Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 24, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 307

Banning more types of guns even 'hand' guns?

:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
[link]

What's your take. Some will be grandfathered in. Many will be in a National Registry.

Your thoughts.
Reply

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

Devious Comments

:iconimprovidentscion:
ImprovidentScion Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
More damning of the gun control movement than Feinstein's bill are the ones being proposed at the state level that, in no obscure wording, require owners of "assault weapons" (defined as semi-auto rifles with collapsible/folding stocks, flash hider, barrel shroud, and/or detachable magazine) to register their weapons, or become automatic felons.

Kind of puts to rest the whole "hurr durr nobody wants to take ur guns lol" arguments.

Minnesota: [link]

Missouri: [link]

TL;DR - all gun owners are violent felons waiting to happen, so we need to register them and/or take their guns away just in case.

The bigotry of the gun control movement is astounding. Anyone who owns a scary black AR-15 is just another mass shooter waiting to happen, all gun owners are paranoid wackos who want to shoot anyone who comes on their property, we should force them to register their firearms/take out a costly insurance policy (because only rich white people should be allowed to own guns!).

Christ, you people sound like all the "Patriotic 'Murricans" after 9/11 who immediately judged & stereotyped Muslims & Sikhs. We need to infiltrate mosques and waterboard people, even if it saves just one life! We need to have the FBI read our emails, and get strip-searched at airports to protect our children against this menace!

Just more bleating from petty tyrants who project their own inadequacies onto people who just want to be left alone.
Reply
:iconcrimsonmagpie:
CrimsonMagpie Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
The idea of weapons not being registered is madness. 
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
This whole banning guns bandwagon is a disgrace to our country.

None of these laws if enacted, will ever stop gun violence or mass shootings. NEVER.

Obama is an idiot and so are those who fall in line with his idiocy.
Reply
:iconmoofactory:
moofactory Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2013
maybe in YOUR country because its fucked up regardless.
But here in Australia, since the change in gun laws after port arthur there has not been one single mass shooting incident.
Fact of the matter is, if these kinds of weapons dont even exist in the country then they can not be used.

full auto/semi auto rifles of the magazine variety / handguns with more than 10 rounds.. destroy all existing and ban imports their after... NO more mass killings via guns... EVER.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Don't give a shit about your country, or what works or doesn't work. Your country is not that exceptional.

We are Americans, and we love AMERICAN FREEDOM. It differs from every fucking country in the world, including yours. There is no country quite like the USA.

Our Constitution is more important than any one life.
And quite frankly, if your country had to be destroyed for America to stay the bastion of freedom, we would see to it asap.

Lesser countries are not our models. We don't aspire to be like the world, we aspire to be free.

We will never give up our guns.

Some people just have to die for the sake of freedom.

Tough shit, man up! Or don't you dingos have any balls down under?
Reply
:iconmoofactory:
moofactory Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
Typical Arrogance from a gun toting hillbilly.

And shit yeah our dingos have balls.. they eat babies!
You lot just shoot them in schools.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
So you abort your babies by way of wild dog?

And hey, shit happens. So some kids got killed, no reason to give up rights to the frightened sheep of the world like you.
Reply
:iconimprovidentscion:
ImprovidentScion Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Yeah, you basically turned a bunch of your countrymen into felons overnight, because of someone else's actions. Next time some bogan's had too much grog and stabs a few folks, your government ought to prevent you from owning certain types of knives. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Reply
:iconmoofactory:
moofactory Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2013
They already did that, Banning certain types of knives I mean.
And yes.. it does make perfect sense.

No one needs knives designed for concealment or for killing people.
Daggers, automatic knives, single handed opening knives, butterfly knives, trench knives, ballistic knives, concealed knives/blades, throwing knives/blades/axes, star knives, push knives, sheath knives, non-metallic knives.

All on the prohibited list.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Can you show statistically where banning guns have failed. Another person pointed to Australia's information on reducing gun violence.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Chicago.

