| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| where is your stand |
| total disarmament |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| strict guns control |
|
53% |
[ 15 ] |
| light guns control |
|
21% |
[ 6 ] |
| free access to guns |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
The debates:
1)Pro
quote:
Originally posted by http://www.gunfree.org/content/resources/frame_resc_newissue.html
..."Nearly 30,000 Americans die each year from guns — far more than in any other industrialized nation. Twice as many victims are treated for non-fatal gunshot wounds. That’s nearly 100,000 Americans who pass through the doors of hospital emergency rooms every year with serious or fatal gun injuries. The medical and social costs of gun violence in our country are estimated to be $100 billion per year."
2)Anti
quote:
Originally posted by Compilation of figures from National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 121, and Harvard Medical Practice Study (1990)
"In the United States, you are nearly 3 times more likely to die from 'Doctor Negligence' than from all gun deaths combined, including homicide, suicide and accidental."
quote:
Originally posted by National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, 1996 data.
"While the number of privately owned firearms has quadrupled since 1930, the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has declined 65%. Firearms are involved in only 1% of accidental fatalities nationwide."
I am not in favor of total disarmament or guns banning for all, since most guns owners in America is caring & law-abiding citizens. The groups that with guns we should worry about is criminals; furthermore, they always have other means to get a guns and the disarmament only leave law-abiding citizens defendless against criminals or women against sexual abuser or maniacs. Even more so the Second Amendment assure all U.S citizens the right of bearing guns.
However, i'm also doubtful of unlimited freedom or access to firearms for everyone, especially in light of shooting incidents at schools in recent years (for example April 20, 1999 - shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.). I favor some kind of light gun control measures, such as age restriction for carrying guns, background checks, and licensing. Also, i think we should enforce any laws we currently have before deciding to make even more laws; if it proves to been ineffectives then we could consider new laws.
_________________
 |
Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:17 am |
|
|
XeroX
The MasterCopy
Joined: 13 Dec 2001
Posts: 7125
Location: The Netherlands |
I am in favor of strictvgun control. If you ban it completely to many people would complain.
You can turn the con into a pro very easely. 'Doctor Negligence' causes more deaths then fatal gun shots. If youhave a non fatal gun shot you have to go to the hospital and face those 'Doctor Negligence'. That is a increased posibility of death.
The could set up a database for guns. Every barrel has a fingerprint. Register all guns fingerprint with owner in a database. Then if there is a gunshot, you only need the bullet to indentify the owner.
_________________
The original RED poster (retired now)
=Moderator of The SportsFans Club=
=member of The NFG + Shadows + WWW + PC=
To join the Sportfans PM me
www.feyenoord.com |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:30 am |
|
|
HiddenX
The Elder Spy
Joined: 20 Jul 2001
Posts: 749
Location: NRW / Germany |
i vote for strict control.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild= |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:32 am |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
quote:
Originally posted by XeroX
...You can turn the con into a pro very easely. 'Doctor Negligence' causes more deaths then fatal gun shots. If youhave a non fatal gun shot you have to go to the hospital and face those 'Doctor Negligence'. That is a increased posibility of death.
quote:
Originally posted by XeroX
The could set up a database for guns. Every barrel has a fingerprint. Register all guns fingerprint with owner in a database. Then if there is a gunshot, you only need the bullet to indentify the owner.
what is someone else use the guns/bullet?, or stolen guns/bullet?, and the criminal can always get an illegal/unregistered/no fingerprint guns?
_________________
|
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:36 am |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
There is absolutely no reason for anybody to ever have a gun. If cought with a gun you should get your head chopped off. No questions asked. Problem solved.
_________________
(@) |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 1:04 pm |
|
|
Windwalking
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 227
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
There is absolutely no reason for anybody to ever have a gun. If cought with a gun you should get your head chopped off. No questions asked. Problem solved.
Hunting? Self defense (if you're weak vs. strong burglar)?
I would prefer that guns did not exist, but the reality is that they do, and that criminals will have them regardless of whether or not they are outlawed. In the long run, outlawing guns now may make it hard for crims 20 years from now to have guns, but in the meantime, it will be crims vs. good citizens, one with guns, one without. I voted for strict gun control, but really, none of it works that effectively because criminals usually attain guns illegally.
Another point is that Americans have an ingrained sense of having the right to bear arms. Right or wrong, that is such a strong sentiment that depriving people of that is unfeasible.
But I just look at European countries, where homicide rates are so drastically lower than in America (last figures I heard said that France, one of the worst in western Europe in terms of crime, had 4 times fewer homicides per capita than the USA). The main difference, I believe, is availbility of guns.
That being said, perhaps a system in which every gun is coded to fire if a specific owner is handling it (via fingerprint system?). That way, crims will have a harder time getting them illegally, though hacking through the security of a gun may be done with regularity... Still, it would hamper crims and provide more accountability for guns. And obviously, don't allow automatic weapons into civilian hands! It's not good for crims to outgun cops!
- Wind |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 1:33 pm |
|
|
XeroX
The MasterCopy
Joined: 13 Dec 2001
Posts: 7125
Location: The Netherlands |
Every gun has what the call a fingerprint.
When making the gun it leaves marks at the inside of the barrel. When a bullet is fired the marks will be visable on the bullet.
That is how the catch gun murders. Take the bullt out of the victim or anywhere else. If the find a gun, the take a shot with it and compary that bullet with the victim bullet. If the match the have the murder weapon.
They would also have to keep a list of stolen guns. With their "fingerprints".It would at least help the pelice to investigate crime.
