Gun control (for school essay)

[Keyeto]

I understand you are the owner of the forum, but don't use the ban hammer as intimidation in arguements. (And just so we are clear, I didn't say you have banned anyone in this fashion)

I have yet to see Piotr use the "ban hammer" as intimidation because people were disagreeing with him. Hell, I recall him saying he has no problem with people disagreeing with him or calling him out, provided they back up their claims. Banning someone because they have a different opinion than you would be much too vulgar display of power. It goes against iMtG Law. If I did it, I'm sure Piotr would be none too happy, and I wouldn't be happy with him if he did it.

If you're talking about how he uses iMtG Law to back up and reinforce his points, its because he follows iMtG Law in real life. It's his actual though process and moral code, not a way to abuse his power.

Also, I think we set a record for the amount of times "penis" was used in a single thread.

[Wally]

Also, I think we set a record for the amount of times "penis" was used in a single thread.

Quoted for effect

[Piotr]

If you're talking about how he uses iMtG Law to back up and reinforce his points, its because he follows iMtG Law in real life. It's his actual though process and moral code, not a way to abuse his power.

Precisely, and thank you!

I'm against gun control because I believe that no one should do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to themselves. Your fear is not an excuse to *punish* me by forcefully taking my property, because I do you no harm by *owning* property, no matter how dangerous the property is. When I start *using* my property to *harm* you, obviously that's breaking the law. But you may not break law in prevention of lawbreaking. You may only harm (punish) other people if they have done harm to someone else. That is my sincere belief, and that is why gun control is evil in my eyes

[Mike_garzone]

A person gets in an accident while heavily intoxicated, and the victim dies---> crime blamed on the person

Bomb the Boston marathon---> fault lies with person committing the crime

A criminal robs and stabs an innocent person--->crime blamed on the criminal

Mass shooting in columbine---> blamed on shooter

Mass shooting in new town---> blamed on guns???

We don't blame cars for dui's, bombs for falling into the wrong hands, and knives for the same reason. While I agree that both sides have some valid arguments, the fault is never within the instrument itself, but in the mind controlling it.
To me, the people who are committing the crimes in the first place obviously aren't going to be detered from breaking the law again to obtain more powerful firearms. Sure it'll be harder for them to obtain them, but that leaves us innocent law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage, not only to the criminals but to the government as well.
It seems simply logical to me that we should be focusing more on how we can stop these actions at their source, which is why I don't beleive "controlling crime" is the only agenda Obama is trying to push right now. Hitler went about disarming citizens when he came into power, claiming that citizens didn't need such weaponry, that this caliber machinery is for the s.s. to use and protect the citizens with. Look how well that turned out

And end rant lol

[Gorzo]

Except your penis and head serve other purposes.

Guns serve only one purpose. To kill. That is what makes them fundamentally different from cars, bats knives and penises.

Where does this notion come from? My friends and I have gone shooting, and never once shot a living thing. Target shooting is a fun social gathering. I prefer archery myself, but a bow&arrow is no different from a gun when it comes to what you use it for. So should my recurve bow be banned?

[Piotr]

I called your lie out because you stated that 'the only purpose of gun is to kill' and I believe it to be quite obvious that it is not true.

Guns are designed to kill. Plain and simple.

The reason they intimidate or serve any other effect is because of their proficiency at killing.

They don't design a gun to intimidate people first, and kill them second. If intimidation is your only purpose, then you should be fine with all guns looking like real guns, but having the firing pin removed.

Intimidation effect 100%, but threat of killing 0%.

Would you be ok with owning a gun that was for all intents and purposes an expensive piece of plastic and could never fire a bullet, or do you admit it doesn't really serve its purpose when it can't actually back up its bark with some bite.

You may be correct they don't need to fire to serve their intended effect, but the only reason the intended effect works is because of their ability to kill.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles with relatively great speed and energy at the point the gun is aimed at. This is what they are designed for, not to kill.

