The Gamespot Gun Control Debate

How about we move all of the gun control arguments here instead of filling up treads about mass shooting with gun control arguments.

Goddamnit we both created alternate threads at the same time <.<.

We can use your thread if they come to these treads at all.

Link

Goddamnit we both created alternate threads at the same time <.<.

TacticalDesire

g

Banning weed worked out well.

Banning weed worked out well.

Slashless

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

Goddamnit we both created alternate threads at the same time <.<.

Allicrombie

Doesn't matter, they're all still too busy inappropriately arguing over in the main thread.

Weed is used to kill 20 kids in a manner of minutes.

Jankarcop

I'm not comparing weed and gun's uses brah.

nt though

All I have to say is that I'm all about some gun control, but an outright ban is just silly. It's just scary to think that some people believe that cops and soldiers should be the only ones with guns.thegerg

Well I agree. I think wait periods, background checks etc are smart, and I have no problem with strict regulation. Banning is silly and also at this point highly unrealistic.

I think we need to debate about gun control thread controls.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]All I have to say is that I'm all about some gun control, but an outright ban is just silly. It's just scary to think that some people believe that cops and soldiers should be the only ones with guns.TacticalDesire

Well I agree. I think wait periods, background checks etc are smart, and I have no problem with strict regulation. Banning is silly and also at this point highly unrealistic.

States with more gun control laws = less shootings.

States with less gun control laws = more.

Most shooting guns are bought legally.

I'd rather they not exist at all any more. You'd think in a civilized society we would have evolved to a point were weapons were no long nessesary. We should be able to communicate about things and resolve all conficts without bloodshed. I get back in the day we had to fight over resources, but why do we continue to have all of this confrontation and anger towards other living human beings?

All I have to say is that I'm all about some gun control, but an outright ban is just silly. It's just scary to think that some people believe that cops and soldiers should be the only ones with guns.thegerg

States with more gun control laws = less shootings.

States with less gun control laws = more.

Most shooting guns are bought legally.

Jankarcop

Guns kill people in the same way forks make people fat.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

I'd rather they not exist at all any more. You'd think in a civilized society we would have evolved to a point were weapons were no long nessesary. We should be able to communicate about things and resolve all conficts without bloodshed. I get back in the day we had to fight over resources, but why do we continue to have all of this confrontation and anger towards other living human beings?

thegerg

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]

States with more gun control laws = less shootings.

States with less gun control laws = more.

Most shooting guns are bought legally.

DanteSuikoden

Guns kill people in the same way forks make people fat.

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]

Guns kill people in the same way forks make people fat.

DroidPhysX

So dumb that you can't dispute it?

Explain how gun ownership is going to stop a team like Seal 6 from devastating you if they so deemed fit. It sounds like a very false sense of security because they have plenty of things you dont have (riot gear, shields, explosives, tear gas, etc.) not to mention the extensive vehicular weaponry. You'd stand no chance in a full scale government take over.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]

Guns kill people in the same way forks make people fat.

DanteSuikoden

So dumb that you can't dispute it?

Forks don't make getting fat any easier. You don't need a fork to shove burgers into your mouth. /your 'argument'C_Rule

So now you need a gun to easily kill people huh? GOTCHA!;)

What we really need is to raise awareness of the signs of mental illness ... and reform in the mental health care system. Meinhard1

We have a winner.

Explain how gun ownership is going to stop a team like Seal 6 from devastating you if they so deemed fit. It sounds like a very false sense of security because they have plenty of things you dont have (riot gear, shields, explosives, tear gas, etc.) not to mention the extensive vehicular weaponry. You'd stand no chance in a full scale government take over.

Yusuke420

Which is hilarious when the groups like the tea party who constantly fearmonger about this have rhetoric that comes closest to the kind of tyranical government they fear not the democrats.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Forks don't make getting fat any easier. You don't need a fork to shove burgers into your mouth. /your 'argument'DanteSuikoden

So now you need a gun to easily kill people huh? GOTCHA!;)

Armies of the past fought with swords and shields, Now they use guns. There is a reason beyond aesthetics.

What we really need is to raise awareness of the signs of mental illness ... and reform in the mental health care system. Meinhard1

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Forks don't make getting fat any easier. You don't need a fork to shove burgers into your mouth. /your 'argument'DanteSuikoden

So now you need a gun to easily kill people huh? GOTCHA!;)

What we really need is to raise awareness of the signs of mental illness ... and reform in the mental health care system. Meinhard1

Even trained psychologists have trouble identifying mental illness in their patients, Perhaps your suggestions will help reduce the issue but it will by no means have a copious impact

I'd rather they not exist at all any more. You'd think in a civilized society we would have evolved to a point were weapons were no long nessesary. We should be able to communicate about things and resolve all conficts without bloodshed. I get back in the day we had to fight over resources, but why do we continue to have all of this confrontation and anger towards other living human beings?

