Would you like to see tougher gun laws?

[demonprince]

I actually would, since the VT massacre. 

Some stupid fag in my Media class goes "I don't think we should have stricter gun laws, because if everyone there had Ak-47's that dude would died before he killed 33 people."


Yah like EVERYONE would carry a fucking AK around.

[Samus Aran]

Stricter gun laws? How so? A strict registry, perhaps?

1.) Criminals break law, not follow it.
2.) Criminals will not register their guns that they're going to commit crimes with.
3.) There WILL still be ways for them to get said guns.
4.) They will still commit the crimes.

Such killing cannot be stopped by mere law, because it's already against the law and that sure as hell isn't working.

[ncba93ivyase]

The only real method to possibly reduce gun violence: let no one aside from police officers own guns.

No, that doesn't mean I believe everyone that owns a gun should destroy it, hand it over, or whatever. If a person already purchased a gun, they can keep it. If they're caught using it, then there will be punishment. Just don't sell guns to the public or allow the public to use them. There will always be a few people that still have a gun to commit whatever crimes, but at least everyone won't be totally defenseless and the number of weapons "in the wild" drops each time a person is arrested.

Far from being a perfect method, but probably one of the few that could work.

[mariofreak55]

I honestly think that they SHOULDN'T have guns be legal. If you aren't in a job of authority where you need a gun, I don't think that you should have one.

[Rugals]

No, I think the gun laws are fine. There are always going to be these kind of things happen, whether it's legal or not.
If someone wants to school up a school, some stricter gun law isn't going to stop them.

[ncba93ivyase]

No, I think the gun laws are fine. There are always going to be these kind of things happen, whether it's legal or not.
If someone wants to school up a school, some stricter gun law isn't going to stop them.

Of course a gun law won't prevent someone from educating those ignorant students.

[cackslop]

I actually would, since the VT massacre. 

Some stupid fag in my Media class goes "I don't think we should have stricter gun laws, because if everyone there had Ak-47's that dude would died before he killed 33 people."


Yah like EVERYONE would carry a Craging AK around.

What more can they do to prevent such things though??

Psyc screenings for everyone who wants to purchase a pistol?

Fuck that.

Right to bear arms.
I agree with the constitution of our country.

[heltar]

Funny you mention this.


Gun Town

Kennesaw has the nickname of "Gun Town, USA" due to a city ordinance passed in 1982 [Sec 34-1a] that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the law.


As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw ââ,¬â€œ responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. ââ,¬â€œ unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting ââ,¬â€œ as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available ââ,¬â€œ for the year 2005 ââ,¬â€œ show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city ââ,¬Â¦ soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ââ,¬Â¦ and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence ââ,¬â€œ especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

[cackslop]

I honestly think that they SHOULDN'T have guns be legal. If you aren't in a job of authority where you need a gun, I don't think that you should have one.

You're a fucking idiot.

You seriously think that guns should be illegal?

How do you think America seceded from the brits?

What if our government gets so corrupt that the people would want to over-throw it?
We'd need guns.

And how about just for protection from intruders in the average americans household?

It's lamans like you who make me lose faith in human kind.

[mariofreak55]

What if our government gets so corrupt that the people would want to over-throw it?

I'm pretty sure that would be a plus side to the government. They don't want to get overthrown, and they're the ones who would have made this law.

And how about just for protection from intruders in the average americans household?

Well, if they got rid of gun stores, then there would be less peopl with them. I know, there would still be some, but hell, less then there are now.

You're a Craging idiot.

oh u 2?

[ncba93ivyase]

What if our government gets so corrupt that the people would want to over-throw it?
We'd need guns.

HANDGUNS VERSUS TANKS AND NUKES: WHO WILL WIN?

[QUOTE]And how about just for protection from intruders in the average americans household?

[/quote] If the intruders don't have guns, what's there to worry about? And what about the non-average Canadian households?caterpie;

[cackslop]

What if our government gets so corrupt that the people would want to over-throw it?

I'm pretty sure that would be a plus side to the government. They don't want to get overthrown, and they're the ones who would have made this law.

And how about just for protection from intruders in the average americans household?

Well, if they got rid of gun stores, then there would be less peopl with them. I know, there would still be some, but hell, less then there are now.

You're a Craging idiot.

oh u 2?

yeah, well i'm not talking about the profit of the government.

and guns arent the only way to rob people.

[ncba93ivyase]

and guns arent the only way to rob people.

The person has a lower chance of killing you with a knife than a gun. They'd have to get up close, and risk even worse injury to themselves.

[ncba93ivyase]

What if our government gets so corrupt that the people would want to over-throw it?
We'd need guns.

HANDGUNS VERSUS TANKS AND NUKES: WHO WILL WIN?

[QUOTE]And how about just for protection from intruders in the average americans household?

If the intruders don't have guns, what's there to worry about? And what about the non-average Canadian households?caterpie;

But how can we ensure they don't get a hold of guns? I mean they are criminals. It's not like they're going to follow gun restrictions.
[/quote]Allow only police to have guns, and confiscate guns of those who commit crimes. The number of guns in the wild slowly decreases.

[reeper]

Less gun laws.

More people have guns, less people will make robberies, less people will think about committing a crime for fear of death. Also I would like to see a law on the possession of guns with children in the household

They have a law with pools in which you HAVE TO have some sort of gate or alarm with pools.