There are more, but that one there is enough to win the debate.
Reply
:icondorsaispirit:
Dorsaispirit Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It did affect gun violence. As did the ban in the U.K. But what about other types of crime? How has that trend changed since the ban was enacted? Everything must be looked at, not just one type of violence. After all, if the overall violent crime rate increased, then you have to ask if it was worth it.

After all, if there are more rapes, muggings, and armed assaults then it says something about the nature of humans. We are violent creatures and we will find a way to cause violence against each other.
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Professional Photographer
The bottom line -- the absolute bottom line-- is that the Constitution states that we have the inalienable right to bear arms to protect against a corrupt and tyrannical government. Guns are for the law abiding citizens to keep their rights intact.

By the way, people who are spouting statistics-- make sure you are looking at the whole picture. Yes, the US has more gun related deaths than Europe, a country with a gun ban... but Europe has ASTRONOMICAL rates of violent crime and rapes. People who used to defend themselves are now less capable-- and it all happened after the gun ban. Not to mention the fact that of our murders, only a tiny percentage of them are committed with guns. More guns are used to defend than they are to hurt---- in a country where they are all legal and easy to get to by the citizens.
Reply
:icongvcspecks:
gvcspecks Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013
HAH! Europe, country...........................................................................
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2013  Professional Photographer
Yes, lololol, I made a mistake...
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
The bottom line -- the absolute bottom line-- is that the Constitution states that we have the inalienable right to bear arms to protect against a corrupt and tyrannical government.

1) That is not what the Constitution says.

2) Anyone who thinks the guns they own will protect them against the government is dreaming.

Yes, the US has more gun related deaths than Europe, a country with a gun ban... but Europe has ASTRONOMICAL rates of violent crime and rapes.

A gun is not a guaruntee of protection against a mugger.

Also, lol at "Europe, a country with a gun ban."

Not to mention the fact that of our murders, only a tiny percentage of them are committed with guns.

Wrong. Guns are the #1 homocide weapon of choice, and are used in numbers almost 10X greater than the #2 weapon of choice.
[link]

More guns are used to defend than they are to hurt

Wrong again. Justifiable homocides with guns are dwarfed by homocides.
[link]
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013  Professional Photographer
1) It is.

2) Yeah, because it would be one person against a government army at all times... no. People who are armed can form effective militias. United, we are a HUGE standing army-- an army with real weapons. If we all have it in our heads to protect our rights, that's damn well what is going to happen.

Alright, apologies, I misspoke. Britain. A gun is not a guarantee against protection from a mugger, but it sure as hell has protected a HUGE number of people. If I knew I was going to get mugged and I had the choice of a gun or some other blunt weapon / knife, I'd want a damn gun.

Here's some links for you too: [link]

[link]

*A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]
*Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]


[link]
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
1) It is.

Point to the line, then. Last I checked, rebellion against the United States Government is treason regardless of circumstances. Also, the 2nd Ammendment never states anything about protection from a corrupt government.

People who are armed can form effective militias. United, we are a HUGE standing army-- an army with real weapons.

And the United States military has tanks, aircraft, intelligence satellites, and trained commandos. It outmatches the militia on every single level, including training.

That's just the military. I haven't included local law enforcement or the FBI.

Alright, apologies, I misspoke. Britain.

Great. Provide some statistics.

If I knew I was going to get mugged and I had the choice of a gun or some other blunt weapon / knife, I'd want a damn gun.

In reality, you won't actually know that, hence you have to be expecting trouble in order to be marginally effective with your gun. In public, that comes across as paranoid and poses an unecessary risk to bystanders.

Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

If they are including occupations where carrying a weapon is part of the job description, the entire argument is flawed.

Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

Also a flawed argument. This is a cross-section of all violent crimes, which includes assault. Of course it makes gun crime look small by comparison. That doesn't change the fact that, when it comes to hurting people, guns are the weapon of choice, as evidenced by the homocide statistics I provided.
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Professional Photographer
I don't have time for this debate anymore, so I'm keeping this brief:

-The second amendment states that we are to bear arms for the security of a FREE STATE. Since the people are the state, if our freedoms are in jeopardy, it follows that we should be allowed to bear arms to protect them.

