Guns

[Vinjay]

Now there's few subjects in the US that create more conflicting views than this so its a perfect topic for this board. In the UK gun crime is about as well controlled as its going to get. There's no legislation that can stop a mass shooting now and again. In the UK there's only been three mass shootings (by that I mean double figures or close) in the last 30 years and without a doubt it will happen again. In the US though statistics prove its a consistent problem (and one that to an extent could be rectified) and not just because of the population ratio. However I'm not really taking a side here as far as rights so lets try and ask some questions on both sides...

Did people misinterpret what the founding fathers meant in the constitution or not?

The NRA: Constitutional rights or all about profits?

Certain types of guns...

State of NY gun control laws.

How many gun owners here?

 

[MrMartinezNYC]

Without those guns USA would have never been able to put up any battle.

 

[Vinjay]

Well the idea behind this thread wasn't so much about military battles but based on civilian laws. If you're referring to the civil wars (and invasions) of the past that's where some feel the constitution could have been misinterpreted. Lets have a 21st century outlook on this its not like a civil war or full scale invasion is likely in the US anytime soon.

As the constitution states...“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

[MrMartinezNYC]

Well I was referring to the revolution but this topic all comes down to personal preference.
I like guns but they should be regulated. NYC has strict laws and stiff time.

 

[NYCFC_Dan]

Here's my statement about guns.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Anyone looking to use a gun to do harm on someone else could do it just so easily with another weapon.

With that being said any law abiding citizen willing to go through the process of legally obtaining a gun for personal protection or recreational use should not be deterred.
I know a lot of people, people I work with and am friends with, that own guns and I respect their choice.
It's not something I am interested in.
I just don't like the ignorance in arguing there wouldn't be mass killing if we outlawed guns. If someone intends to cause harm to a large amount of people they will do so regardless.
Most murders occur via illegally obtained guns (if guns are involved). Gangs and those who don't follow the law don't obtain their guns legally.

 

[CP_Scouse]

Yes guns don't kill people, but they most definetly help. People in NY dont need guns. We dont hunt (and if you do, theres still no point because you can easily get food at target or something) we dont need protection (instead of worrying about "how to stop an attacker" worry about not being a target. dont do anything that would piss anyone off). The last thing we need is kids, seniors, in the public school system with guns. they're already fucked in the head as it is. there has to be like 30 gangs at my school, I dont wanna be collateral damage in a gun fight. By making guns legal and more tolerable, these kids would get them legitly.

I dont wanna hear "its in the constuition" bullshit. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" there is no NY militia and if there was I doubt it would be well regulated, we are not a free state (we pay federal taxes), and when the constuition wear written, guns were a good idea.

my friend owns a fucking sniper and hes 16. he really doesn't need it. no one does.

 

[NYCFC_Dan]

Your friend (if he lives in new york) doesn't own the gun. It's illegal for someone of that age to purchase one in NY. He can posses it but can't be the one registered under it.
As I've stated before most gangs that have guns don't have legally obtained registered guns. Doesn't make sense to kill people with something that can be tracked.
Criminals don't obtain guns via legal means.
We live in America, law abiding citizens will always have the right to own guns.
If not because of the constitution then because of the political backlash as a result of a ban. Democrats will be voted out in droves.
Either way you can't ban hunting rifles otherwise people can't hunt. So people would be registering for hunting licenses left and right so they can still own guns.

 

[MyBoyVilla]

I think, if anything, the problem in New York City is not the legal sale of guns, its the waning power of the police force to try and find illegal guns, which are much more likely to be used to commit a crime than legal guns.

Guns are more powerful than other weapons, so I do think some regulation is in order. But it should be more focused on how to crack down on illegal activity than how to make more things illegal to begin with.

 

[CP_Scouse]

police should be able ot search any home without question. i think in britain most police have a warrant from the queen to do so

 

[NYCFCFan10]

Well, England has the advantage that they are an island nation in the northern half of a very civilized continent.

USA, unfortunately, has Mexico south of our border. They will bring guns over and use them and sell them. That means the money would be going to the bad guys and the government won't have any idea who owns what. That's not to say that doesn't happen now but it will happen on a much, much larger scale if guns are banned outright.

I'm of the opinion that if you live in a city, like NY, you don't need a gun. If you live in the country and like to hunt then I could see gun ownership. No one needs AK-47s or M-16s. Same with handguns. There only real use is to be used on people.

I really can't stand how pro-gun people stick their fingers in there ears whenever guns are used in killing sprees, especially insanely powerful ones like M-16s, and give the "guns don't kill people" response.

Yeah, there was just a stabbing spree in Pennsylvania. The kid managed to slash and stab over 20 people. Not a single one of them died. If he had 2 guns instead of 2 knives, does anyone think there'd be no deaths if he managed to shoot 20 people? To me, that's the difference. The level of death brought by guns is just so much higher.

