Should firearms be banned? {Closed}

Yeah! Plus, if your friend is just starting to teach, its a way you can show your support. Go to part of it, I'm sure he'd like having you there and also want your feedback.

I say that firearms should not be banned, because I don't see the lack of legal weapons lowering crime rates. If there were strong evidence that supported mostly that side saying that banning them would lower crime, I might consider it. However, there is contradictory information from all sides, and until something more definite is established, it would be unwise to ban them. When we have more conclusive evidence, we can revisit this debate. Until then, I see no logical reason to ban them.

I like it my k-bar would then be beater then a gun.

Ya my dad has like 20. ATM I only have knives and a sweet M249 (5.56 ammunition belt fed 800 rounds per minute)

I am well armed, permitted to carry concealed, and will defend them passionately

I am 14 and I do own a rifle (Lee-Enfield MK III). My dad owns a pistol and over 5 hunting rifles.

Guns are not toys, but they can be a lot of fun. Skeet Shooting is a competitive sport that many people participate in and even hold a spot as a sport in the Olympics. I target practice every now and then, and I enjoy it quite a bit. In a way it is like throwing darts, it can be fun, but if you aren't careful someone can end up injured.

I plan on getting a Concealed Carry permit when I am old enough. There are far too many cases where someone is abducted and never seen again, and sometimes the captor has only a knife. I would much rather be the one with a gun when it comes to self defense. Having a knife-fight or pepper-spray match doesn't exactly "appeal" to me

I own a butterfly knife (faded), but I have a licence that took me two years to get for it.

You have the right to speak freely, but the use of certain words is actually restricted. It's just the same as gun control would be, you could still own a gun, but you're restricted to what kind of guns you can have.

Sorry, but why do you need a gun that can shoot 800 rounds per minute? When will that ever be useful in any circumstance other than a massacre?

I believe they mentioned that that gun is their armed forces gear, not personal.

The Machine shoot in Knob Creek, Kentucky.( Bullitt County)
I'm there every year!

Uh, in the US words are not "restricted." There is no restricted word. Within media there are RULES and GUIDELINES (no law) which are all to often broken with no repercussions. Within certain communities and outlets no profanity is a big thing but I can go out on the street and say every word in every language ever invented and will have committed no crime.

I have been quite a few times to know creek, never to the machine gun shoot though. Shot plenty of 240b's 50cals and 249's when I was in the military though.

Shooting at misled souls that show up on my property and think they are going to take my guns is a much better use than a massacre.

I don't know how to quote things from different pages so, to 607: I have lots of weapons, lots of different types of weapons and enough ammo to outfit my entire neighborhood.

Shout "Bomb!" on an airplane.
Or "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

See how well that statement holds up in court.

bomb and fire are not restricted words. Actions with the intent of harming someone, such as the action of shouting bomb on an airplane(private property owned by a corporation that deals in commerce, as you will also be doing if you have bought a ticket and therefore are subject not only to law but commercial code as well) are easily distinguishable. To say the word fire or bomb are restricted because using them in certain way would cause harm is similar to saying that ice cream will kill you if you eat it because if you eat too much it will kill you. Its a straw man argument. As is almost any argument I have ever heard that propagates banning guns.

"Straw man argument" is such a popular term these days. MBA was not being specific to "corporate" vs "government" restrictions, he was simply stating that using certain words in certain situations is, in fact, prohibited. Which it is. And you and I both know that fines or jail time are probable results of such an act.

Now if you want to get all technical about it? Then yeah - only the Federal Government is even capable of breaching your First Amendment rights, because that's as far as they apply. Private and corporate interests can restrict you all they like and not be in violation of it. But this is a discussion about the Second Amendment, not the First.

When a means of debate becomes popular calling it out as such tends to follow the trend:

informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Original argument: local, state and federal governance can not infringe upon the right to bear arms(nor can they infringe on the right to free speech)

The argument starts and ends there but in the middle there is emotion and conclusions AND many many straw man arguments.

I need a gun that can shoot 800 rounds per minute, for when, the government decides that the law abiding, US citizens, cant own a gun that can shoot 800 rounds per minute and comes to take it from me.

You can't give into the government seductions, if you let the government take an inch, they will take a mile. The government will chisel away at your rights until they are in a position to take that right completely away. The government will restrict a certain gun to the point, where they are at a position to then go in and take the weapon from you citing: "You'll be safer without it, we are trying to keep this out of the hands of criminals, it'll be safe with us."
The US government is restricting certain guns by the amount of rounds they can hold or by having a key to get the magazine out of the gun. If the government keeps up the pressure, then they will be in a position to ban a certain type of gun altogether. After they ban that gun, then they decide, what gun do they want to go for next. And in the end the US will be in the same position that Australia currently is in, unarmed, unprotected and high crime.

Australia had mandatory buybacks that happened, and if people didn't turn the gun in, then the military went in and forcefully took it from the citizen. Most Australians can only do 2 things when a criminal breaks into their home now, 1) call the person with the gun 2) hope the person with the gun gets there in time.

Me personally: I would rather move to Switzerland where my kind are accepted, than be subjected to tyranny like the people of Australia, once the government has taken your rights, whats left for them to take. Why should one respect the government, when the government cant respect you and recognize your freedom and rights as an American citizen.

Except, no one who breaks into someone's house has a gun. The people with guns are the people dealing drugs.

I'm not even going to bother replying the rest of the posts because it's so far from the truth it's not even funny.

If the people dealing drugs have guns, how hard do you think it is for those doing the drugs(usually the ones that are willing to break into peoples homes) to get the guns also.

cool story bro

It's not the people doing drugs who have the guns. It's the people supplying them. And if they're selling drugs, they're not going to go as low as breaking into someones house.