"And the United States military has tanks, aircraft, intelligence satellites, and trained commandos. It outmatches the militia on every single level, including training."

-And yet they took like a decade to make a dent in the war against people who have pretty basic weaponry comparatively, and they never even beat them. I think you underestimate human beings.

"In reality, you won't actually know that, hence you have to be expecting trouble in order to be marginally effective with your gun. In public, that comes across as paranoid and poses an unecessary risk to bystanders."

-Knowing you are going to be attacked and being fully prepared (mentally and physically) to be attacked... fairly similar. I don't care what it comes across as, and isn't a mugger who is unchecked and unchallenged more of a risk?

"If they are including occupations where carrying a weapon is part of the job description, the entire argument is flawed."

Did you even read the quote? It specifically states that it EXCLUDES those people.

"guns are the weapon of choice, as evidenced by the homocide statistics I provided."

Then the weapon of choice would change, just like it did in other countries with gun bans. People keep getting hurt and killed, but are just less likely to be able to defend themselves. Oh, and their governments are usually tyrannical. *ahemChinaahem*

That's all. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. I guess we'll find out in the end.
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
The second amendment states that we are to bear arms for the security of a FREE STATE. Since the people are the state, if our freedoms are in jeopardy, it follows that we should be allowed to bear arms to protect them.

Those rights are not unlimited you know. The Supreme Court has stated this multiple times.

And yet they took like a decade to make a dent in the war against people who have pretty basic weaponry comparatively, and they never even beat them. I think you underestimate human beings.

That was an unpopular war overseas, one which we didn't have reason to be fighting in the first place. A civil war would not have those same obstacles. For proof, look at the American Civil War. Both sides were much more evenly matched, yet in the end, the Confederacy still wound up being crushed. If that happened again today, it would be even less likely for the rebels to win the war.

I don't care what it comes across as, and isn't a mugger who is unchecked and unchallenged more of a risk?

Everyone around you not wanting to get shot would probably care, as would the police. Acting paranoid like that screams "I'M MENTALLY UNSTABLE" to normal people.
And no, a paranoid gun nut with a hair trigger is more of a threat. A shootout in public has risks like collateral damage.

Then the weapon of choice would change, just like it did in other countries with gun bans. People keep getting hurt and killed, but are just less likely to be able to defend themselves.

You don't need a gun to defend yourself. You have other weapons, like your fists. And to be honest, given a choice between being shot and being stabbed, you're less likely to recieve a fatal injury from a knife. For comparison, there was a mass knifing at a Chinese school around the same time as the Sandy Hook shooting, yet there were no fatalities.

Oh, and their governments are usually tyrannical. *ahemChinaahem*

Or they are modern countries like France, Japan, Germany, etc.
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Professional Photographer
"Those rights are not unlimited you know. The Supreme Court has stated this multiple times."

But they are inalienable. Are you saying that our rights should be taken away or that it is okay that they're infringed upon for any reason?

"That was an unpopular war overseas, one which we didn't have reason to be fighting in the first place."

So the millions/billions of dollars for weaponry, infrastructure, etc and thousands upon thousands of men and women who were fighting there don't count because the war was unpopular? We agree on one thing, we had no business being over there and the war was bullcrap.

"For proof, look at the American Civil War. Both sides were much more evenly matched, yet in the end, the Confederacy still wound up being crushed."

If you want to go back that far, you might as well look at the American Revolution. A fledgling country beat out the English even though it did not even come close to their power / weaponry / numbers etc. However, while it would be a civil war, what would happen today and what happened then aren't necessarily comparable. Look at the countries who are fighting guerrilla wars now with the weapons we have in this day and age.

"Everyone around you not wanting to get shot would probably care, as would the police."

Lol, the police have tons of accidental shootings when they are trying to "catch" a criminal, and you want them to be the only ones with guns? There are tons and tons of situations where a regular citizen has saved themselves and/or their families from burglars, rapists etc while they were alone at home and did not accidentally shoot anyone, just as well as all the stories of regular citizens protecting businesses from burglars and not shooting other people. Here ya go: [link]

"Acting paranoid like that screams "I'M MENTALLY UNSTABLE" to normal people."

