Gun Laws in America.
- Thread starter WHO
- Start date
No one said we have to take weapons away from everyone. I'm simply asking for A. restrictions on the kinds of weapons, and B. a system to ensure the mental stability of those who purchase and own firearms.
To be entirely fair, the Second Amendment cites a "well-regulated militia" as important. Obviously, the Founders would not want would-be criminals to bear arms (no one does), and I think this text reflects that. Weapons in the hands of every person hardly constitutes "well-regulated."
To be entirely fair, the Second Amendment cites a "well-regulated militia" as important. Obviously, the Founders would not want would-be criminals to bear arms (no one does), and I think this text reflects that. Weapons in the hands of every person hardly constitutes "well-regulated."
It's hard to restrict weapons it's like how overprotective parents create sneaky kids you know? They'll find a way to get them. If someone has intent to hurt another, they will find the means to it. Gun or no gun. It's the person, not the gun, that pulls the trigger. To restrict it to the point where it would actually be efficient would create animosity among those who feel they have the right to wield their gun for protection. It's tough and this is coming from a person who hates the very invention of guns.
People should have the right to have small, single shot, hand guns, to keep their family safe.
Also hunting guns should be allowed. Both with the right permits and training classes and such.
But no one expect the military should be allowed to have the automatic guns that like have 400 bullets per round. (I'm exaggerating because I don't know any terminology about guns.) But the big guns, that can shoot continuously, like the ones used during the Newtown School shooting, shouldn't be allowed to ANYONE.
Also hunting guns should be allowed. Both with the right permits and training classes and such.
But no one expect the military should be allowed to have the automatic guns that like have 400 bullets per round. (I'm exaggerating because I don't know any terminology about guns.) But the big guns, that can shoot continuously, like the ones used during the Newtown School shooting, shouldn't be allowed to ANYONE.
This is all well and good, but there's one little problem: the United States is not Switzerland.
Switzerland is a country that requires military service and yet hasn't sent its military into battle in a long time. Meanwhile, the United States sends its military into every conflict it hears about. There's a definite cultural gap between the United States and Switzerland, especially when we're talking about violence.
Switzerland is a country that requires military service and yet hasn't sent its military into battle in a long time. Meanwhile, the United States sends its military into every conflict it hears about. There's a definite cultural gap between the United States and Switzerland, especially when we're talking about violence.
Your suggestions would be nice, but unfortunately, I don't see it working in a real life situation. People will get around the law and obtain guns illegally. Also it would be very expensive I'm assuming. Also, what really is the definition of a "well regulated militia " ??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dislike the gun enthusiasts.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people derp derp derp"
Yeah well, what exactly are guns used for besides killing people?
"Ummm...."
Exactly. Look at England. How many school shootings a year do they have with their strict gun laws?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Get real a militia against tanks and drones? fat good us having guns will do.
We need better background checks, and let the gun sellers take some if not as much blame as those who they sell the gun to who goes off on a killing spree. They literally have the most protection when it comes to that FOR NO REASON.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people derp derp derp"
Yeah well, what exactly are guns used for besides killing people?
"Ummm...."
Exactly. Look at England. How many school shootings a year do they have with their strict gun laws?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Get real a militia against tanks and drones? fat good us having guns will do.
We need better background checks, and let the gun sellers take some if not as much blame as those who they sell the gun to who goes off on a killing spree. They literally have the most protection when it comes to that FOR NO REASON.
They should be more stricter. It shouldn't be as strict as the United Kingdom, though. There would be a lot less shootings if gun laws were stricter. I see why someone may want to own a gun for person uses, like hunting, and self defense. But I'm sure there are ways to make it a lot safer for the country.
I'm just going to say that this really doesn't make any sense. I don't know one person who wanted to commit suicide that having a method of suicide be illegal or hard to get stop them. There's tons of easy ways to commit suicide, and you may just be pushing people more towards those ways. This comes from personal experience, not a study mind you, take both with a grain of salt.
