{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
작성자: shermanmax
6/23/2016 12:06:19 AM
208
Guns should be made illegal
Guns have caused nothing but death and destruction. America as a whole would be better of without them.
How would you feel about this situation if a loved one was injured or killed in a gun Incident???
If a baby runs around with scissors we take away the scissors. Why does this same logic not work with guns??
Edit: I stated my opinion respectfuly and I expect you to do the same.
Edit:: I don't remember ever hearing about a mass stabbing or car crash killing 50 human beings. So Please dont use the people will kill people without guns argument.
Edit::: the majority of mass shooting are not criminals. They got their guns legally and shot a bunch of people.
Edit:::: I am not talking about illegal guns and gang violence specifically. Criminals will still find ways to get guns but none of the mass shooter have had criminal records.
Edit::::: the argument that guns are needed to protect me because I can shoot someone that is going to shoot me will only lead to you getting shot faster. If someone had a gun out you would not be able to get yours and shoot them before they see you and shoot you in the spot.
English
#Offtopic
-
8 답변It honestly makes me mad when people say that guns kill people. It's not like the gun grows legs and starts shooting people. It's the person wielding the gun that kills people
-
1 답변A well regulated Militia being essential to a free state, the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Unconstitutional to do so there bub. Dont like it? Move to Paris.
-
3 답변K. So if someone gets their hands on a gun illegally, and starts shooting up a public place, you're totally fine with nobody being capable of stopping it? Just wondering. [spoiler]No hate, truly wondering about your stance on the matter.[/spoiler]
-
1 답변Or, just dont let your average everyday american idiot own guns, and leave that type of shit to the professionals. Im more of the mind that guns are just tools and its the people who are to blame, but i swear people take advantage of this shit and act like owning a gun is like owning a box of pencils. At the point where i just say restrict guns like they do in japan where only active police and military personal are alowed to carry arms.
-
2 답변It's been documented in several countries that after gun restrictions/bans the incidence of violent crime has actually increased; in some cases significantly. What would you suggest then? Hire more cops with guns? Or would theirs get taken away too? If you dislike guns so much, why not consider moving to a country that doesn't allow firearms ownership? Oh wait, they probably have violent crime and terror attacks too.
-
5 답변A gun's intended use is for sporting use and self defense. Just like a knife's intended use is to open boxes or cut food.
-
1 답변작성자: AustinACR151 6/16/2016 6:15:07 AMQuick question do you think banning guns will stop criminals from using them drug's are illegal and criminals still do them? [spoiler]P.s guns dont kill people it is the person with the intention of pulling the trigger on the gun that kills people [/spoiler]
-
2 답변
-
2 답변작성자: Warlock 6/16/2016 1:10:10 PMLet's make murder illegal as well while we're at it! [spoiler]Not intended to be disrespectful to OP, just thought it'd make for a laugh[/spoiler]
-
2 답변Now this is interesting. Did you know that the second amendment is the only right that some idiots (sorry, can't call them anything else) want to revoke? Now what if we applied that to our other rights (namely our first ten amendments). Would it be ok to revoke the first amendment? What about the 8th? How would that make you feel?
-
1 답변
-
11 답변You're gonna get shot and you're last words will be "but you can't do that, it's illegal".
-
작성자: crazeeavery 6/15/2016 7:38:41 PM1. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights 2. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment 3. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny 4. The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion You may find this one comical, but it's in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions”. This provision, like tyranny, isn't an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).
-
4 답변
-
18 답변