People who have guns aren't automatically paranoid or mentally unstable. That's a ridiculous assumption.

"You don't need a gun to defend yourself."

If your attackers do, it's a great idea to have one yourself.

"Or they are modern countries like France, Japan, Germany, etc."

Is China not modern? Who says France, Japan and Germany aren't going down (or further down) the same tangent? Especially Japan, which doesn't have a standing army anyway so it's not the same situation, and Germany, which doesn't even let their adult constituents play regular video games. So yeah.
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
But they are inalienable. Are you saying that our rights should be taken away or that it is okay that they're infringed upon for any reason?

It means that restrictions can be placed on them. The First Ammendment, for example, does not allow someone to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The same kind of common sense applies to the rest of the Constitution, and court cases like DC vs. Heller affirm this.

So the millions/billions of dollars for weaponry, infrastructure, etc and thousands upon thousands of men and women who were fighting there don't count because the war was unpopular?

The fact that it was overseas, unpopular, and had ill-defined goals makes it a poor example.

If you want to go back that far, you might as well look at the American Revolution. A fledgling country beat out the English even though it did not even come close to their power / weaponry / numbers etc

Also a long, expensive, and overseas conflict which, believe it or not, was unpopular in England. The rebels also lost many of their battles and had aid from France.

However, while it would be a civil war, what would happen today and what happened then aren't necessarily comparable.

Correct. Instead of a 5-year long bloodbath, a repeat of the American Civil War would likely be a curbstomp by the US army. Now, more than ever, states are interdependent and reliant on the federal government.

Lol, the police have tons of accidental shootings when they are trying to "catch" a criminal, and you want them to be the only ones with guns?

1) Strawman. I never said that.
2) The police have more exposure to gunfights than Joe Sixpack. Incidentally, this brings up another point; police are often trained on how to use their guns, something which civilians are not required to do. That cannot possibly end well.

There are tons and tons of situations where a regular citizen has saved themselves and/or their families from burglars, rapists etc while they were alone at home and did not accidentally shoot anyone, just as well as all the stories of regular citizens protecting businesses from burglars and not shooting other people.

Plenty of other stories about how lax gun laws lead to guns finding their way into the posession of felons and morons who shouldn't have them in the first place, resulting in one homocide too many.

People who have guns aren't automatically paranoid or mentally unstable

People who walk around with their guns at the ready do unless they have a really good reason.

If your attackers do, it's a great idea to have one yourself.

Sure, assuming you're getting robbed by a total moron. If the other guy already has his gun out, your gun won't do any good.

Who says France, Japan and Germany aren't going down (or further down) the same tangent?

The fact that there would have been plenty of opportunity, yet none of those countries spontaneously turned into brutal dictatorships within the last 20 years, especially France.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
" arms to protect against a corrupt and tyrannical government. Guns are for the law abiding citizens to keep their rights intact. " Sadly, there has been others who have said that is not in the Constitution. Citizens have no right to rebel.

"Not to mention the fact that of our murders, only a tiny percentage of them are committed with guns. More guns are used to defend than they are to hurt---- in a country where they are all legal and easy to get to by the citizens."

I have never thought about that end. That's a good point.
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Professional Photographer
Also thank you, the media doesn't often tell the other side of the statistics. People really have to dig for simple statistics these days.
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Professional Photographer
"Citizens have no right to rebel." Like our forefathers rebelled against King George?

The second amendment 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.


NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a FREE State. If the citizens are allowed to bear weaponry specifically for their freedom, it logically follows that they are allowed to use them to protect the security of their free state.
Reply
:iconapidae12:
Apidae12 Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
I like to compare Australia and the United States because, many years ago, the two countries were very similar.

Same gun culture and gun use. Same young history. Same violent beginnings.
However, concerning massacres, both countries reacted very differently.

