Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ai®a©ob®a

Newtown Ct Families File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Bushmaster

Recommended Posts

Killerdude

 

 

 

You can easily just use a separate magazine.

 

Yes you can, But the time it takes to reload, is a time of vulnerability, a time where the person with the weapon is no longer a threat. A chance to subdue this person, 30 rounds allows them to continue their little sh*tshow for longer uninterrupted.

 

If you're using these weapons in a legal way, Sport or hunting, You shouldn't need 30 rounds for anything, You shouldn't be in a situation where needing another 10-20 rounds is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

So why waste money on 30 10rd mags when I can get 10 30rd mags?

I think the real question is; why would you ever need so much?

why would anyone outside of the armed forces?

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

 

 

 

You can easily just use a separate magazine.

 

Yes you can, But the time it takes to reload, is a time of vulnerability, a time where the person with the weapon is no longer a threat. A chance to subdue this person, 30 rounds allows them to continue their little sh*tshow for longer uninterrupted.

 

 

once again, this is assuming that either:

someone else has a weapon trying to take down the gunman (police officer, another brave civilian, etc)

someone is ballsy enough to risk their own life to tackle the gunman

 

That person is still a threat regardless of whether or not he has a 5, 10, 30, or even 100 round beta C drum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Killerdude

 

So why waste money on 30 10rd mags when I can get 10 30rd mags?

I think the real question is; why would you ever need so much?

why would anyone outside of the armed forces?

 

This is basically what I'm trying to get at.

If you're not shooting a large number of people, Why do you need 30 round mags?

 

 

once again, this is assuming that either:

 

someone else has a weapon trying to take down the gunman (police officer, another brave civilian, etc)

someone is ballsy enough to risk their own life to tackle the gunman

 

That person is still a threat regardless of whether or not he has a 5, 10, 30, or even 100 round beta C drum

 

Like I said, with a 10 round mag, They'll reload more often, giving Police or brave citizens an opportunity to stop the person.

Edited by Killerdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

Like I said, with a 10 round mag, They'll reload more often, giving Police or brave citizens an opportunity to stop the person.

 

do you really think that an average civilian has the guts to risk their own life to take down the gunman? no. their prime sense is to get away from the harmful event, not fight it

magazine reloading isnt much of a deciding factor in firefights, especially since most people with common sense take cover whilst reloading

Edited by Winning001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

 

So why waste money on 30 10rd mags when I can get 10 30rd mags?

I think the real question is; why would you ever need so much?

why would anyone outside of the armed forces?

 

 

I think the issue is, if someone is hellbent on perpetrating a mass shooting, a magazine size limit won't do anything. Sure, maybe they'll stop to reload in between each shot, but, since we're talking about Newtown, do you really think a bunch of kindergartners are going to rush a 20 something year old guy carrying a rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

For the record most gun owners support licensing requirements, background checks, and magazine limits, though the 10 round is a little ridiculous because many handguns are between 12-15 and it makes people have to buy different equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

yeah I'm not talking about limiting the number of rounds in anything.

the issue is access and culture.

 

you can't advertise mental illness.

you can advertise guns and violence.

 

I think the issue is, if someone is hellbent on perpetrating a mass shooting, a magazine size limit won't do anything. Sure, maybe they'll stop to reload in between each shot, but, since we're talking about Newtown, do you really think a bunch of kindergartners are going to rush a 20 something year old guy carrying a rifle?

we have guns in the home both of which I use, and I love a good violent movie or game as much as the next guy.

we don't have to do away with either of these things, but we desperately need to get them back into proper perspective.

 

you ask me if I think kindergartners are going to rush an active shooter. c'mon Big Homie :sigh: does the Pope sh/t in the woods??

you're ignoring the point. how can we avoid arriving at the kindergarten scenario in the first place? individual shootings cannot be prevented as many are crimes of passion. but if someone is disturbed and/or depressed enough to commit mass murder it's virtually always premeditated. so the issue is access and culture. when this person has arrived at the point at which they've snapped and are deciding on their doomsday situation, they're looking around for a moment and picking out; how and when and who and why.

 

public violence is nothing new and it's not on the rise, but these sorts of mass shootings are a distinctly modern phenomena and are happening more often. unfortunately for us they are also a distinctly American phenomenon. do you never wonder why that is? among 'civilized' nations, we experience these tragedies at an alarmingly higher rate especially in just the last 30 years.

