NATION

PASSWORD

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What is your opinion on gun control?

no restrictions on firearms
213
17%
some restrictions, but less restriction than there is now
375
31%
tighten regulation of guns by increasing registration or by banning certain types of guns
527
43%
all guns should be banned
110
9%
 
Total votes : 1225

User avatar
Lessnt
Senator
 
Posts: 3926
Founded: Jul 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lessnt » Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:17 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Lessnt wrote:Also since 22LR guns in the USA are very very popular they are likely to be the weapon used to kill most people who are killed with guns in the USA.

Kinda funny.
In the USA people are scared of the AK-47 and the Ar-15...
Yet the gun likely to kill them most is a 22LR.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/01/ex ... rs-in-200/
And people do not want guns in california....let all the crazy people have them then....like that is gonna be better.
This is why I seriously contemplate getting some body armor.
Not allowed to carry a gun but allowed to wear body armor.


News medias like Fox and CNN are the worst place to get firearm knowledge, or even crime statistics involving firearms. In general I wouldnt rely on any news source for gun crime stats.

I do not.
I know the Laws and the crimes in my state.
All of which still point to getting body armor.

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9890
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chernoslavia » Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:19 pm

Lessnt wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
News medias like Fox and CNN are the worst place to get firearm knowledge, or even crime statistics involving firearms. In general I wouldnt rely on any news source for gun crime stats.

I do not.
I know the Laws and the crimes in my state.
All of which still point to getting body armor.


Just saying
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Geresbeth
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Apr 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Geresbeth » Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:31 pm

I don't agree with guns AT ALL, being a pacifist ( but please don't all start yelling about the importance of the military. I've heard it all before and thats not what this thread is about) and yes, I think they should be banned.
Say one respectable, middle class man has a gun. He keeps it in a safe place, doesn't use it and thinks of it as a precaution. But if this man has a messed up son/daughter, how difficult would it be for them to find, procure and use it?
Of course the U.S aren't going to change the law, thats quite obvious, but thats no reason not to have an intelligent debate about it. I don't think that banning guns would stop crime, of course I don't, but it would probably make it less.
And don't legalise drugs either for goodness sake! All thats going to do is to increase crime- even the most respectable of people act much differently under the influence of drugs.
Pacifist, pro-gay marriage, atheist/agnostic, humanitarian.
Geresbeth provides humanitarian aid to anyone in a crisis. If you want us to join a thread (I/C) please telegram us.
Regards, Elisabeth Kellir, High Lady of Geresbeth

User avatar
Lessnt
Senator
 
Posts: 3926
Founded: Jul 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lessnt » Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:37 pm

Geresbeth wrote:I don't agree with guns AT ALL, being a pacifist ( but please don't all start yelling about the importance of the military. I've heard it all before and thats not what this thread is about) and yes, I think they should be banned.
Say one respectable, middle class man has a gun. He keeps it in a safe place, doesn't use it and thinks of it as a precaution. But if this man has a messed up son/daughter, how difficult would it be for them to find, procure and use it?
Of course the U.S aren't going to change the law, thats quite obvious, but thats no reason not to have an intelligent debate about it. I don't think that banning guns would stop crime, of course I don't, but it would probably make it less.
And don't legalise drugs either for goodness sake! All thats going to do is to increase crime- even the most respectable of people act much differently under the influence of drugs.

Incorrect.
Armed criminals and unarmed civilians increase crime.

User avatar
Geresbeth
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Apr 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Geresbeth » Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:45 pm

Lessnt wrote:
Geresbeth wrote:I don't agree with guns AT ALL, being a pacifist ( but please don't all start yelling about the importance of the military. I've heard it all before and thats not what this thread is about) and yes, I think they should be banned.
Say one respectable, middle class man has a gun. He keeps it in a safe place, doesn't use it and thinks of it as a precaution. But if this man has a messed up son/daughter, how difficult would it be for them to find, procure and use it?
Of course the U.S aren't going to change the law, thats quite obvious, but thats no reason not to have an intelligent debate about it. I don't think that banning guns would stop crime, of course I don't, but it would probably make it less.
And don't legalise drugs either for goodness sake! All thats going to do is to increase crime- even the most respectable of people act much differently under the influence of drugs.

Incorrect.
Armed criminals and unarmed civilians increase crime.

