Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 25, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 324

Gun Control

:iconconstantvariation:
ConstantVariation Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012  Hobbyist
I understand that many people are against gun control. Is it mostly because they do not want to change the Constitution and want to defend their families?

If so, I am sure there can be many compromises. If they want to defend themselves and their families, they can use tasers (that don't kill you) or perhaps a different weapon that will not kill, but make the attacker unconscious. Guns are fatal, and they can be used for good and bad. Why not use something that still work, but doesn't have a high risk?

And I understand that Americans are very proud of their Constitution. They should be, it is, after all, the longest kept Constitution in history. But it has had 27 amendments, and all the changes have been for good. A framer making the Constitution once said, "The law is for the living, not the dead." (Or something along those lines). Perhaps we should change things, for the better of our country. I'm sure that's what the Congress at that time would have wanted.

I also understand it is, thought by some people, a symbol of America. But it is necessarily a good symbol? I am sure we can make a good impression of our nation in a less violent way.

People who are against gun control have suggested armed policemen standing in front of schools and public buildings as enforcement against these sorts of dangerous people. But this is slightly... ironic. This won't make children or even adults feel safe, it reminds them of danger and makes them feel overall scared.

I just wanted to hear some thoughts on this.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
There are massively misleading statistics on self protection incidents involving guns, predicated on the idea that if you use a gun in self defense you intend to kill your attacker, there were 326 reported justifiable homicides in 2010 [link]
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I am all for gun control....







I use both hands, and hit my target. If that needs to be enforced by law, we got a real problem as a nation.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Professional General Artist
I still think the obvious solution is to ban ammunition. That way the gun owners get to keep their toys and the owning of ammunition would be an offence. Maybe it could be kept and used in licensed gun-clubs, or bought during hunting season with a clear identity / background check in small quantities, each bullet marked with a serial number or something and some kind of trade-in at the end of season.

Ditto for farmers.

Just thinking on the fly....
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013
First of all, many of the guns used in these mass shootings were obtained illegally. Therefore, simply focusing on restricting the legal gun trade won't do much to solve the problem. There needs to be a bigger focus on stopping the black market for firearms, and steeper penalties on those caught illegally selling guns.

I don't think that having access to firearms is the problem. Instead, I think that we have a culture that has attached a sort of mysticism (for lack of a better term) to them. Guns are glorified in today's media, and while I'm not going to blame Grand Theft Auto for gun crime, I think that we've become obsessed with guns without knowing the reality of them. Me and my conservative roommate had a discussion on this a few days back, and he half-jokingly said that every child in America should have to execute a cow- the point being is that people will know what a bullet can do to living tissue.

We should be able to have guns, but we need to make sure that those people who do have guns are going to use them responsibly. When you get your driver's license, you often have to take a driver's ed course and then take a variety of tests. After all, having a car is a huge responsibility and people can get hurt if you don't know what you're doing. Therefore, it only follows that a gun, who's explicit purpose is to cause harm to living things, should also require stringent testing. Background checks should be a given, so that we aren't giving guns to people with certain mental illnesses or a history of violent crime. People applying for a firearm license should also be required to take a gun safety course, so that they won't leave their rifles unlocked in a house with their unstable son. We should also make sure that gun show merchants are legit and follow the same rules as any other gun store.

Also, no citizen needs an assault rifle. However, the term "assault weapon" is really vague and is mainly cosmetic. People who complain about the vagueness of the Second Amendment will go on and argue that certain guns should be banned because it looks scary.

However, it always makes me laugh when people say that we need guns to "protect ourselves from the government." I mean, if the world's most powerful and technologically advanced military wanted you dead, I don't think that Grandpa's rifle will protect you from the deathbots that roam the skies. America doesn't even for the most part have the same advantages that Vietnam had, such as deep jungle that precipitates guerrilla warfare.
Reply
:iconwolfos96:
wolfos96 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
About your last paragraph, look back to 1776. American colonists were nothing more than armed civilians, going against the most powerful military in the world at the time: The British. Who won that?

Disarming the law-abiding citizens will only harm society. The law-abiding citizen won't go on a rampage like a criminal would, and even then, at least the people would have a means of shooting back at the crazed gunman. And in regards to banning assault weapons only - what would that change? Ban an M4, and a criminal can still use his shotgun, or even a handgun, and still cause trouble. Decreasing the legal magezine size won't change much either as changing mags can be done within 1 second for some. Banning one type of weapons wouldn't stop these shootings even if the gun is obtained legally.

Banning guns in any way only hurts the law-abiding citizen. Whether he owns a gun for hunting, defense, or even just to shoot targets or clay pigeons, it's a burden on them. Criminals don't follow laws. If they want to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
About your last paragraph, look back to 1776. American colonists were nothing more than armed civilians, going against the most powerful military in the world at the time: The British. Who won that?

Times change. The brits didn't have tanks, Kevlar body armor, UCAVs, missiles, or spy satellites.
Reply
:iconwolfos96:
wolfos96 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
My point is that civilians defeated a more well-equipped power. Keep in mind that many of those technologies are developed by civilians. Are you telling me that if tyrrany formed in the government, you'd rather roll over and take it rather than fight for your freedom?
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
There was a much smaller gap between the firepower of the military and civilians back then.

And no, I wouldn't roll over. I'm going to continue my family's proud tradition of dealing with serious issues. That being, running to the nearest safe haven.
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
The Americans only won because France intervened in the conflict. Prior to that, the Americans were constantly losing.

As for fighting back against a tyrannical government, unless the army decides to unilaterally side with the rebels or other countries intervene on their behalf, any rebellion would be crushed rather easily.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I'd rather prevent it by doing my civic duty in the first place to prevent the government from becoming dictatorial, and by correctly distinguishing between dictatorial behavior and reasonable behavior, and not proving I can't do so by lustily cheering on actual dictatorial behavior.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
However, the thing is that in 1776 the difference in technology available to the militias and available to the British wasn't very much different. You had muskets, and bayonets, and cannons and hopefully some ships. Nowadays, the military has tanks, drones, assault rifles... even nukes. The question of whether the top command would nuke its own infrastructure notwithstanding, a citizen militia would be severely outclassed in both tactics and weaponry. Meanwhile, the British had to sail across an ocean to get supplies over, which took much longer than it would now. Here in the US, we have land supply routes unless the rebellion starts in Hawaii or Guam. Plus, at least a good half of the nation supports these gun control measures, while loyalist support back in 1776 was at about 20%. Also note that many other British colonies also rebelled around the same timeframe, and pretty much all of the other rebellions were quashed.

Also, please note that I also don't support an assault weapons ban. It was assault rifles that I'm against citizens having. You can't kill as many people as quickly with a revolver or with grandpa's hunting rifle than with an M4, or even a Tommy Gun. And to say that if we had more lax gun laws, then the people in Aurora or Sandy Hook could've fought back- would you really want a shootout in such a chaotic situation? Imagine trying to find the shooter in a dark and dusty movie theater, when people are panicking and screaming. Imagine if there were other people shooting. In such a chaotic situation, could you really pinpoint the criminal in the seconds that you may have? And a shootout in a classroom of screaming kids shouldn't even be a question.

I'm not advocating taking away anyone's guns. I'm just advocating for responsible sale and use. As I said, a gun is a huge responsibility- if you aren't careful, people can die. If having to register or take background checks is a "burden" then so be it. If you can't take the responsibility of having your weapon registered, then maybe a firearm is too big a responsibility for you right now.

It may not stop all of the criminals, but you shouldn't discount a solution just because it isn't perfect. Drugs are illegal, but people still do them; should we make crack legal? Or rape? To discount an idea just because it isn't perfect is just nihilism.
Reply
:icongourmetprince:
GourmetPrince Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Professional General Artist
By restricting certain class of weapons there is no infringement - Americans would still be able to own arms. Fatuous argument.
Reply
:icongourmetprince:
GourmetPrince Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Oh geez lol. Normally I would start going on about how you guys sure love to classify weapons you know so little about, but the sheer fact that you use the word "fatuous" gets you immediately dismissed from any potential discussion.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
No, it means that you don't actually have an argument in response, no attempt to defend the accusation of fatuousness, just a blank denial of any position other than your own. Also fatuous and, alas, as to be expected.

Unless of course you have a different understanding of that word.

The right to bear arms is not something that can be denied without reshaping the US into something other than it is. So be it. The right to bear arms makes no comment about the nature of said arms, other than that they be firearms (see much of the discussion). Claiming otherwise is blatant sophistry at best, fatuous bawling at worst.
Reply
:icongourmetprince:
GourmetPrince Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
What part of dismissal do you not understand?

I'm not humoring you because I've already done it to fools so many times this month and I've found it to be absolutely fruitless.

Play that game with somebody else and take the recycled lines you learned from talking heads to somebody who gives a damn.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
So, you concede, or withdraw. Dismissal is not a valid response in a debate.
Reply
:icongourmetprince:
GourmetPrince Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Withdrawal.

Look, I don't mean to be so rude. Or single you out. Or any of that. It's just that it feels like this is the only thing I have talked about for weeks.

In those weeks I have presented many arguments to many different people.

Each encounter ending in a sense of utter dread and hopelessness when it was with someone with a very solidified anti-gun position.

Not once was I presented with a logical, professional argument in opposition to weapon freedom. Each encounter, the anti-gun position begins to use ridiculous emotional appeals or other unbelievably underhanded techniques in "debate".

