23
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 75:
Line 75: + + + + + + + + + + Line 119:
Line 129: − − ==Yes== − − If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan. − − Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it). − − I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately. − − [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] − − − Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT) − The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia. − Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]] − − − Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point. − − You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns. − − [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns? (view source)
Revision as of 19:48, November 17, 2007
, 19:48, November 17, 2007remove duplicate section
:Machine guns have been banned in the USA for over 80 years. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:26, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:Machine guns have been banned in the USA for over 80 years. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:26, 17 November 2007 (EST)
Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]
Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.
You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== Present-day Baghdad? ==
== Present-day Baghdad? ==