----------
There have been "conclusive scientific stud[ies]" that say that being gay can be cured, that the devil causes disease, and tons of other things that I know you don't agree with. Being a "scientific study" means nothing: http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-researc...puter-generated-studies-get-published-1558725
However, (as above) real life experience tends to be right - at least for the person experiencing it.
----------
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
^^ second amendment.
Modernizing the english a bit, and taking out the commas, we get: "As a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
This is basically reason -> effect. It's not saying that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon a Militia or service, it's saying that the reasoning for the amendment is that there needed to be a Militia. If it were reasoning, it would have said "The right of the people participating in a well regulated militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say that - it makes two independent statements.
----------
There have been "conclusive scientific stud[ies]" that say that being gay can be cured, that the devil causes disease, and tons of other things that I know you don't agree with. Being a "scientific study" means nothing: http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-researc...puter-generated-studies-get-published-1558725
However, (as above) real life experience tends to be right - at least for the person experiencing it.
----------
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
^^ second amendment.
Modernizing the english a bit, and taking out the commas, we get: "As a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
This is basically reason -> effect. It's not saying that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon a Militia or service, it's saying that the reasoning for the amendment is that there needed to be a Militia. If it were reasoning, it would have said "The right of the people participating in a well regulated militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say that - it makes two independent statements.
Last edited:
Mental health records (if there are any on someone trying to purchase a gun) are sealed for confidentiality between the patient and the doctor they saw. If someone doesn't have a history of mental instability because they were never seen by a doctor or treated for it, but they are mentally unstable could be subject to a check before purchasing a firearm legally if such a law was implemented. But denying them a legal firearm based on the results of their tests, that won't make them any less suicidal and if they're really looking for a gun, it's not that hard to buy one under the table on the street.
I can see both sides of the coin as far as mental stability and health goes when buying a gun, it's both necessary and somewhat unnecessary in my opinion.
Personally I think in certain states where gun control is more lenient (like Texas for example) those regulations for guns should be more strict. So in my opinion the need for stricter gun regulations is all territorial. There are some states where gun regulations are very strict, and some where they're virtually non-existent. I think there should be a uniform regulation throughout the U.S.
And I also have to agree with Starship on one of his other points. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that's why background checks in some states are mandated before purchasing a firearm.
I'd also like to say based on other posts I've observed on this thread: You're opening a debate on gun control. The gun control topic has many sub-topics that coincide with it. Those being homocide/suicide/crime rates, various processes (hoops to jump through) to undergo before being able to purchase a firearm, instances and cases of misuse of firearms, crime prevention and various other topics. You can't just open a debate about something and not allow anyone to explore the other sides of the topic and it's various facets. Nothing about the debate of gun control is black and white and sticks to only 1 topic, there's many sides to it and they're all valid contributions to the topic at hand, so a little more respect would be nice.
I can see both sides of the coin as far as mental stability and health goes when buying a gun, it's both necessary and somewhat unnecessary in my opinion.
Personally I think in certain states where gun control is more lenient (like Texas for example) those regulations for guns should be more strict. So in my opinion the need for stricter gun regulations is all territorial. There are some states where gun regulations are very strict, and some where they're virtually non-existent. I think there should be a uniform regulation throughout the U.S.
And I also have to agree with Starship on one of his other points. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that's why background checks in some states are mandated before purchasing a firearm.
I'd also like to say based on other posts I've observed on this thread: You're opening a debate on gun control. The gun control topic has many sub-topics that coincide with it. Those being homocide/suicide/crime rates, various processes (hoops to jump through) to undergo before being able to purchase a firearm, instances and cases of misuse of firearms, crime prevention and various other topics. You can't just open a debate about something and not allow anyone to explore the other sides of the topic and it's various facets. Nothing about the debate of gun control is black and white and sticks to only 1 topic, there's many sides to it and they're all valid contributions to the topic at hand, so a little more respect would be nice.