 

[einwindir]

Well, England has the advantage that they are an island nation in the northern half of a very civilized continent.

USA, unfortunately, has Mexico south of our border. They will bring guns over and use them and sell them. That means the money would be going to the bad guys and the government won't have any idea who owns what. That's not to say that doesn't happen now but it will happen on a much, much larger scale if guns are banned outright.

I'm of the opinion that if you live in a city, like NY, you don't need a gun. If you live in the country and like to hunt then I could see gun ownership. No one needs AK-47s or M-16s. Same with handguns. There only real use is to be used on people.

I really can't stand how pro-gun people stick their fingers in there ears whenever guns are used in killing sprees, especially insanely powerful ones like M-16s, and give the "guns don't kill people" response.

Yeah, there was just a stabbing spree in Pennsylvania. The kid managed to slash and stab over 20 people. Not a single one of them died. If he had 2 guns instead of 2 knives, does anyone think there'd be no deaths if he managed to shoot 20 people? To me, that's the difference. The level of death brought by guns is just so much higher.

I'm with you except for the part about Mexico, Central and South America being uncivilized.

 

[NYCFCFan10]

Meanwhile, in Mexico..... (and believe me, I can't even scratch the surface of the pictures I want to show you. Way, WAYYY too graphic for this place.)

These are vigilantes going off to do battle against the drug cartels...don't see this too often in France or Canada I believe....

 

[Vinjay]

No pictures (unless illegal/underage) should be too graphic for this board with discretion advised. As for Europe being civilised hardly a continent with a history of peace is it? How many people on here have been to Mexico? There's no better way of checking out a place than seeing it for yourself. Is the worst region for these cartels near the border or away from the capital?

 

[CP_Scouse]

i would imagine the cartels are close to the border, to get the goods across the border

 

[NYCFCFan10]

i would imagine the cartels are close to the border, to get the goods across the border

You guessed right. Some of the worst cities are Chihuahua and Juarez. You can google maps where they are. Juarez sits like literally on the border and Chihuahua is a short drive away.

"Chihuahua has been the epicenter of Mexico’s drug conflict in recent years, with border city Juarez the most violent place in the country, as the Sinaloa Cartel fought the Juarez Cartel for control. It has seen a dramatic fall in killings from more than 3,000 murders in 2010, to less than 700 in the first six months of this year. The security improvement has come amid ambitious government social programs, and the consolidation of power on the part of the Sinaloa Cartel."

 

[BlueWarrior]

Well the idea behind this thread wasn't so much about military battles but based on civilian laws. If you're referring to the civil wars (and invasions) of the past that's where some feel the constitution could have been misinterpreted. Lets have a 21st century outlook on this its not like a civil war or full scale invasion is likely in the US anytime soon.

As the constitution states...“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The reason the constitution says that is because it was a delicate state back then and susceptible from attacks from the french, spanish, or English. For instance, it would have been sort of like as if the US invaded Iraq and then just left them after they got Hussain. Other countries such as Iran could have invaded them.

To go word for word by what the constitution says doesn't male sense to me. What a group of people wrote almost three hundred years ago isn't always going to match what should happen in today's world.

For me, saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, is kind of like saying cigarettes don't kill people, people are killing themselves. At the end of the day it is the carcinogenic properties of a cigarette, and the bullet that kill people. If people are dying because of lax gun control, is it easier to change people or to change a law?

The two groups that kill the most people in non military purposes are psychopaths and gang members. For me, I think it is easier to change the law to prevent these people from getting guns, then from changing these people.

 

[Section1Guy]

The reason the constitution says that is because it was a delicate state back then and susceptible from attacks from the french, spanish, or English. For instance, it would have been sort of like as if the US invaded Iraq and then just left them after they got Hussain. Other countries such as Iran could have invaded them.

To go word for word by what the constitution says doesn't male sense to me. What a group of people wrote almost three hundred years ago isn't always going to match what should happen in today's world.

For me, saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, is kind of like saying cigarettes don't kill people, people are killing themselves. At the end of the day it is the carcinogenic properties of a cigarette, and the bullet that kill people. If people are dying because of lax gun control, is it easier to change people or to change a law?

The two groups that kill the most people in non military purposes are psychopaths and gang members. For me, I think it is easier to change the law to prevent these people from getting guns, then from changing these people.

It must be where the interpretation thing comes in because I'm pretty sure it's in the constitution because they were living in fear from their own government (The British) not outside influences. So when they created their new laws, they wanted to make sure the government was never that powerful again over its own people.

The only valid argument against the amendment is that weapons are so far advanced now from 300 years ago that unless we allowed civilians to have missiles, rockets, tanks, etc... it's a moot point. The government could stomp us if they wanted/needed to. Back then, the military and civilians had equal firepower pretty much.