 

the issue is access and culture.

when someone in the US is at the breaking point they can see all these examples of mass shooting sprees where the perpetrators name and face and message is plastered everywhere. they're more or less immortalized by the news and our media when they 'go out' in this fashion. this has to be a powerful motivator to push them into action. and once in the action phase they have so many options it's absurd. no wonder they feel so heretical and willing to carry out such catastrophe. there are so many powerful weapons and accessories to hide behind. they don't have to be a crack shot, they don't have to put in countless hours at the range, look at the military technology at their disposal, just like they saw in those big movies, just like they played in those big games.

 

I believe it adds up. it has to add up.

this access and this culture doesn't exist in other countries like ours. these tragedies do not occur at the rate or scale as they do in ours. should we really change nothing? do you really not feel like there's something - anything - we could be doing differently to address this nonsense?

 

I don't think anyone should see this:

 

 

 

eJHdTz5.jpg

 

5jX6hIh.jpg

 

eqx1FrH.jpg

 

Bag1gbH.jpg

 

 

 

when they walk into a shop on the corner of the street, of which there are way too many on way too many street corners in this country of ours. there's not a single firearm up there which is useful or applicable to hunting, sport shooting, or self-defense. there's plenty of ego boosters for the sane and crazy alike, plenty of death machines, but nothing practical for the civilian. and you know what, sure, if you're a perfectly sane person then you can own one of these machines and blow watermelons up on the weekend and have a great time. but you know what else? if that's you're only hobby then maybe it's too f/cking bad.

 

the issue is access and culture.

we have to get this sh/t in perspective. I enjoy firing guns sometimes. I also recognize the fact that firearms - as a particular hobby - can be abused with horrible horrible horrible consequences that can never be reversed. I enjoy lots of other hobbies too and the tradeoff is that these other hobbies, even when abused and done wrong, do not lead to death and destruction. firearms essentially only have one singular purpose; killing life. the game hunting and target shooting are addons. as much as you might love guns you might just have to bite the metaphorical bullet and learn to love them a little bit less. you can still shoot watermelons and protect your home.

 

I believe we have to find a way to scale this culture and access back.

too much is too much and I get tired of throwing my hands up, as if America has to be this place that can never be any different.

 

k I'm going to bed soon. didn't think I would write this much. might reply tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

These are all tools of war on various scales

Historically, so are bolt action hunting rifles. And shotguns. In fact, there's a greater technical distinction between an AR-15 and an M16 than there is between a Mauser 98 military rifle and a CZ-550 hunting rifle.

 

Which isn't to say that I think semi-auto carbines should be as available as they are to people passing simple background checks, but the "weapons of war" analogy is fallacious in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

I just know that I'm happy that it's very unlikely that I will ever be threatened with a gun. I wouldn't like the idea of a significant chance that any random person on the street has a gun with them. I've seen a friend of mine get stabbed in the head. Random acts of violence happen, and I'm just happy that in this case it was a knife that didn't enter his skull, rather than a bullet that blows his brains out.

Edited by CenMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

These are all tools of war on various scales

Historically, so are bolt action hunting rifles. And shotguns. In fact, there's a greater technical distinction between an AR-15 and an M16 than there is between a Mauser 98 military rifle and a CZ-550 hunting rifle.

 

Which isn't to say that I think semi-auto carbines should be as available as they are to people passing simple background checks, but the "weapons of war" analogy is fallacious in the extreme.

 

That's picking and choosing the examples a little too much. The AR-15 was designed for the US military and it's design was adapted to become the M-16, while the CZ-550 is a civilian hunting rifle based also on a military design, the Mauser 98... They are both pretty damn close, but the AR-15 was built 100% for the military while the CZ-550 was not.

 

However, I really like El Diablo's dissertation, as a former gun owner who gave up his gun and began to believe in strict gun control right after Sandy Hook, I sure would rather support the ideals of culture he put forth than controlling the supply of guns. Unfortunately, I don't see how a paradigm shift in the American culture can/will ever be possible the way things stand currently, so I continue to think that controlling access is the most feasible option. Maybe with that control some cultural shift will begin to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The AR-15 was designed for the US military and it's design was adapted to become the M-16, while the CZ-550 is a civilian hunting rifle based also on a military design, the Mauser 98...

So a weapon designed for the military that never went into service, which was then sold commercially in its origial form after being slightly re-engineered and adopted military purposes isn't acceptable, but a clone of a military service weapon which was sold commercially in this form and later slightly re-engineered and sold as as a military weapon (CZ750) is?

 

Many modern bolt-action rifle designs are intrinsically designed as military weapons. The Remington 700 was designed as as both a military/police sniper rifle and general purpose rifle; the Accuracy International rifles were all originally military designs; the same is true of most semiautomatic shotguns on the market. And, similarly, does that mean that semiautomatic assault-type rifles like the pistol grip Mini-14 variants et all which were designed for the civilian market and never sold to military buyers are acceptable despite them being in some cases basically clones of the AR-15?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

The AR-15 was designed for the US military and it's design was adapted to become the M-16, while the CZ-550 is a civilian hunting rifle based also on a military design, the Mauser 98...