What they are *used for* by their human users is another story, but there are many other ways to use a gun than to point it at another human and kill him (this allowed me to call a lie on your statement).

I find it offensive that you are suggesting that gun owners bought them to kill other people.

Vast majority of guns are *not used to kill*. They actually prevent killings, the same way nuclear weapons prevent wars, so for vast majority of guns their purpose is the opposite of what you claim.

[Missingkirby34]

This is a great debate guys! Thank you all, everyone is making valid points, and it's civil, this is exactly what I was hoping would happen, now I am asking, may I please use little tidbits of this in my report/debate? Please, don't let this stop you, keep "Debating"

[Gorzo]

This is a great debate guys! Thank you all, everyone is making valid points, and it's civil, this is exactly what I was hoping would happen, now I am asking, may I please use little tidbits of this in my report/debate? Please, don't let this stop you, keep "Debating"

I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, but like I said in the beginning, make sure you get trustworthy sources to back up anything you use in your official debate!

[Piotr]

Do we get to see the report first (as in, before it gets 'published')?

[Dmreiss]

But why are we going to fix something that is not broken?  It is the intent of the person, not the tool that is the problem.  In my country, we have the right to bear arms.  I can exercise that right along with the majority of people.  I can also act responsibly with them.  I don't need the government or anyone else telling me what is dangerous or what I should or shouldn't do.  Has out society improved because government encroaches on different facets of my life?  I don't think so.  The government cannot and should not tell me what I can or cannot do as long as it does not harm another person; that is when govwrnment crosses the line.

[Missingkirby34]

Do we get to see the report first (as in, before it gets 'published')?

Is for a class debate thing like I said, I'm sure it won't be all that amazing, but I'd be more than happy to post my side and my friends side of the debate (please note, we were assigned to be for or against our topic). I strongly believe something, not necessarily "gun control" as the way it's been proposed, but I believe in some sort of control, tighten the reigns on sellers and dealers, keep them out of sight when in stores like Walmart (along with ammo), the media really needs to change, they need to not show as much gun related deaths. And parents, friends, families, people in general need to be more educated, willing to listen, and less patriotic. Lets face it, the "glorious nation" that is America, really isn't that great. We need to ditch this "if they harm us we harm them" mentality.... Ill admit, as much hate as I am sure to get for this... If the bomber is held and not executed, I will feel bad for him, and this is because of places like Guantanamo bay. I'm also scared that because of this, we will go back to war, and many innocent people will die. America isn't even close to being the glorious nation it's made out to be, and we have the media and our government to thank for that.

[Rass]

Bill Mahr just had this topic on his show friday

[Mike_garzone]

Because regardless of what you think, there is a problem with firearms in the United States. Saying there isn't doesn't change the facts.

http://m.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

There most definetly is a problem with gun-control I will give you that. But history has shown that merely trying to control a group of people does not work.
     Think of society as a child and the government as our parent. You need to guide the child, deter him from negative actions with negative reinforcement and enforce positive behavior with positive reinforcement.
       If a man goes out and kills someone, more often than not he is sentenced to life (or multiple life sentences) in prison, where we the society pay for them to be taken care of, and to still enjoy the same humane rights that we as law abiding citizens enjoy.
     Personally, I beleive that one who has committed such an atrocity, doesn't deserve humane, rightful treatment. Prison, though rehabilitational, I beleive should serve more for repentance. The criminal should suffer like his victims, and the family's and lives their acts have caused distress. Or else how can one truly learn empathy, and learn the true depth of the consequences of their actions? Perhaps we should focus more on how to eliminate the crime from society or deter it stronger, instead of trying to control the instruments with which crime is committed?

[Apathy Reactor]

amen on that note

[#noided]

Because regardless of what you think, there is a problem with firearms in the United States. Saying there isn't doesn't change the facts.

http://m.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

"Assault weapons"

I stopped reading there.