesses that.

Also, I don't know what "this" is.

[Ad Bot]

[Cappytaino]

That's a bad brown townogy. Yes, a hammer can become deadly depending on who is holding it, but a gun is always deadly no matter who has it in their hands.

a gun isn't accidentally deadly when treated with respect and handled by a responsible adult. A hammer is the same way. Proper trigger discipline and treating a gun as if it is always loaded goes a long way. You don't just swing hammers without checking your surroundings just as you don't point guns at things you don't intend to shoot.

Also, I don't know what "this" is.

"this" meaning "hypothetically eliminating all guns from the US."

[-Blok-]

a gun isn't accidentally deadly when treated with respect and handled by a responsible adult. A hammer is the same way. Proper trigger discipline and treating a gun as if it is always loaded goes a long way. You don't just swing hammers without checking your surroundings just as you don't point guns at things you don't intend to shoot.

So yes, when a gun isn't used, it causes no harm.

"this" meaning "hypothetically eliminating all guns from the US."

Ok, but you make it sound as if that's my stance. I never said that that was my opinion; to eliminate all guns.

[BluetoothBoy]

The easy choice isn't always the best choice.

That's exactly what I just said. :|

So yes, when a gun isn't used, it causes no harm.
Ok, but you make it sound as if that's my stance. I never said that that was my opinion; to eliminate all guns.

Then what is it? I don't see how you plan on decreasing the problem of guns without removing them then.

[otto-san]

Then what is it? I don't see how you plan on decreasing the problem of guns without removing them then.

if people don't become a part of organized crime and they don't have to commit crime to get by, then it's much less likely that they'll end up in a situation where they're going to shoot someone

of course, this requires approaching from a different perspective, and one that's probably a lot more costly than just writing a law

[Cappytaino]

So yes, when a gun isn't used, it causes no harm.
Ok, but you make it sound as if that's my stance. I never said that that was my opinion; to eliminate all guns.

assuming you are in favor of restrictions, which restrictions would you like to see put into place?

Guns used properly cause minimal collateral damage. If someone is in my home with a knife or a gun and I shoot him, of course it will cause damage. But in such a case, that person had a malicious intent seeking to cause harm to innocent people. While in that case, harm is being caused, it is to prevent greater harm

Violent and dangerous people exist and every adult is responsible for their own safety. The right to bear arms is a great help for many people to ensure their safety.

Pepperspray is illegal in many states, so without a gun, how is one to defend themselves? Not everybody is built like a linebacker that can overpower an attacker. Older people and smaller people would be easy prey for such assailants if they could not carry a weapon.

[BluetoothBoy]

if people don't become a part of organized crime and they don't have to commit crime to get by, then it's much less likely that they'll end up in a situation where they're going to shoot someone

of course, this requires approaching from a different perspective, and one that's probably a lot more costly than just writing a law

Yes. This is the proper way to approach it. There is so much more to the problem than guns, and once the majority can wrap their heads around that, we can make some progress. As I said, the easy way - in this case, taking guns - isn't always the best way.

[Cappytaino]

Yes. This is the proper way to approach it. There is so much more to the problem than guns, and once the majority can wrap their heads around that, we can make some progress. As I said, the easy way - in this case, taking guns - isn't always the best way.

^^^^

Mental illness and organized crime should be the focus. Not responsible Americans that follow the law.

[BluetoothBoy]

^^^^

Mental illness and organized crime should be the focus. Not responsible Americans that follow the law.

Once these are brought more under control, it will be easier to focus on smaller, individualized crimes and reduce them drastically. And while I say this simply, believe me, I realize it's not.

[Cappytaino]

Once these are brought more under control, it will be easier to focus on smaller, individualized crimes and reduce them drastically. And while I say this simply, believe me, I realize it's not.

I agree, although making progress on this would be difficult. Providing care for the mentally ill or simply restricting or banning them from owning firearms is not even the hard part. The hard part is getting politicians on board. What else will there be to fear monger with after the gun violence is reduced to the point it fades into obscurity?

[-Blok-]

That's exactly what I just said. :|

Right, I was agreeing. I'm just saying that I hope we don't take the easy road just because.....it's easy.

Then what is it? I don't see how you plan on decreasing the problem of guns without removing them then.

Removing them completely, no. Decreasing them, yes. It should be very hard to own something that's main purpose is to end someone's life. I agree that the people who know what they're doing, the people that are qualified and have had background checks, should be allowed to own guns. I think there should be boundaries as to what kind of guns you can own. For example, I'd be fine with someone owning a pistol, but not an assault rifle. If you're one of those people that collect guns, sorry, but there are more important things at stake than you losing a gun from your collection (you know, like people's lives).

[-Blok-]

I agree that we should be attacking the bigger picture, and that guns are simply a part of it all, but as far as the gun argument goes, I'm in the less guns group.

[otto-san]

mental illness is mostly only an issue because guns are a very effective means of Self Delete. i think there should be extra steps for people who have recent problems with issues like chronic depression, bipolar, etc. for this reason (maybe contacting their psychiatrist or doctor could be a good thing to do). the amount of mentally ill people who will commit violent crime with guns (or are violent at all) is pretty small, ofc mental illness is an incredibly broad term so i guess this goes without saying

[BluetoothBoy]

Right, I was agreeing. I'm just saying that I hope we don't take the easy road just because.....it's easy.
Removing them completely, no. Decreasing them, yes. It should be very hard to own something that's main purpose is to end someone's life. I agree that the people who know what they're doing, the people that are qualified and have had background checks, should be allowed to own guns. I think there should be boundaries as to what kind of guns you can own. For example, I'd be fine with someone owning a pistol, but not an assault rifle. If you're one of those people that collect guns, sorry, but there are more important things at stake than you losing a gun from your collection (you know, like people's lives).

You do realize most Americans - and I mean a VAST majority - who legally own firearms do not own fully automatic rifles, right? Just wondering.

[-Blok-]

You do realize most Americans - and I mean a VAST majority - who legally own firearms do not own fully automatic rifles, right? Just wondering.

Of course.