PhotonicLaceration said:What is your position on Gun Control?
PhotonicLaceration said:Hmm, it shows a poll when I look at it. Try refreshing. I think that it actually posts the thread before you are finished with the poll since your post showed up before I was even done writing it.
debate_junkie said:I believe the types should be restricted... I have no problem with people owning guns. I don't see a purpose to owning an uzi though. Just my thoughts. Assult weapons should be in the hands of the military and the police, in my opinion. Other than that... own on!
superskippy said:At least over here gun's are vital for protection and make crime almost non existant, and we are the 2nd most heavily armed populace on the face of the earth. (The First Being Switzerland.) You go through government training and must go to a firing range 3 times a year for excess training. Settlers may own pistols, and semi-automatic weapons. Citizens inside the greenline may own a pistol or if your a reservist a semi-automatic rifle, the same goes if you are an officer or get special permission. Once turning 18 generally you can get a government issued pistol after training. Almost everyone does. As a matter of fact a few years back when three Palestinian Gun Men tried to attack a town square to kill as many as possible some people eating lunch ranging from a 20 year old reservist, to a 50 year old man unpacked pistols and killed two of them. The Survivor is quoted as saying, "It's not fair we did not know the civilian were armed". Gun's save lives over here. The Palestinians are afraid to attack schools now since almost all the adult's will have some sort of firearm.
I'm all for gun's in a society if they are properly trained by the government and licensed.
Most semi-automatic weaposn issued are M-16's and more often the Uzi.
C.J. said:The military doesn't want and wouldn't have the "assault" weapons you don't want in the hands of civilians. Why would one need a purpose for a semi auto Uzi other than recreational shooting, or just having it to look at?
Yeah but it's always the evil ba5tards that take power by force of arms, so I don't think you should make it any easier for them to have arms.KevinWan said:I'm personally in favor in upholding the right to bear arms. The people of the United States are the last line of defense for protecting our own liberties. Hitler disarmed his own people when he came to power, to ensure no revolutionary or civil violence would derail his administration. If some leader, or party, wants to seize power and take away our liberties, and the courts fail to stop them, then it is up to the people to act on their Constitutional right to overthrow the government that oppresses them. Without guns, I don't think we'll get very far in achieving that. Also, we can't do away with hunting, or personal self-defense etc. etc. Gun control only leads to the deterioration of these.
debate_junkie said:Could you please clarify CJ? Cuz it sounds to me like you're saying the military doesn't have Uzi's or other automatic and semi automatic weaponry. I'm also on my first cup of coffee so bear with me.
On the other hand, why make it easier for the evil ones to take over by offering no substantial resistance? The evil ones will access firearms whether the good can or not.robin said:Yeah but it's always the evil ba5tards that take power by force of arms, so I don't think you should make it any easier for them to have arms.
Give me an example of a country where bad guys tried to take over but were overthrown by good guys in the civilian population becuase they had guns.C.J. said:On the other hand, why make it easier for the evil ones to take over by offering no substantial resistance? The evil ones will access firearms whether the good can or not.
robin said:Give me an example of a country where bad guys tried to take over but were overthrown by good guys in the civilian population becuase they had guns.
Thanks to our strict gun controls there are not enough guns in the UK for the bad guys ever to overthrow our military & our military answer to our democratically elected politicians.
Let me phrase that correctly.... Give me an example of a country where bad guys tried to take over but were stopped by good guys in the civilian population becuase they had guns.C.J. said:If you are going to try and point the discussion you may want to rephrase your request. Those trying to take over a country cannot be overthrown. Only those who have possession can be overthrown, kind of like what happened to the British after we declared independence. Heck, that was an example wasn't it???
As a country, we don't have what you would refer to as strict gun control, but there are not enough guns in the U.S. for the "bad guys to overthrow our military" either.
I'm very very relieved we don't have high levels of gun ownership that you have in the states. More people are shot in Washington alone than all of the UK