Yusuke420

Ah.... Yeah... That's kinda the point. Sure, you can easily kill someone with a knife, but easily kill 20+ people before someone disarms you? Yeah... Not likely.C_Rule

Why do you assume the person will use a knife? A person can rack up a +20 bodycount taking a chaotic joyride in a moving car that shields them. Would you blame the car for that or the sick person operating it?

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Explain how gun ownership is going to stop a team like Seal 6 from devastating you if they so deemed fit. It sounds like a very false sense of security because they have plenty of things you dont have (riot gear, shields, explosives, tear gas, etc.) not to mention the extensive vehicular weaponry. You'd stand no chance in a full scale government take over.

thegerg

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Explain how gun ownership is going to stop a team like Seal 6 from devastating you if they so deemed fit. It sounds like a very false sense of security because they have plenty of things you dont have (riot gear, shields, explosives, tear gas, etc.) not to mention the extensive vehicular weaponry. You'd stand no chance in a full scale government take over.

thegerg

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Ah.... Yeah... That's kinda the point. Sure, you can easily kill someone with a knife, but easily kill 20+ people before someone disarms you? Yeah... Not likely.DanteSuikoden

Why do you assume the person will use a knife? A person can rack up a +20 bodycount taking a chaotic joyride in a moving car that shields them. Would you blame the car for that or the sick person operating it?

Would you rather face a guy with a knife or a gun? would you feel more able to evade a car or a bullet?

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Forks don't make getting fat any easier. You don't need a fork to shove burgers into your mouth. /your 'argument'mattisgod01

So now you need a gun to easily kill people huh? GOTCHA!;)

Armies of the past fought with swords and shields, Now they use guns. There is a reason beyond aesthetics.

You wouldn't find me stating otherwise.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Ah.... Yeah... That's kinda the point. Sure, you can easily kill someone with a knife, but easily kill 20+ people before someone disarms you? Yeah... Not likely.DanteSuikoden

Why do you assume the person will use a knife? A person can rack up a +20 bodycount taking a chaotic joyride in a moving car that shields them. Would you blame the car for that or the sick person operating it?

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Explain how gun ownership is going to stop a team like Seal 6 from devastating you if they so deemed fit. It sounds like a very false sense of security because they have plenty of things you dont have (riot gear, shields, explosives, tear gas, etc.) not to mention the extensive vehicular weaponry. You'd stand no chance in a full scale government take over.

thegerg

:| The US military had trouble holding down Iraq militarily, a country with a popular smaller than California and geographically tiny.. This was with a volunteer force that would never agree to do that to American citizens.. The only way the US would become tyranical was by being a police state.. By isolating every one and pretty much ensuring that if they get out of line they will lose everything.. Guns will not stop that.

Banning weed worked out well.

Slashless

purpose, one is a recreational drug, the other is created with the only purpose to kill to assault, a lethal weapon.

Training
Licensing
Registration of 'all' firearms
Mandatory re-testing every ~5y on weapon handling/saftey(part of initial training)
Better background checks, psychological checks (once every 5y)
*Maybe a limit on firearm / ammunition purchases*
Legalize cannabis, needless source of crime
Big focus on mental health issues
Rethink our prison system in general

No, no...NO. The 2nd amendment is the basis for protection of freedom and liberty. Without it, it will leave the government with more power to oppress the people with their already ridiculous military might and/or leave the country more vulnerable to attack.-RocBoys9489-

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Ah.... Yeah... That's kinda the point. Sure, you can easily kill someone with a knife, but easily kill 20+ people before someone disarms you? Yeah... Not likely.mattisgod01

Why do you assume the person will use a knife? A person can rack up a +20 bodycount taking a chaotic joyride in a moving car that shields them. Would you blame the car for that or the sick person operating it?

Would you rather face a guy with a knife or a gun? would you feel more able to evade a car or a bullet?

They have Tanks, Drones, and B-2 Bombers with **** that will level an entire city, but you believe that gun ownership is a counter to this? Get real british military might was no where near what America has at it's disposal, also the British were used to fighting a "civilized war" and the revolusionists caught them off guard with guerilla warfare. It's apple to oranges.