So a weapon designed for the military that never went into service, which was then sold commercially in its origial form after being slightly re-engineered and adopted military purposes isn't acceptable, but a clone of a military service weapon which was sold commercially in this form and later slightly re-engineered and sold as as a military weapon (CZ750) is?

 

Many modern bolt-action rifle designs are intrinsically designed as military weapons. The Remington 700 was designed as as both a military/police sniper rifle and general purpose rifle; the Accuracy International rifles were all originally military designs; the same is true of most semiautomatic shotguns on the market. And, similarly, does that mean that semiautomatic assault-type rifles like the pistol grip Mini-14 variants et all which were designed for the civilian market and never sold to military buyers are acceptable despite them being in some cases basically clones of the AR-15?

 

Same for the Mauser 98. The Karabiner 98k was used as the standard service rifle for the German armies (and other armed forces) between WWI and WWII. The design hasn't changed much from the late 1890's as compared to today. So why is that rifle an exception when it has been used in multiple armed forces for decades?

Even if we're looking at the slightly older Gewehr 98, used primarily by german snipers after the creation of the Kar98k (the Kar98k also was used by german snipers too). So Why can I own a real military firearm like the Kar98k, but not a semi-auto sporter carbine?

 

See the way to win an argument is to provide legitimate reasons behind the argument.

providing "in a perfect world" scenarios or "because I think its uncomfortable" doesnt bear any weight for your argument at all

Edited by Winning001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo
So a weapon designed for the military that never went into service, which was then sold commercially in its origial form after being slightly re-engineered and adopted military purposes isn't acceptable, but a clone of a military service weapon which was sold commercially in this form and later slightly re-engineered and sold as as a military weapon (CZ750) is?

 

Many modern bolt-action rifle designs are intrinsically designed as military weapons. The Remington 700 was designed as as both a military/police sniper rifle and general purpose rifle; the Accuracy International rifles were all originally military designs; the same is true of most semiautomatic shotguns on the market. And, similarly, does that mean that semiautomatic assault-type rifles like the pistol grip Mini-14 variants et all which were designed for the civilian market and never sold to military buyers are acceptable despite them being in some cases basically clones of the AR-15?

 

I was making no such assertation, I was arguing the statment that my "tools of war" argument was falacious in nature;

 

 

These are all tools of war on various scales

Historically, so are bolt action hunting rifles. And shotguns. In fact, there's a greater technical distinction between an AR-15 and an M16 than there is between a Mauser 98 military rifle and a CZ-550 hunting rifle.

 

Which isn't to say that I think semi-auto carbines should be as available as they are to people passing simple background checks, but the "weapons of war" analogy is fallacious in the extreme.

 

But you ask why a rifle designed for the 1967 battlefield would be unacceptable for civilian use but a bolt-action rifle based upon a gun designed in 1898 is acceptable and I say it's the amount of damage the fully-automatic-capable former can do compared with the slow single-action latter. It's why a firecracker is legal and TNT requires special permits and a licensing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

Ummmmmmm..mmm

Do you know that the 7.92x57 Mauser has way more stopping power, superior accuracy, and superior range over the 5.56x45mm or any sub-rifle cartridge? The Energy output of the round was one of the highest of WWI and WWII (similar energy outputs to the .30-06 aka 7.62x63mm)

So the bolt action can in fact deal more damage, from farther ranges than sporter carbines and military assault rifles (provided a trained gunner)

 

So now you have the potential to deal with more gunmen killing off innocent people from farther ranges in a hiding spot instead of bum rushing the joint with a carbine

so has the problem been solved? nope. It just moved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Your "tools of war" argument is fallacious in nature, as many military weapons of all kinds have been coopted for civilian use and vice versa. It's not clear what constitutes a "tool of war" or whether such a thing can be arbitrarily defined without blanket banning all sorts of things. Like service pistols common in the consumer markets (P226, 1911, USP, Beretta 92, Flock family), semiautomatic hunting rifles (isn't a Saiga just a semi-auto AK47?) etc.

 

All semiautomatic weapons, regardless of their origin, have similar harm potential so why focus specifically on AR-15 dervitives and not on civilian versions of any other service weapon, or rifles that have the same characteristics but don't look the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

Your "tools of war" argument is fallacious in nature, as many military weapons of all kinds have been coopted for civilian use and vice versa. It's not clear what constitutes a "tool of war" or whether such a thing can be arbitrarily defined without blanket banning all sorts of things. Like service pistols common in the consumer markets (P226, 1911, USP, Beretta 92, Flock family), semiautomatic hunting rifles (isn't a Saiga just a semi-auto AK47?) etc.