_________________
The original RED poster (retired now)
=Moderator of The SportsFans Club=
=member of The NFG + Shadows + WWW + PC=
To join the Sportfans PM me
www.feyenoord.com |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:06 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
Apparently many of you (those supporting gun control in general as an answer) truly want a 1984 world - because that is what gun control is ultimately about. All gun control does (along with a wide variety of other control laws) is put the emphasis where it does not belong. Instead we MUST be promoting in every way possible personal responsibility for our actions. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with a gun or owning a gun - the only problem is the use of the gun. That responsibility should lie directly on the shoulders of the holder of the gun.
Personally, I do NOT want a 1984 world (any more than we already have one). To this end though, every single one of us MUST firmly and totally embody the principles of personal responsibility.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:00 pm |
|
|
XeroX
The MasterCopy
Joined: 13 Dec 2001
Posts: 7125
Location: The Netherlands |
Every goverment is different. In my country it is illigal to have a gun. The are easier on alchohol and soft drugs.
_________________
The original RED poster (retired now)
=Moderator of The SportsFans Club=
=member of The NFG + Shadows + WWW + PC=
To join the Sportfans PM me
www.feyenoord.com |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:05 pm |
|
|
ButtOfMalmsey
Village Idiot
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 785
Location: Mississippi |
I have no problem with gun ownership being restricted to people who have not committed crimes, which is the rule in the US. Unfortunately, it is poorly enforced (hah- not at all enforced). Some states have laws that allow ex-felons to own guns, but only if they committed non-violent crimes (drug use, mostly). Is gun ownership an increasingly anachronistic part of existence? Not in America. Everywhere else? Yes. But how many people travel to a foreign country to commit crimes with legally purchased firearms? I think the number must be close to zero.
The problem is the ease of getting illegal firearms in America. There are many complicated and conflicting reasons for this easy availability. Do I think that just anyone should be able to buy a gun legally? No. I favor "instant" background checks, including fingerprinting. I am opposed, however, to registration. Registration defeats the entire purpose of an independently armed citizenry, since it gives those who would abuse government power an accessible list of those people who could oppose it.
Although I do not entirely buy the jack-booted thug argument, nor the slippery slope. But it is irresponsible for Americans to treat the Second Amendment like a red-headed stepchild of the Bill of Rights. It is now more and more symbolic as our government grows more and more monolithic and less able to act (which is after all the proper goal of all democracies).
_________________
"It has been a grand journey- well-worth making once."
-Winston Churchill, 1965, on Life
I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode. I think it was called, "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
-Homer Simpson
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Member of The Sixth House=
::Captain of the Black Company:: |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:19 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
@Joey Nipps: You got it! 
The people who commit a crime with a gun are the ones who should have their head chopped off.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 4:25 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
I'm in favor of a strict guns control, like the one we have here in Finland. It's not hard to get a gun here, even with the control. I'm not really aware of the law, but from what I've understood that you need to belong to a hunting club or a guns club (for sport shooters) and have a nice, clean background before you can get your hands on a gun.
We have really little shooting-related incidents, mostly a depressed man shooting himself (and in too many sad cases, his family) with a shooting rifle or a shotgun. Automatic guns or pistols are much more rare and street shootings are extremely rare, although increasing slowly as we learn from the "big world"...
@Joey, I agree that personal responsibility should be promoted, but criminals typically lack responsibilities alltogether, so there would be no effect there. It's better to try to prevent their access to firearms. I also don't see how controlling a persons access to firearms would lead to a 1984-world and I don't think that's what it's about. Criminals should not be allowed to get guns and background checks should be made on people. Furthermore, it shouldn't be legal to carry a gun in the public without a special reason.
As I'm not from the US, I don't really know how these tings are handled, but from what I've understood, it's really easy to get stolen weapons or even legal ones with criminal records. More guns -> more shootings and accidents.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 4:29 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
@Joey Nipps: You got it!
The people who commit a crime with a gun are the ones who should have their head chopped off.
Val, thank you for that - I didn't want to say it outloud  . That, btw, IS another discussion entirely.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 4:31 pm |
|
|
TribalMan
Conflict Within
Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Posts: 681
Location: Neither Here Nor There |
Another vote for strict gun control. Certain types of guns should not be owned by your average citizen. Certain types of people (criminals, mental, etc) should not be allowed to own any types of guns. People caught breaking these laws should face severe and swift judgment depending on the case (illegal gun, not supposed to posses, crime committed, etc). I am all for long sentencing and even death penalties in such cases.
_________________
  T®îßã£Måñ
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."
-= Member of The Nonflamers' Guild =- |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 4:47 pm |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
I'm sure most would agree that a comepletely gun-free world would be ideal. But unfortunately an outright gun ban will only mean 2 types will bear guns, cops and criminals. (And we all know there are always more criminals thatn cops)
At least the availability of guns to the authorized public means we can have a choice and a chance at security, albeit a false one.
A lot of shootings have actually been carried out by stolen legal guns or police guns ripped from the holster in a scuffle. The Colt company (and I'm sure others too) started to research owner specific guns; ie, guns which can only be fired by the rightful owners, but twenty years on no viable product has yet seen the light of day.
While Xerox is right in saying that every gun and bullet shot from it can be identified unique to it by its rifling, it doesn't stop anyone from stealing and using other's guns. Many times the gun goes completely missing after a shooting, leaving the bullet unmatched.
The only sure way? Future prediction... as in minority report! Although we all know it's about as unrealistic as George Orwells popular fiction: 1984.
Bottom line? Guns are bad... but criminals should have the fear that their opponents might have the bigger gun in the closet. I'm reluctant to vote though... until I get a better definition on the terms in the poll.
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Tue Aug 27, 2002 4:54 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
