Of course I am. People shouldn't be allowed to casually own longarms of any kind without darned good justification. Even six-shooters should be strictly regulated and periodically checked for proper justification of ownership.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you in favor of higher gun control(non-public poll)
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Lol, it means slingshots.
If I could own an actual catapult, then I could always find the persons house and siege it at dawn.
Oh, I have no idea... probably legal, because crossbows are.
They were wise in their time. But times, and technologies, change. If they were alive today, they would say "become social media experts and computer hackers!". Guns simply are no longer a viable tool to overthrow our modern day government. It's naive to think so.
This presumes that the 2nd Amendment gives a completely unregulated right to any sort of "arms". If you actually read it, it really doesn't appear to do so.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
A compound bow is much easier to use, in my opinion. Crossbows take forever to reload.
As for the OP, I'm against restriction of any weapons.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
How so? The language isn't very specific at all.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
This. Until something is done about the nature of crime and those who commit it, then stricter gun control laws will accomplish nothing.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
Less guns, same amount of death. There might be less gun deaths, but statistically there is no significant change in violent crime (including homicide) when stricter gun control is implemented.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
This is the problem I'm facing: as a Buddhist, I believe in and practice non-violence. And while I wish this was the case for everyone, or some simple fix like stricter gun control laws was the answer, I know this isn't the case. Criminals with a mind to kill are going to kill regardless of how they do it, or what laws are in place. And until some politician gets it through their thick skull that rehabilitation is just as important, and even moreso than, punishment, this isn't likely to change.
yoda89
On Xtended Vacation
I'm down, lets go medieval on that annoying coworker. As long as I can yell out 'This is Sparta' while wearing an iron suit.
If it's not specific, then how can anyone claim their rights are being violated if it is interpreted one way or another?
Though, it appears to me that the right to bear arms is linked to involvement in a "well-regulated" militia. What "arms" entails is not specified. Other non-gun arms are not considered permissible, so I don't see how banning particular types of guns would be any different, constitutionally.
I dunno. At the same time as Sandy Hook, a guy with a knife attacked school children in China. 28 killed at Sandy Hook; 23 injured in China. I think that's a statistic that's meaningful to those families.
dust1n
Zindīq
Well, death is %100 for all countries. Perhaps I should have said, more guns, more gun related deaths, where this holds relatively true, with a couple exceptions, mostly in South America. There would be more in N. America, but the hospital resources and the amount of lives saved after gun shot wounds has significantly increased. Same amount people get shot in America... less die now because gun-shot trauma related medicines are better.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
Because the part that's 100% clear is that we have a right to bear arms. Any effort to take a weapon away from an otherwise law-abiding and mentally stable citizen is a clear violation of that right.
DC vs Heller
I'm of the opinion that no weapons at all should be banned.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
Well of course there would be less gun-related deaths in most cases, but homicide/violent crime rates in general never change significantly with implementation of stricter gun control. Here's a Harvard Law study on the correlation between gun control laws and violent crime rates.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Galen.Iksnudnard
Active Member
I live in America, and I am strongly in favor of higher control. I also consider myself to be a moderate conservative.
The world is not really a safe place anymore. Terrorists, both foreign and domestic, some of them within our borders can use lax gun laws to obtain a gun and shoot up a school, movie theatre, or synagogue. Guns dont kill people, people Kill people, you might say. Well in that case we should implement strict laws to keep people like that from getting weapons they can use to commit mass murder (like we keep high explosives out of the hands of terrorists).
Conservatives have always said that they are "law and order" types. What better way to help give us the law and order that we need, than to have gun control laws banning dangerous weapons. There is just no reason civilians need to own firearms, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. There is no need for future Jared Lee Loughners or George Zimmermans to have weapons with which they can shoot up movie theatres or gun down African-American children in cold blood.
The world is not really a safe place anymore. Terrorists, both foreign and domestic, some of them within our borders can use lax gun laws to obtain a gun and shoot up a school, movie theatre, or synagogue. Guns dont kill people, people Kill people, you might say. Well in that case we should implement strict laws to keep people like that from getting weapons they can use to commit mass murder (like we keep high explosives out of the hands of terrorists).
Conservatives have always said that they are "law and order" types. What better way to help give us the law and order that we need, than to have gun control laws banning dangerous weapons. There is just no reason civilians need to own firearms, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. There is no need for future Jared Lee Loughners or George Zimmermans to have weapons with which they can shoot up movie theatres or gun down African-American children in cold blood.
dust1n
Zindīq
The study compares gun deaths, number of guns, and the correlation of numbers over time. It fails to take into account laws, socio-economic changes, corruption, access to healthcare, especially gun-shot wounds, etc. It would be extremely difficult to measure the effects of gun control on death in general. But it's rather obvious the higher the number of guns, the higher the number of gun-related deaths.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
The study compares gun deaths, number of guns, and the correlation of numbers over time. It fails to take into account laws, socio-economic changes, corruption, access to healthcare, especially gun-shot wounds, etc. It would be extremely difficult to measure the effects of gun control on death in general. But it's rather obvious the higher the number of guns, the higher the number of gun-related deaths.
I never denied that... But unless gun control significantly drops the number of homicides OVERALL (which it clearly doesn't), who really cares that there are less gun deaths specifically? What have you really done but make a step towards erasing the boogeyman that is the gun? That would be like banning donuts because people have fat-related heart attacks. Yes, donut-related heart attacks would go down, but overall it wouldn't matter because people are still stuffing their faces with hamburgers, hot dogs, croissants and everything else that makes them fat. Eliminating donuts specifically would do absolutely nothing to address the problem of obesity, just as eliminating guns does nothing to address the issue of violent crime.