 

All semiautomatic weapons, regardless of their origin, have similar harm potential so why focus specifically on AR-15 dervitives and not on civilian versions of any other service weapon, or rifles that have the same characteristics but don't look the same?

because its the scariest of course :p

Just look at it

AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg

that scope adds like 5000 damage points

it also has that extended high capacity magazine clip

 

/sarcasm to the extreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

Guns and free and easy access to them harm society far more than they help, the fact that you are slaloming all around that subject shows the inherent bias present due to the culture of acceptance towards guns. Guns are "tools of war" period. No amount of calm and reasoned debate is going to convince me otherwise..

 

I strongly suspect the same is true for everyone who is commenting on this issue.

 

/sarcasm to the extreme

 

80% of your posts on this topic are irrelevant and derailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

All people are physically different, weak, strong, handicapped, everything else in-between.

 

Even if you did accomplish getting rid of guns outright, it would unintentionally leave people defenseless in situations of brute force.

Edited by mr toasterbutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

All people are physically different, weak, strong, handicapped, everything else in-between.

 

Even if you did accomplish getting rid of guns outright, it would unintentionally leave people defenseless in situations of brute force.

 

I just don't buy it... it's not a survival of the fittest, we have the rule of law here, local and state police, federal law enforcement and all sorts of other social constructs that protect people from just getting randomly attacked. Sure it happens on occasion, but the times that people defend against this, and the harm they prevent, VS the harm and societal ills caused by the proliferation of guns... well, it's a bunk deal we get here in America. A bunk deal indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

All people are physically different, weak, strong, handicapped, everything else in-between.

 

Even if you did accomplish getting rid of guns outright, it would unintentionally leave people defenseless in situations of brute force.

I just don't buy it... it's not a survival of the fittest, we have the rule of law here, local and state police, federal law enforcement and all sorts of other social constructs that protect people from just getting randomly attacked. Sure it happens on occasion, but the times that people defend against this, and the harm they prevent, VS the harm and societal ills caused by the proliferation of guns... well, it's a bunk deal we get here in America. A bunk deal indeed.

and what about areas where police response Time is not -4210 hours?

Back where I used to live, you were lucky to have a police officer show up if you were robbed.

Banning guns may solve some issues. SOME. But then all of the crimes will just move to different weapons. The proof is anywhere with high gun restrictions, like UK or China; low gun crime, high knife crime. Banning guns won't stop the crime from happening. It just transfers the weapon of choice to something else

 

 

80% of your posts on this topic are irrelevant and derailing.

This topic derailed page 1 to a huge gun control debate. So all of your posts are therefore derailing and irrelevant to the original topic too.

Edited by Winning001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

 

All people are physically different, weak, strong, handicapped, everything else in-between.

 

Even if you did accomplish getting rid of guns outright, it would unintentionally leave people defenseless in situations of brute force.

I just don't buy it... it's not a survival of the fittest, we have the rule of law here, local and state police, federal law enforcement and all sorts of other social constructs that protect people from just getting randomly attacked. Sure it happens on occasion, but the times that people defend against this, and the harm they prevent, VS the harm and societal ills caused by the proliferation of guns... well, it's a bunk deal we get here in America. A bunk deal indeed.
and what about areas where police response Time is not -4210 hours?

Back where I used to live, you were lucky to have a police officer show up if you were robbed.

Banning guns may solve some issues. SOME. But then all of the crimes will just move to different weapons. The proof is anywhere with high gun restrictions, like UK or China; low gun crime, high knife crime. Banning guns won't stop the crime from happening. It just transfers the weapon of choice to something else

 

Those areas with slow police response time and high crime need to be addressed, but not by arming the denizens. And to your point of transfer of crime from guns to knives or other weapons, yes you are 100% correct. In fact, I would call that a major goal of removing guns from the streets. As have been quoted by you and others on your side of the debate, there are a lot of instances of mass stabbings, but the stats also prove that the mass stabbings are far less deadly than mass shootings, so please, yes sir, I desperately would like to have gun crime transferred to knife crime. Obviously eliminating the violence all together is the best thing, but I don't think any sane or rational person is going to argue they have a solution for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

But you are removing guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals can still get a hold of firearms through black market, which is often much easier going through the hassle of legally owning a firearm.

