And for sport, hunting, target shooting, trick shooting, self defense. The majority of ammunition is not shot with the intent to cause harm to people or animals. And knives are used to cut people, kill people, stab people, steal from people, cars are used intentionally (and unintentionally) as implements of destruction and to inflict injury and even death. There are examples of people running over other people deliberately. Baseball bats are used as a bludgeoning weapon in gang violence, theft, robbery, and the like. Guns have uses outside the criminal, as do all of the things I said. They also have criminal uses. You're still missing my point. You guys are arguing that banning guns will solve crime. This is not the case. Criminals will commit crime, regardless of whether guns are banned or not. And they will do it with guns. I'm arguing, and the statistics on the subject support, that the levels of crime and homicide in this country are already trending downward. No further law is necessary, no further restrictions are necessary. The big splashes in the media of late would not have been prevented by any of the gun-control measures presently put forward. Restricting ammunition in the clip, a tax on ammunition, none of these things will affect a thug who only needs a few bullets in his gun. They will affect those who practice their aim at their local shooting range, who target shoot, who shoot guns for hunting and for sport. They will not affect those who favor operating outside the law to get guns and ammunition.
But mostly for killing. Hunting is also killing. But I dont mind the 2nd amandment. people should be able to have a gun if they want to. I thought trick shooting was only done in cod :O
And for those who feel that civilians should not have guns, and only the police should have guns because they can be trusted to use them responsibly: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/ex-cop-manhunt-newspaper-delivery-women-shot.html
I am safer if I have a gun, even if that means the potential mass murderer can get a gun too. My father has been a cop for a long time, and he carries his gun EVERYWHERE he goes. Honey child, there isn't anything you can do to stop someone who wants to kill a bunch of people from killing a bunch of people; you can only slightly deter it. If you strip the ability for citizens to get the most efficient form of self defense in the world, you're only empowering that potential mass murderer to kill more of those defenseless people when he inevitably gets his hands on a firearm. There are much easier to acquire, and much more efficient methods of mass murder. I assume every item only has one usage right? There are plenty of uses for guns that don't involve killing. Have you ever been to a shooting range to practice shooting? My father goes nearly every weekend, it is relaxing for him. Ever heard of skeet shooting? Paintball? Air soft? Gun collecting? Guns don't generally even have to be used to kill when they are used to inflict damage on another living thing. You can disarm or disable an assailant with a gun. Scare or deter people entirely with the presence of a gun... etc. In the end a gun can be used, and is sometimes used to kill; that doesn't mean it doesn't have a notably larger variety of uses and intentions. Keep in mind that most people that actually have one don't ever want to have to use it. Have you ever pulled the trigger of a gun? It's pretty intimidating. Multiply that by a billion when you have it aimed at a living being. All of the items can be used to kill. You can be killed by someones bare hands, a tooth pick, a pencil, an Ethernet cord, a pillow... the list goes on. As for limiting the type, number, ammo, etc that people can have... I really don't see the point. If the bad guy wants a stockpile, he's gonna get a stockpile. In the end though the way I see it, the only way you are ever going to remove guns from the American culture is if you can magically remove every single gun in existence, and prevent one from ever existing again. Since such magic doesn't exist, it will never happen. The biggest issue with this thread and generally this topic is that people who want stricter gun control or to remove guns entirely tend to operate from the viewpoint that the world is some utopia where you can control every living persons actions. Both sides are fueled by emotion, and that emotion clouds their rationale. Both sides live in their own little world. Meanwhile, I'll be living in the real world, where criminals do have access to guns; and I thank the founding fathers that I do too.
I have not been to a shooting range. and I cant image in being relaxing? sounds of gun shots. Skeet shooting usually just involves double barrel shotguns ( not america, they have semi automatic shotguns, but again, only shotguns). Also paintball?? It's Balls of paint being shot at you. not a metal bullet. And you usually need to get a licence to buy a paintball gun. and airsoft guns, Kids play with that. Can not be compared to real guns, at all. Killing,inflicting damage or scaring. <- is what guns are used for, unless you're practicing to do that.(gun range, practice shooting)
Wow. Just because something isn't relaxing to you doesn't mean it's not relaxing to others. Further, all the guns you just listed are real guns. Just because they don't shoot 9mm bullets doesn't mean they're not a real gun. A gun is a projectile weapon, they don't all have to shoot depleted uranium rounds, for example, to be "real". Nerf guns are real guns. And people have been suspended from school for bringing them. If you don't find that ridiculous...
This is why I don't post on this section of the forum <3 The irrational liberal side never considers the values of anyone but their own ideals, while everyone else tends to at least partially accept most views. Because there's so many of the irrational liberals on this forum you ACTUALLY think you win these arguments. Neva-again!