The Port Arthur massacre was one of the worst massacres in modern Australian history. A man shot and killed over 30 people and injured dozens more in an apparently "random" attack. He suffered from mental health issues.
Almost immediately, John Howard, the very conservative Prime Minister, tightened gun control laws so much that it successfully reduced gun related crimes by almost 50%.
Assault weapons were banned. Hand gun licenses were only given to members of target shooting organisations, and they had to participate in a minimum number of shows every year. Background checks for purchasing guns became extremely lengthy, on top of a 28 day waiting period. Want to buy a gun for self-defence? That's no longer considered a good enough reason.

Gun-related crimes are very low in Australia. In one year, there were approximately 56 deaths via gun homicide. In the United States? 11,344.

I don't think that banning weapons outright would solve any problems in the US - there are so many other issues that tie in with guns that make this whole ordeal that much more difficult. Racial issues, education, healthcare, mental health issues - everything is tied in together and saying "we should ban weapons" would not be an ideal approach.

That being said, I think it would be wise for the US to take a leaf out of Australia's book and follow in their steps. There's no need for people to have assault weapons, or access to extended magazines.
Personally, I don't even think people should have guns for self-defence, considering the statistics say that people with guns in the home are at a far greater risk of dying of homicide than those without guns. And a gun in the home is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a friend or family member than an intruder.
[link]

In the end, obviously this is a very sensitive issue but I personally feel that gun control should be much tighter and having guns for self-defence is actually more dangerous than not having one.
Reply
:iconmoofactory:
moofactory Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
Basically my stance on it also.

I feel sad for people there that say "this is my lifeline, I wouldn't step outside without one"
If you feel the need to carry a gun or have one in the home for protection... then your country is fucked up and you along with it.

No one here needs guns.
No one here lives in fear of being assaulted.
Its a fucked up mentality Americans have regarding personal protection.
Reply
:iconapidae12:
Apidae12 Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
Thanks :)
I definitely agree - guns are dangerous, and of course people will want to use them to defend themselves, but not everyone is responsible enough to carry a gun. So many children get ahold of guns and kill other kids at school by accident. So many people have their guns stolen from them which end up on the black market.

The only time I'd be happy to have so many guns around is in a zombie apocalypse lol
Reply
:iconmoofactory:
moofactory Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
At the end of the day, Owning a fire arm should be like driving a car.
It's a privilege, not a right.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
End of the day the 2nd Amendment is a right. It doesn't say 'Bill of Privilegeds.'
Reply
:iconmoofactory:
moofactory Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
yeah you keep hiding behind that 200+ year old piece of paper.
It was an Amendment.... what makes you think they cant make another Amendment to annul the 2nd.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Who says I'm hiding. And that Amendment is a good one.
Reply
:icondorsaispirit:
Dorsaispirit Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I have an idea. If all these politicians want to ban personally owned firearms, then they should be making a very large public showing of them disposing of their weapons. After all, if the general public isn't allowed to own a pistol, then why should a senator, who is escorted by armed security at all times, get to own and carry one?

Or are we going to allow them them to split us into those that can, and those that can't own something? Sounds an awful lot like creating classes of people to me.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Exactly.

Good point
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Short of banning all weapons and a magical wand to make all weapons vanish from the world.... It doesn't make sense.

National mental health is the only means by which we may reduce mass killings and solve other social and political problems
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah.

What about people deemed as unstable. For all we know that 'Christians' or well those who are religions can 'hear' voices, yet not be szeheoprhenic. Not all 'religious people' though hear voices. The general premise of 'hearing from God', can be through signs, and lean more to magical thinking. And what if the majority of those not allowed guns are minorities, then we have to worry again about discrimination?

I'm no sure if they said the shooter had Autism or not. But not all those with Autism are violent. Will this law discriminate against those who are harmless.

Some people do make comments of "I'll kill x, if I find out." But they say it out of anger, and not to kill.

:shrug:

Does this mean that mental health checks are needed for all people who own guns now, or get guns? But it did not stop him from getting one. I mean, if person 'x' has it, and they steal it from their aunt, uncle etc.

AS others have said, criminals do crimes.
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
1) there is a difference between believing you see god or hear god through a veriaty of means... And hearing god and acting upon that voice.

