gun control
- Locked due to inactivity on Jul 7, '23 3:54am
Thread Topic: gun control
-
reminds me of children who think quick sand is going to be a much bigger threat than realistically possible
there's a joke about Alaskan moose somewhere in there, I'm just not sure what it is. -
ignore the first Uvalde post.
I looked it up, I'm pretty sure that was due to the officers trying to play it safe against someone with greater firepower. IDK what's standard issue for regular police officers. -
real quick, Breadgirl, I just wanted to say that if you really think that removing guns will end gun violence then i would like to remind you of prohibition.
:| -
Making owning guns illegal will LOWER gun violence. Obviously it won't eliminate it entirely, but it will 100% help save lives
-
yeah, it might lower it, but, again, remember prohibition?
Since it directly infringes on the Constitution/Bill of Rights, it will more than likely have even WORSE consequences than prohibition.
But let's assume there's no riot or anything.
Congrats! you just made millions of people felons.
You also made it much more difficult to defend yourself, your family, or your home from a criminal, animal (rabid or otherwise), etc.
The sheer amount of consequences that would stem from banning guns outweigh the decrease in gun violence. -
Yes, it goes against the Bill of Rights, which was made in 1791. Firearms like we have now were unimaginable to those who originally made the 2nd amendment. Firearms have changed, laws should too.
Obviously if a law were passed to completely ban guns, it wouldn't be an overnight thing. People would be given time to safely get rid of their firearms. The only people that would be felons would be those who refused to participate despite being given adequate warning.
The sheer amount of consequences that would stem from banning guns outweigh the decrease in gun violence.
This is your personal opinion, I can't argue with that. Personally, I would say preventing losing thousands of lives to firearms would be worth people losing their toys. -
Firearms like we have now were unimaginable to those who originally made the 2nd amendment. Firearms have changed, laws should too.
That argument.
It gives me the same vibes as that "muskets, not weapons of war" argument. breh -
So, off the top of my head, what could happen if they banned guns?
1. Likely a massive controversy that, given the nature of the ban, could easily lead to a revolution
2. People who gave in to the law are now much more limited in their defense options
3. It's unlikely that many people would listen to the law. See, there's this funny thing called "Civil Disobedience".
4. Assuming the law extends to police, you just made their jobs 10 times harder.
5. Crime rates would have a high increase, as criminals would likely feel more confident in their attacks knowing the blatant lack of armed civillians.
6. If it doesn't extend to police, congrats! You say hate the police because of corruption, but taking armed civillians out of the equation could very well encourage "grass eaters" to become "meat eaters", or encourage more corrupt people to join the police force.
7. The hunting industry would go to s---, as most hunters would be forced to learn an entirely different weapon.
8. Funny little thing is that unless the law changed recently, a black powder weapon isn't considered a gun by legal definition. I think you can guess where I'm going with that. -
-
If the Government can have them, the people should have them.
-
no response?
-
Yup, no response. I don't care enough to try to get you to understand that people's lives are more important than people's rights to own guns
-
....ok then
-
If everyone agreed, politics would be pointless
-
true
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
