You can kill someone without a gun...

Just trying to have some discussion about this, but should we allow people to have nuclear weapons? I know that's going to the extreme, I'm just wondering where the line is.

I just want to say, with a gun, you can collect them, shoot them for sport, hunting, or fun. You can't really use a nuclear weapon without killing someone, unless you detonate it over the ocean. Even then, there's problems.

Well, yes, agreed. That's what I meant by finding the line. When does something become too dangerous for the masses?

I guess that's a subjective issue left for everyone to decide.

True enough. Just wondering where the opinion on here skewed. I personally am not for the outlawing of guns, just a lot stricter gun control.

Should we allow the every day man to posses them? No. But the science,the physics of it,and the utter simplicity of it,allows them to be there for everyone.

Unless you want to take away everything that could be used to build them,then no people shouldnt. If you dont,then yes they can.

In fact a great majority of the components required can be found in your house.

I you don't have a spoon, you can always eat with a fork or even your hands.

If you don't have a gun, you can always kill with a fork or even your hands.


It goes both ways, buddy.

Yeah, but I don't think someone could go into a theater and kill 12 people and injure 58 others with just a fork or their hands..

You can always use homemade explosives/poisonous gas bombs. I bet I could make one out of the things I got in my fridge.

Okay, yes, you could, but you know what those are? Illegal. I think the whole point of the discussion was the legality of guns.

Also, I'm loving having an actual discussion on here. It's a nice change.

Yeah, exactly, they are illegal, but the guy who ended up killing 14 people (apparently it's not 12, it's a bit more) had explosives in his apartment, even if they were illegal, thank you for giving a good argument to prove that guns are actually no better legal then illegal.

Okay, and yet, he killed the people using the guns instead of the bombs.

Also, I fail to see how you make the connection that just because he had bombs, guns are just as bad legally as illegally. Please explain.

Yes he decided that for good knows the reason.

My connection is:
Explosives are illegal-> he got them anyway
so...
If guns were illegal-> He probably would of be able to get one also anyway

Just because you make something illegal doesn't make it unavailable to every single person.

Murder is illegal, if guns are illegal it'll make the process of getting one a bit more expensive and secretive because you'd just have to find a gun dealer.

Drugs are illegal yet I see them everywhere, don't tell me you've not seen one of those news broadcasts X was found with Y drug and arrested at least once.

Back to the point, I could make explosives or poisonous gas bombs. Of course they are illegal, but if my objective is killing people which is also illegal I don't think I'd care at all. Nowadays illegal means 'hide whatever you do or whatever you have better'.

While yes, it goes without saying that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it won't be possessed, I disagree with your assertion that it makes no difference if something is legal or not. Drugs are illegal, yes, and because of that it's a lot harder to get your hands on them.

For instance, take weed. Weed is probably the easiest illegal drug that you can get your hands on. However, if weed were to be made legal, you don't think consumption would at least double?

Sorry, but I don't agree that if guns were illegal (which is not what I'm suggesting), that all you'd have to do is find a dealer.

The difference is, for guns, you're only scared that people will go kill people with it, right?(or get them injured) But, those people will get them illegally anyway, because they are criminals, and they don't care. Weed itself can cause problems long term even if people say that's not true, it is, it's not a big conspiracy made my oil companies and paper companies because family guy said so, for the supporters out there, but that's a other debate, but it's doesn't help you commit an other crime, and it doesn't also prevent somebody from committing that very crime.

I am a bit tired, and what I was trying to say is probably confusing, but what I meant is, like you said, if weed consumption becomes legal, yes it will double. You're again right, for the thing it would be the same with guns. If guns are legal, more people will own guns, like more people would consume marijuana if it weed legal. BUT! The amount of people who own guns will rise, but the amount of gun related crimes, wont, or maybe it will even drop, if criminal are now scared of the general population. That's why the weed argument doesn't really work.

Guns existed since medieval times, they are mass produced and I'm fairly certain there are more guns than people in this world. Drugs are illegal and with a dealer you can get them, it's not easy of course.

Case in point: Guns are illegal, collectors and honest gun users would decrease to respect the law, but murderers, robbers, etc would not decrease as much as you'd expect, they'd just need a dealer, and finding a gun is millions of times better than finding drugs.

Let's say this view actually had a happy ending and there was no way to get a gun, not even with dealers: Murders will still happen, there are infinite ways to kill a man, and a gun is just an easy way out of trillions.

The problem is the people, that's all there is to know, I don't really think a gun would actively push you to commit crimes unless you're schizophrenic.