Armatures or those not even in the medical fields can't really tell the difference... And thus give your examples to try and start an argument, not a discussion.

1b) as for discrimination... Nothing discrimitory about failing to meet the minimum guide lines of sanity. Don't meet them, you don't get the gun.

If a minority group is so damaged by something that they can't meet the minimums... That should be a red flag to society that we are damaging a minority group somehow.

See how a national mental healthcare system helps society in other ways? Win/win.


2) again. Discrimitory laws are Jim crow laws... They are made because there is no actual use for them. As some artistic people (most from what I have seen) cannot be trusted (violent or not) with a weapon... You cannot lower the sanity and or mental health requirments, due to hurt feelings.

Otherwise we ought not be allowed to imprison criminals as almost all of them have some mental condition which makes them damaged goods or they become so damaged by prison.


3) gun saftey is the owners responsibility. There is no room for failing this. You will keep it locked up or you will fry. Your damaged family member ought not have access to the key at any time... No excuses.

So unless your entire gun safe is stolen and you weren't home to report it that day... You fry in the electric chair with your family member.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nice points.

"2) again. Discrimitory laws are Jim crow laws... They are made because there is no actual use for them. As some artistic people (most from what I have seen) cannot be trusted (violent or not) with a weapon... You cannot lower the sanity and or mental health requirments, due to hurt feelings."

Ok, say person x had PTSD because she was raped. She has gotten a gun to protect herself, or heck to be unbiased, even a gay man, or lesbian, either way they have gotten this weapon for protection. If PTSD as a disorder is in the DSM-IV and it's a mental health issue, that would prevent them from protecting themselves then. How would they do so from any attacker who came in their home?

Not all 'mental ill' can be tucked into a sweeping statement. Those with Autism can be lumped in. It's got to take into account the check if for everyone better not be just some scan over, but thorough check.

That's just my opinion. As to hurt feelings, more 'hurt' can happen if a person who has been hurt, isn't allowed to have any protection.
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
If they can't own a weapon until they are fixed... then they can't own a weapon until they are fixed. It sucks, there aren't any perfect solutions, but that is life.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What do you mean 'fixed'?
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2013
Their mental status. Until they are deemed mentally acceptable to own a weapon. Able to pass said mental fitness test. ECT...
Reply
:iconkinoc-kun:
Kinoc-Kun Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Because criminals all totally obey the law, right? It would honestly do more harm than good. Citizens who obey the ban on guns would be helpless to defend themselves from people with guns.

Look at Chicago, they have a lot of gun control laws, yet they are one of the biggest cities for homicide and gun violence in the country.
Reply
:iconmapper3:
mapper3 Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
...But if there aren't any guns to begin with, then the victims won't have to protect themselves from anything.
Reply
:iconkinoc-kun:
Kinoc-Kun Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Why would there be no guns to begin with? Something being illegal has never stopped people from attaining it in the past. Just look at pot, illegal in over half the states and I see people smoking it daily.
Reply
:iconmapper3:
mapper3 Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I don't want guns to be outlawed (I agree, that wouldn't do jackshit), but more stable gun policy and background checks would definitely help on the violence front.
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Professional Photographer
Background checks definitely, but be careful about even reasonable looking gun control laws... if it can be twisted to be used against law abiding citizens then it will be.
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yep.

And how will one prevent say their children who are 18 from breaking into a gun cabinet? :shrug:
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Professional Photographer
Don't hide the guns away, teach the kids about them, and teach them so hard in fact that they get bored with it and wouldn't want to go in the stupid gun cabinet anyway.

That's how my older, gun-toting, hunting Republican-blooded guy friend told me his dad kept him away from the guns, lol! After every shoot, his dad would come in and throw him the unloaded gun and make him meticulously take apart and clean every piece. He said by the time he was old enough to have cared, he was too bored and gun safety was ingrained into the fiber of his being lmao

Knowledge is always power!
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Good points.
Reply
:iconsuinaliath:
Suinaliath Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Professional Photographer
Thanks :)
Reply
Add a Comment: