Should firearms be banned? {Closed}

Yes: killing an animal for food is animal cruelty. So your ancestors who hunted animals with spears and such to stay alive, those ancestors who owned their own small farms, and everyone and everything that eats meat abuses animals?

I don't think so.

As human beings, we have to eat things to survive. But let's say I went hunting and shot a deer. I use that deer to put food on the table for my family. There is nothing wrong with that. If I did not kill that deer, some other animal probably would have, and that deer would have eaten it possibly even with the animal that killed it's family. Nothing was done wrong, that is just how Life works.

But lets say you are hunting for the pure fact that you want to kill something, and you shoot a deer. You just leave the deer there and don't eat it, or use it for anything, that is cruelty.

Generally killing an animal very quickly is animal cruelty? I think you should take a look over at India then, they have the largest population and proportion of starving cows in the world because they are against killing them. That is a great example of how over population of animals is far worse than killing them for an overall good reason (food).

I take it you have never actually driven/been in a car when a few deer cross the road? It is not exactly enjoyable. Their numbers are already too high for their respective niche, stopping all hunting of them would send them would lead to a population explosion. More of them will starve, and more will get hit by cars. Not exactly a great situation. Combine that with the issue of them stripping areas clean of vegetation. This would not only lead to greater rates of starvation of deer, but also other species are now at risk due to having their habitats destroyed.

Humans are a keystone species in the predator-prey relationship. If we take one aspect of ourselves out of the scene, the whole thing is likely going to collapse.

What we need to do is teach everyone how to properly handle a gun, gun safety, and so on. I am not a fan of guns, but I feel that they serve some role. Switzerland has a low crime rate because everyone has a gun and knows how to handle situations that involves guns. To stop accidents, educate. All gun owners should be required to take safety classes, and everyone should be taught basic gun safety in schools.

I am from Canada and do not own a firearm.To make it short and sweet, I do not support the whole 'No guns' idea.

No. I'd like to add that this page has gun ads for me. Normally it's hobby site stuff.

No, guns should not be banned.


I'd do a more elaborate post but I'm on mobile.

By that, I could say the same about meth. Meth does not kill people. It is the people who use it and deal it who kill people. Therefore, meth should be legal. This also applies for any type of drug or vice.

Yes, guns do not kill people alone, but lets say you give a toddler a marker. If he drew all over the wall with that same marker, yes, the marker did not stain the walls by itself, but you take it away from your toddler until he stops making the walls red.

That wasn't cruelty. That was more or less a matter to survive.

Now that we are in the 21st century, we can eat plenty that doesn't involve cruelty to animals, and still be fed well.

Let me ask a question to everyone here:

Would you like to be slaughtered to help feed the person who slaughtered you?

Honestly, this is a terrible question. No, I would not like it, but like I said. That is just how the world works. The person would be in prison for a pretty long time for murder.

Do you think the deer I hunt would rather live then die and be eaten as food? NO of course they would rather live. But with that mindset, and if animals ever ate any other animals, they would all slowly die of starvation because they aren't getting the nutrients they need to survive.

would you like to live in a world where alpha species overpopulate and other species in that ecosystem die out because the alpha species werent kept in check? its honestly quite ignorant to think that "slaughtering" one animal isnt the natural course of events almost every nation has strict gun laws concerning hunting specifically to keep animal numbers at a sustainable level. some common examples include the dire wolves that were taking on dog strays and forming super packs in russia, and the keystone species of alligators in the florida everglades invading population centers and showing up in peoples backyards.

animal cruelty is not hunting, hunting for the most part is instant death for whatever is being hunted. you cannot be cruel in the amount of time it takes for a bullet to reach its destination.

Also, unrelated question on my Police note: do the officers in the US use horses at all? The police here do when they need to patrol large crowds. Its actually quite a nice sight to see

There was a massive queue of people outside a train station in Liverpool after a big event there, and there were just four police officers monitoring it. One was stood by the entrance - he was armed with a baton. Another was stood by the mid-section of the queue - he was armed with a baton. Another one stood by the end of the queue - he was also armed with a baton. And then there was just one policewoman on horseback walking up and down the entire crowd - she also had a baton, but she also had a taser

I'm fairly sure direwolves only lived in the Americas and died out 10,000 years ago, leaving no evolutionary successor behind...

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAfWfF4TjM

except in siberia, where they never died out because they were never hunted to extinction. but instead bred with smaller populations of modern wolves. also modern wolves are the evolutionary successor of direwolves, just like every modern animal that had a dire version in the past is the hereditary successor of its kin from the mega-fauna age. also there is very little that is solely from the americas, wolves are not one of them.

I like that they show people the harm that 'can' be done with a gun if it is used by the wrong people. However I do not like that in 'Every' incident they showed, the shooter was either a child or someone with mental issues.

As said/proven above, it is not the gun that kills people. It is the Person that uses the gun to kill people.

We already agreed that mentally disabled and irresponsible people shouldn't own guns. However, a larger percentage of the population is mentally competent and able to own a gun responsibly. This video bugs me because of course it's going to make people re-consider for a split second based on the shock value alone. Another thing that bugs me is the fact that they pretend those are the weapons used in the actual crimes (which largely assists with the shock value). Maybe one or two were (at the very most), but the adjudication process is a very long process, and even after evidence is adjudicated it is usually destroyed. Not handed out for people to use in a PSA type commercial.

To my knowledge, direwolves never lived in Siberia, and only made it as far north as Canada, staying on the two American continents and never reaching Eurasia. Modern wolves (Canis Lupus) evolved from a different branch of a common ancestor (Leptocyon, I believe...) to the direwolf (Canis Dirus), and were 'succeeded' by the dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris). They did not succeed the direwolf.

Anyway, this isn't a thread about direwolves... .-.

I'll just leave. This is partially clogging up alerts, so.

In my opinion, guns should stay legal. There are definitely enough legitimate reasons to own a gun and several legitimate reasons to use a gun more than once, though I am also for gun regulations big time. A major part of the second amendment often forgotten is "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" (From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html ). According to the second amendment, guns can only be taken if the gun is used for any purpose outside what is acceptable, namely hunting if necessary, for population culling of wild animals or for food, and kept ready for a need to overthrow the government. Now, infringe is defined as "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe). This means that regulations are allowed, and should, be put in place to limit the amount of people allowed access to guns as doing so is not any infringement, only a hindrance, as access to guns is still allowed but only to those who can pass background checks, psychological checks and so on.

Besides, with the whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" phrase, if you rebuttal with "guns are the medium used to do the killing, however", then I respond with "then lead from the bullets kill people, the copper alloys or steel as the bullet casing help with the killing and parts of the guns are made with wood, plastic, or various metals. So shall we ban them all as well?"

This majorly applies to the United States. As I understand, most other developed countries have great gun control compared to us.