Defibyoulater

Australian Skial God
Contributor
A week ago, Jedders returned to us, and some old grand memories sparked the flames of nostalgia in me heart. I remembered back to the fightin' days, when the whole forums got stuck in the fight on a single thread. Most notoriously ... CDAWG's Abortion thread.

So then, let's bring back some of that good fight and tackle on a new topic, because all it takes is just a spark sometimes.

Gun Control. Is complete gun control dangerous, or are less gun laws truly dangerous? Where do you think it is safer? Is there a middle point? Do you think adding more law or removing more law brings safety to your nation/world?

This is just a discussion, so I am sure we can discuss this with the utmost civility.

Thanks, and half fun.
 

Metroidz

Australian Skial God
Contributor
I live in Texas and do not own a gun, and don't plan on it.

We have concealed carry, but it's not a big deal here.

To each their own, but guns or not there will always be assholes. Can't control/ban those.
 

Aandy Herr

Uncharitable Spy
Contributor
Hands down as being invovled in law enforcement, Primarly dealing with AFTER the shootings (ususaly due to drunks geting in domestic situations) I believe THOSE people shouldn't own a gun... or even a damn butter-knife. If the situation gets out of hand, the deputies on the road will take their guns away for a time and return them when it's safe.

In general, banning or restricting guns in a over-satriated area, isn't going to DO much for anyone, except give criminals a edge up on law abiding citizens and L.E. hands down something needed to be done, but most liekly wont. Further more- Anyone who says: Ban all assault guns or give every teacher a gun, EITHER one of those statements just makes you look like a complete dumbass... and uneducated in the topic.
 

Deadfront

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
(ususaly due to drunks geting in domestic situations) I believe THOSE people shouldn't own a gun.
Here at least if you have a domestic charge you cannot legally own a fire arm. So yes they shouldn't own a gun.

No matter what laws they make in the end the wrong people are going to get get gun's and use them in an unlawful way. Yes it may stop some but a majority of guns used in illegal crimes are bought and sold illegally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cream Tea

Meowrisa

Australian Skial God
Contributor
IMO guns are bad and shouldn't be used for anything other than protection; the "fun" people have shooting a gun is a worthy sacrifice and doesn't really matter. They can have fun other ways. As for carrying one for personal protection; I believe that argument is BS, as the assailant will almost always get the jump on you. They'd have to be stupid not to. Also, any weapon you own can and will be used against you if they can get their hands on it.

However, just because that's my opinion on guns, I do not think the way to go is banning them. As has been stated many times, people will get a gun whether it's legal or not. They're all over the black market these days. Even if they weren't, these people would try to massacre others in other ways such as homemade bombs and things of that nature. It's not going to stop the psychos doing this stuff if you guys change the gun laws. I also don't think most people for the "carrying a gun for protection" or "for sport" argument are the ones committing these crimes, so it's not a huge deal to me that they can own one legally. (Though if you hunt for sport you've lost my respect.)

There's no real solution to this problem other than seeing the warning signs as a parent, or friend, of the killers in question and taking it out from the roots. I think as a society North America needs to take the psychological issue behind these shootings more seriously. Mental illness such as this can, obviously, harm more than just the person suffering. There should be times where the person in question, if they are threatening harm and are serious about it, should be forced into treatment or confinement. Like I said though, it's case-by-case and I think that there should be plenty of steps taken before getting to that point. For example if your kid is a recluse who keeps mentioning his hatred for the world and is obsessed with guns you should make a judgement call on whether to get more people involved or not, instead of pretending that they're normal. Ofc shootings happen that are caused by adults as well, but the same goes for if it's your buddy, or another family member.

Tl'dr: The shootings are caused by people and illness, not weaponry. Banning guns would be arbitrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cream Tea

Cream Tea

Epic Skial Regular
Legendary Mapper
Even without guns if somebody is determined enough to harm somebody they will find a way.

Or at least seriously injure/scar them cough acid. (How do those dumb people even get hold of that stuff?? They're hardly scientists)
 

Reedgreat

Gore-Spattered Heavy
Even without guns if somebody is determined enough to harm somebody they will find a way.

Or at least seriously injure/scar them cough acid. (How do those dumb people even get hold of that stuff?? They're hardly scientists)
That is like saying explosive devices shouldn’t be banned for widespread use because people who want to blow up a building will find a way to do it anyway.
 

Metroidz

Australian Skial God
Contributor
Or at least seriously injure/scar them cough acid. (How do those dumb people even get hold of that stuff?? They're hardly scientists)

I've always been curious about this. Other countries have acid attacks I hear about often. How is this commonplace? We never have "acid attacks" here.
 

Cream Tea

Epic Skial Regular
Legendary Mapper
I've always been curious about this. Other countries have acid attacks I hear about often. How is this commonplace? We never have "acid attacks" here.

I'm no expert but from what I've gathered/seen:

  • Most acid attacks here occur in London, a big city with lots of streets and not very open, good places to ambush people.
  • In America you have guns, why bother getting acid that might not even do much to a victim when you can just get a gun and shoot them. (And most people probably here don't want to be classed as a murderer, they just want to cause a lot of harm)
  • Acid attacks aren't classed as attempted murder like most stabbings are. (^)
  • It's not obvious, not like carrying a gun or a knife, you can basically put it in a water bottle and nobody would be the wiser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toxik

chuckwagon

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
The definition of irony- in a forum where people lose their shit when someone breaks any tiny rule in a VIDEO GAME: arguments that restrictions to having weapons that make it easy to efficiently MURDER people won’t do any good.
 

Defibyoulater

Australian Skial God
Contributor
The definition of irony- in a forum where people lose their shit when someone breaks any tiny rule in a VIDEO GAME: arguments that restrictions to having weapons that make it easy to efficiently MURDER people won’t do any good.
Brother, did you just compare jb freekilling to a public shooting?
 

san7890

Australian Skial God
Contributor
The definition of irony- in a forum where people lose their shit when someone breaks any tiny rule in a VIDEO GAME: arguments that restrictions to having weapons that make it easy to efficiently MURDER people won’t do any good.
The things about breaking rules in a VIRTUAL video game is that its manageable and can be resolved easily, meanwhile, gun control is a much more complex REAL issue with several people holding their own experiences and opinions.
Equating and saying that how we deal with two different issues, one virtual and one real, one issue that is relatively more simple than another, that isn't really a good way to judge the world, or this forum in general.

We can rapidly say who or what should be bannable in a video game or not, because in the end, does it really matter?