[MENTION=58]Yuna[/MENTION]
"Nothing about the debate of gun control is black and white and sticks to only 1 topic, there's many sides to it and they're all valid contributions to the topic at hand, so a little more respect would be nice."
There is no disrespect here. There are several sides to it and at that moment I was talking about 1. Suicide. Not other sub-topics, such as violence onto others. As you said, this is a big topic, hence why I was trying to pin point one topic on the head at the time. I'm sorry you thought my posts were disrespectful.
EDIT: I also disagree with you. Just because people who want to commit suicide are going to find a way to kill themselves either way, doesn't mean we should just hand them a gun to go ahead and get it over with.
"Nothing about the debate of gun control is black and white and sticks to only 1 topic, there's many sides to it and they're all valid contributions to the topic at hand, so a little more respect would be nice."
There is no disrespect here. There are several sides to it and at that moment I was talking about 1. Suicide. Not other sub-topics, such as violence onto others. As you said, this is a big topic, hence why I was trying to pin point one topic on the head at the time. I'm sorry you thought my posts were disrespectful.
EDIT: I also disagree with you. Just because people who want to commit suicide are going to find a way to kill themselves either way, doesn't mean we should just hand them a gun to go ahead and get it over with.
See, that's the thing.
Per say, I would say it isn't meant to decrease suicide rates, but rather decrease suicide rates via guns. Sure, some of those people may turn to other methods, but it really is a hard call to make.
From what I've seen, suicide seems to be a very quick decision from an irrational thought process. Suicide is often not "premeditated," unless we're talking about minutes or hours before.* Gun restriction could take away that accessible option, that quick exit for a person. Maybe without access to such an easy means, they will consider the possibility of needing to seek help, or maybe they will call a friend.
Then again, we can't be sure. But the closest thing we can get to "being sure" are the studies that are put out by people funded to collect this information. Reliability may be a factor, but personal experience with yourself and those around you seems marginal compared to the data that paid social scientists can research and collect.
Per say, I would say it isn't meant to decrease suicide rates, but rather decrease suicide rates via guns. Sure, some of those people may turn to other methods, but it really is a hard call to make.
From what I've seen, suicide seems to be a very quick decision from an irrational thought process. Suicide is often not "premeditated," unless we're talking about minutes or hours before.* Gun restriction could take away that accessible option, that quick exit for a person. Maybe without access to such an easy means, they will consider the possibility of needing to seek help, or maybe they will call a friend.
Then again, we can't be sure. But the closest thing we can get to "being sure" are the studies that are put out by people funded to collect this information. Reliability may be a factor, but personal experience with yourself and those around you seems marginal compared to the data that paid social scientists can research and collect.
popping 30 pills is one swig of water (or a few, but it's still very quick, and usually painless). Sure it's reversible, but are we going to ban OTC medications because people can intentionally overdose?
Guns have so many positive things - recreation, security against intruders, etc.
And one mental health exam will only catch the most severe of cases - ones who likely wouldn't be getting guns in the first place anyway. What about the college age girl who has a gun for protection, and then her boyfriend breaks up with her? Or the man who finds out his wife has been cheating on him for years? Or other instances where it's sudden, extreme depression? How are you going to catch those people with a mental health exam? Furthermore, one mental health examination won't catch all persons with mental issues. Someone who's depressed, and getting the exam not because they want help, but because they want a gun, can fudge their answers.
It's not a valid solution.
Guns have so many positive things - recreation, security against intruders, etc.
And one mental health exam will only catch the most severe of cases - ones who likely wouldn't be getting guns in the first place anyway. What about the college age girl who has a gun for protection, and then her boyfriend breaks up with her? Or the man who finds out his wife has been cheating on him for years? Or other instances where it's sudden, extreme depression? How are you going to catch those people with a mental health exam? Furthermore, one mental health examination won't catch all persons with mental issues. Someone who's depressed, and getting the exam not because they want help, but because they want a gun, can fudge their answers.
It's not a valid solution.