None of the arguments ended in a beneficial way for either side. The country is literally split down the middle on this and it's tearing apart the unity of the union.

So forgive me if I'm not willing to hear the same things again and again in a fruitless attempt to undermine the very document that ensures Americans their freedoms.

Too many freedoms are lost already. Talk of any more is just.. It's a sadness I wish no one would have ever have to deal with. So if what you have is a packaged and deceptive approach to gun legislation then save it for someone whom it might matter on.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Personally I prefer to stick to facts.

The fact that every single developed country with heavy gun control of some type has massively fewer gun deaths is hard to ignore.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontrailerstash:
trailerstash Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Every one can understand that, because it is the thought by some people, a symbol of America. seems to me like, it is necessarily a good symbol? I am sure we can make a good impression of our nation in a less violent way.


____________________
Storage Melbourne
Melbourne self storage
Self storage Sydney
Reply
:iconswordofscotland:
SwordOfScotland Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
I like the fact that different firearms can be used for different results.  I mean, one can fire a weapon to do a variety of things from scaring an offender to killiing her/him.
Reply
:iconmiss-mustang:
miss-mustang Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
Yes, because it's always the guns...always. It's a bigger problem than that.
Reply
:iconscnal:
Scnal Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's a problem very difficult, with our current understanding nearly impossible to get anywhere near solving. We can't stop it at all. But we can't get much closer to solving it than trying to prevent their access to guns.
Reply
:iconmayela:
mayela Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
Guns, video-games and Marilyn Manson are easy to blame, but they're not the problem. Armed policemen in front of public buildings is just a placebo for the (rightfully) scared citizens, but I don't think that counts as part of a solution.

I think gun control is a valid semi-effective short-term measure that should be taken if the nation were in a state of emergency (I'm not sure if this is the case), but it's not a solution. USA needs to address a mental-health problem: you only want to keep crazy ones from miss-using guns, scissors, socks or whatever they could use to hurt others. You don't need to forbid guns, just to limit the right of ownership and usage to the sane and technically-competent ones.
Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
The Second Amendment has little to do with home securty from robbers, or hunting deer, though, they are "side effects" if you will of the amendment.

The Secod Amedment to United States Constitution is, along with nine others, part of the Bill of Rights. In the preamble to the bill of rights the founders lay out why they felt it was nessecery to add the first 10 amendments

"Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York,
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

With this knowldege, we can deduce that the right to bear arms, along with the other rights bestowed upon us, (not by government, but simply by the grace of being born) was granted to people to ensure that the tyranny that they were once ruled by from England would not come to pass in this country. We were given the right to bear arms to make sure that a "free state" would continue on into the future, to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

In short, the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from our government, not from other citizens. It is an amendment to the constitution that was put in place to defend all the other amendments. Thatis why itis nessecery, our government should fear us, not the other way around. Fortunately, at this time, they need only fear our votes and not our guns.To belive that this will always be so is nieve however and that is why the second amendment is so important.
Reply
:iconawake1:
awake1 Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012
The school the the Obama girls go to (Sidwell) has 11 armed guards. Why not have armed people at all schools?
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Guns don't kill people, stick insects do.
Reply
:icondc4894:
DC4894 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Really? ALL the amendments to the United States Constitution have been good? Last I checked, one amendment (18th) was nullified by another (21st) because the former was a HORRIBLE idea.

The Founding Fathers said it best:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

The Second Amendment's purpose is to defend against a tyrannical government. It is NOT about hunting, it is NOT about sport, it is NOT JUST about personal protection. The Second Amendment's purpose is to allow the people of the United States of America to remain free and independent. Look back at history. EVERY government has failed at some point. It happens, it ALWAYS happens. A revolution may not come tomorrow, it may not come next year, or even in the next century, but it WILL come and the Second Amendment guarantees us the ability to protect ourselves when it does.

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. It's your right NOT to bear arms, just as it's every American citizen's right TO bear arms. I'm responsible with my guns. I store them safely, transport them safely, and use them safely. None of my guns have been aimed at another human being while in my hands, and they never will be unless my life or liberty is at stake. Don't punish me for the evil actions of another person, blame the evil person. The problem isn't the gun; guns are just inanimate tools. The problem is the evil end user. Investigate the root of the problem, not just the outcome. Look at the connections of mass shooters. Look at the untreated or poorly treated mental illnesses. Look at the misuse, overdosage, and poor motioning of SSRI's and related drugs. Look at the connection. Don't try to bar me from bearing arms, fix our mental health system. Poor mental health care in this country is the real problem. Quit avoiding the REAL problem. Quit calling for gun law reform and start calling for mental health care reform.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
One scapegoat to another. People with autism and depression are less likely to be violent by ratio, not more. Viewing people with mental disabilities as high risk just because of that mental disability isn't the solution either.