I agree on armed criminals. However, if civilians were armed,this might happen. They'd see a criminal, and go 'Oh, I know, I'm armed, so's he, I'll shoot him first' Whichever way you look at it, there's a dead body and a crime. I'm not saying that I am right and that my ideas should be put into place however. I will be the first to acknowledge that my ideas and plans have flaws in them, but they are my opinions ;) and I try not to allow them to be offensive to anyone ( if I do, please let me know).
Pacifist, pro-gay marriage, atheist/agnostic, humanitarian.
Geresbeth provides humanitarian aid to anyone in a crisis. If you want us to join a thread (I/C) please telegram us.
Regards, Elisabeth Kellir, High Lady of Geresbeth

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9890
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chernoslavia » Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:31 pm

Geresbeth wrote:
Lessnt wrote:Incorrect.
Armed criminals and unarmed civilians increase crime.

I agree on armed criminals. However, if civilians were armed,this might happen. They'd see a criminal, and go 'Oh, I know, I'm armed, so's he, I'll shoot him first' Whichever way you look at it, there's a dead body and a crime. I'm not saying that I am right and that my ideas should be put into place however. I will be the first to acknowledge that my ideas and plans have flaws in them, but they are my opinions ;) and I try not to allow them to be offensive to anyone ( if I do, please let me know).


I respect your opinion, but in NSG expect somebody to start throwing shit at you and by shit I mean hate comments. Half of people here on NSG know nothing more than to start argueing pointlessly at someone who was just expressing their own opinion.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Gun Manufacturers
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10141
Founded: Jan 23, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gun Manufacturers » Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:14 pm

Geresbeth wrote:I don't agree with guns AT ALL, being a pacifist ( but please don't all start yelling about the importance of the military. I've heard it all before and thats not what this thread is about) and yes, I think they should be banned.
Say one respectable, middle class man has a gun. He keeps it in a safe place, doesn't use it and thinks of it as a precaution. But if this man has a messed up son/daughter, how difficult would it be for them to find, procure and use it?
Of course the U.S aren't going to change the law, thats quite obvious, but thats no reason not to have an intelligent debate about it. I don't think that banning guns would stop crime, of course I don't, but it would probably make it less.
And don't legalise drugs either for goodness sake! All thats going to do is to increase crime- even the most respectable of people act much differently under the influence of drugs.


That's one of the reasons these are made.

Image

Image
Gun control is like trying to solve drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.

Any accident you can walk away from is one I can laugh at.

DOJ's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi ... -p0126.pdf

Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...


Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo


Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.


Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

User avatar
Sucrati
Senator
 
Posts: 4575
Founded: Jun 05, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sucrati » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:54 pm

Geresbeth wrote:
Lessnt wrote:Incorrect.
Armed criminals and unarmed civilians increase crime.

I agree on armed criminals. However, if civilians were armed,this might happen. They'd see a criminal, and go 'Oh, I know, I'm armed, so's he, I'll shoot him first' Whichever way you look at it, there's a dead body and a crime. I'm not saying that I am right and that my ideas should be put into place however. I will be the first to acknowledge that my ideas and plans have flaws in them, but they are my opinions ;) and I try not to allow them to be offensive to anyone ( if I do, please let me know).


Just because someone has been found guilty of a crime doesn't mean that they are automatically armed. Some criminals actually go straight and don't break the law after receiving their punishment. So automatically assuming a criminal is armed is a bad way to determine the right to stand your ground. Usually those who follow the law are using their firearms AFTER the armed criminals make threats or use said firearms or other weapons. And most responsible gun owners don't do what you stated above. It's usually the other way around but with the civilian being unarmed.
Economic Left/Right: 7.12; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92
George Washington wrote:"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

User avatar
Patriqvinia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1336
Founded: Oct 08, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Patriqvinia » Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:20 pm

Geresbeth wrote:
Lessnt wrote:Incorrect.
Armed criminals and unarmed civilians increase crime.

I agree on armed criminals. However, if civilians were armed,this might happen. They'd see a criminal, and go 'Oh, I know, I'm armed, so's he, I'll shoot him first' Whichever way you look at it, there's a dead body and a crime. I'm not saying that I am right and that my ideas should be put into place however. I will be the first to acknowledge that my ideas and plans have flaws in them, but they are my opinions ;) and I try not to allow them to be offensive to anyone ( if I do, please let me know).

In one scenario, there's a dead body shot person (people often don't die from being shot), a crime, and that crime's retribution.
Диявол любить ховатися за хрест
+: Voluntarism/panarchism.
-: Authoritarian stuff.
Economic: +8.44 right
Social: +8.89 libertarian
Foreign-Policy: +10 non-interventionist
Cultural: +2.24 liberal

*This anti-subsidy, anti-IP persona brought to you by your friends at Monsanto[TM][R] and Koch Industries[TM][R]!*

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, DataDyneIrkenAlliance, Dimetrodon Empire, Floofybit, Google [Bot], Hidrandia, Nerasian Empire, Plan Neonie, Shearoa, Tungstan, Western Theram, Wisteria and Surrounding Territories

Advertisement

Remove ads