 

An average Joe schmoe criminal, in less than an day, can illegally purchase a SNS ("saturday night special" aka a non-valuable firearm you dont mind tossing after you are finished with it) firearm, use it for a crime it series of crimes, and throw it away.

 

And what about the civilian, just trying to defend their life/home? well they cant own a gun now, so he/she is screwed

 

And what happens if this is in the ghetto, police will not show up for hours

Same goes with an ambulance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

But you are removing guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals can still get a hold of firearms through black market, which is often much easier going through the hassle of legally owning a firearm.

 

An average Joe schmoe criminal, in less than an day, can illegally purchase a SNS ("saturday night special" aka a non-valuable firearm you dont mind tossing after you are finished with it) firearm, use it for a crime it series of crimes, and throw it away.

 

And what about the civilian, just trying to defend their life/home? well they cant own a gun now, so he/she is screwed

 

And what happens if this is in the ghetto, police will not show up for hours

Same goes with an ambulance

Gun owners have a much higher probability of shooting themselves or a family member than an intruder. Plus, your scenario is one in which all the gun manufacturers are still operating here as they were, without the influx of new guns, acquiring one will be much harder on the black market (and more expensive) than it is now.

 

The fact that a patient has such a massive infection it'll take multiple courses of antibiotics to cure them is never an acceptable reason not to provide medical care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

words

Gun owners have a much higher probability of shooting themselves or a family member than an intruder.

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo
sivispacem

Guns and free and easy access to them harm society far more than they help, the fact that you are slaloming all around that subject shows the inherent bias present due to the culture of acceptance towards guns.

No, I agree for the most part, but pedantry about what weapons should or should not be "acceptable" in some arbitrary sense is pretty pointless and trying to justify them as anything other than arbitrary is misleading.

 

I'm of the belief that people should own firearms if they want to, if they can store them safely, are trained in their use and meet legal requirements. Y'know, the way firearm regulation works in most of Europe. Arbitrary restrictions on what people can and can't own isn't going to reduce firearm crime. A seed change in cultural attitudes in the US- because yes, this is an issue unique to the US- will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

Guns and free and easy access to them harm society far more than they help, the fact that you are slaloming all around that subject shows the inherent bias present due to the culture of acceptance towards guns.

No, I agree for the most part, but pedantry about what weapons should or should not be "acceptable" in some arbitrary sense is pretty pointless and trying to justify them as anything other than arbitrary is misleading.

 

I'm of the belief that people should own firearms if they want to, if they can store them safely, are trained in their use and meet legal requirements. Y'know, the way firearm regulation works in most of Europe. Arbitrary restrictions on what people can and can't own isn't going to reduce firearm crime. A seed change in cultural attitudes in the US- because yes, this is an issue unique to the US- will.

 

The toughest thing about this to me is that the vast majority of legal US gun owners are incredibly responsible with their guns. They aren't the problem, but their desire for easy access to guns causes problems for those who aren't responsible or want to inflict harm on others. The only way I can see for keeping guns out of their hands is to limit the access in general.

 

And yes, culture is the biggest element that needs to change, but also the hardest to affect change on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

Owning a gun doesnt make you a suicidal maniac. They conveniently have the "quick way out" so they choose to shoot themselves

If the suicidal person did not have a gun, they would have simply resorted to another measure of suicide rather than give up attempts completely

 

Owning a gun in the house can increase the likelihood of a person using it for a crime, but its just as easy to grab a kitchen knife and kill all the occupants of the house in their sleep. Having the gun in the house is just another option to cause the harm.

 

If the criminal desperately wanted to kill their family for whatever reason it may be, simply not owning a gun isnt gonna stop them from doing it

 

Accidental deaths: Darwinism at work. Common sense should have kicked in to point a firearm away from any living creature (best pointed down) and to make sure that it is completely unloaded with the safety on (if it has one) before any maintenance, storage, or transport.

 

 

The toughest thing about this to me is that the vast majority of legal US gun owners are incredibly responsible with their guns. They aren't the problem, but their desire for easy access to guns causes problems for those who aren't responsible or want to inflict harm on others. The only way I can see for keeping guns out of their hands is to limit the access in general.

 

And yes, culture is the biggest element that needs to change, but also the hardest to affect change on.

And exactly why should we punish the responsible for the actions of the few?

 

why not target the few crazy individuals instead by imposing measures to make the chances of them legally owning a firearm next to impossible?

 

What you're saying is jsust like giving the entire class an F on an assignment because one student failed while the rest got A's

Edited by Winning001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony
What you're saying is jsust like giving the entire class an F on an assignment because one student failed while the rest got A's

I agree but would say it's more like one person cheats, so everyone else fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.