Besides, what good will reforming mental health care do if people refuse treatment? Or don't see themselves as having a problem? Or don't have a problem at all? Some people are just evil bastards, and don't fall under a handy blamable umbrella if mental illness.
Reply
:icondc4894:
DC4894 Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I said nothing about people with mental disabilities. The disorder isn't necessairly the problem, it's the way it's treated. Our current health care system wants to fix everything with medication, and medications have side effects. There's a strong correlation between homicidal individuals and medication such as SSRI's. Clearly, those people sought help, but the "help" appeared to have backfired.

You're right, some peope are just plain bad. Problem is, those are the same people who blantly ignore the law and will obtain guns whether they're legal or not. There's no way of preventing people like that from getting guns.
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012
After does not mean because of. There are millions of people on ssri and less than 100, globally, confirmed shooters who were on or recently came off ssri. It's too convenient. Again, sounds like just another scapegoat.

Just because people find their way around laws doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws. Otherwise, what's the point of a legal system?
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
first it will be the assult weapons. then it will be the normal firearms, then it will be the non lethal weapons and at that point we'll be the UK

where if someone comes up to you with intents of mugging, raping, or stealing your stuff your only option is to grit your teeth, assume the fetal possition and :iconokaymemeplz: pepper spray, tasers, i wouldn't doubt that self defense in general is illegal in the UK and it's commonwealt.. we do not want or need this.

also it's about as despicable as this shooter to be using the death of little kids to push for gun control laws. for shame democrats... for shame.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
Or you know, it'll just be the assault weapons which serve only one purpose. I'll give you a hint, it isn't opening cans, it's killing other people.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
or hunting. target shooting. just collecting these things.

you see the problem here?
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
No, I don't. Is the problem that people should be allowed to have AK-47s because they think they are cool? I think tanks are cool, why can't I go and buy one? The government is repressing me! Waah! Waah! Cry cry cry, bitch bitch bitch, you get the point. You don't need a fucking AK-47, that's just stupid.
Reply
:iconrobstrand:
RobStrand Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012
It is our money and we spend it how we choose. What does it matter what we spend it on? What right is it for anyone to know what I spend my money on? If you can afford to spend your money on an AK-47 and the money t feed the thing then more power to you. I would rather see it in the hands of a responsible owner than in the hands of a gangbanger or some nutjob.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Professional General Artist
So you support the free access of child pornography, "Bath salts", landmines and so forth? Because that's what you seem to be arguing.
Reply
:iconrobstrand:
RobStrand Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Once again you are grouping completely unrelated things to this topic and classifying them as the same thing.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
Not at all, I'm just pointing out that your statement is open to some very strange consequences if followed as stated. I know what you meant, but I trust you are able to articulate it more clearly.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012
You don't need an AK-47. By your logic I should own a nuke. Why can't I if I can afford one? Help! I'm being oppressed!
Reply
:iconrobstrand:
RobStrand Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012
If you are good and finished quoting Monty Python then lets get back on subject.

Maybe the purpose is how much of a joy they are to shoot. There is nothing more therapeutic and stress reliving than rattling off a whole magazine at a target.

Maybe to admire it's feat in mechanical engineering and simplicity as a weapon of war. Only 8 moving parts, more than 175 million copies made, the main issued weapon of more than 200 countries. Served both villain and hero alike.
Reply
:iconscnal:
Scnal Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Then why do they ever need to leave a shooting range (or a mechanic's workshop licensed to own it, some place with licenses)? You may want one, but there's no reason you should be able to walk around with one.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
actually... [link]








:icontrollfaceplz: problem?
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
But the weapons cannot be operational and you cannot drive it on the public roads I believe. Help, I'm being repressed!
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
not all tanks have guns anyways, and you can make them street legal.
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Actually, I think you can buy a tank in some places so long as you don't drive it on the roads and the cannon is spiked. Your point still stands though.
Reply
:iconisolitude:
ISolitude Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
It's not about changing the constitution.

Right now, the right to bear arms is a right that Americans are born with. Changing that would mean taking away rights from law abiding citizens because a small minority of other people screwed up.
Reply
:iconionosphere-negate:
Ionosphere-Negate Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun control laws and regulations. Basically, we already have tyranny in the US.
Why people are still bickering over this, I'll never know.

[link]
Reply
:iconchocomalk:
chocomalk Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
That's the "The Militia Act of 1903" and it does not invalidate any gun laws. Here is the text: [link]
Commentary on the text: [link]
What it does do however is affirm the militia as something other than army or national guard.

The part of the 2nd amendment that states: "Shall not be infringed" is all you need to make that case.
Reply
:iconionosphere-negate:
Ionosphere-Negate Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
Same thing, but I've read it, and I don't see anything on guns for the unorganized militia (us) :/.

True, but Critical Theorists like to be fuckshits about it.
Reply
Add a Comment: