ClumsyMonkey.net

Oooookay. Pit_girl1 it appears that in your opinion a perfect world would be one in which the general populace have no weapons and the government has them all. is that in fact your position?

I don't think the general public should have access to handguns. They have no use whatsoever. Rifles, shotguns, ok. They are used for hunting, it's not my sport but some enjoy it. Handguns however have no purpose for hunting and are thus useless, except for police officers. However, it is their job to enforce the law and it's a dangerous one at that sometimes, so they may need a firearm at times to protect themselves. However, the general population does not need handguns. I've said it before and I'm saying it again now.

don't need automatic weapons either...

yet, they're allowed some places.

Rusty wrote:I don't think the general public should have access to handguns. They have no use whatsoever. Rifles, shotguns, ok. They are used for hunting, it's not my sport but some enjoy it. Handguns however have no purpose for hunting and are thus useless, except for police officers. However, it is their job to enforce the law and it's a dangerous one at that sometimes, so they may need a firearm at times to protect themselves. However, the general population does not need handguns. I've said it before and I'm saying it again now.

i'll happily debate you on that.

Doug is back in the hizzouse!

magicseamonkey wrote:don't need automatic weapons either...

yet, they're allowed some places.

I'm against automatic weapons as well, save them for the military.

mosaik wrote:

Rusty wrote:I don't think the general public should have access to handguns. They have no use whatsoever. Rifles, shotguns, ok. They are used for hunting, it's not my sport but some enjoy it. Handguns however have no purpose for hunting and are thus useless, except for police officers. However, it is their job to enforce the law and it's a dangerous one at that sometimes, so they may need a firearm at times to protect themselves. However, the general population does not need handguns. I've said it before and I'm saying it again now.

i'll happily debate you on that.

Well I didn't say all that for my health. If I only lived with my opinion the world would be a pretty boring place. As long as we keep the debate civil, by all means please let us debate.

I don't think automatic weapons should exsist at all, but hey, little late for that one.

mosaik wrote:Oooookay. Pit_girl1 it appears that in your opinion a perfect world would be one in which the general populace have no weapons and the government has them all. is that in fact your position?

Actually a perfect world would have no weapons whatsoever. That's my ideal, although it will never happen. But yes, I am avidly pro-gun control. Automatic weapons should be completely and totally banned, and handguns seriously limited. I agree a lot with Rusty's statement above.

Rusty wrote:Handguns however have no purpose for hunting and are thus useless, except for police officers.

That's false. There are some handguns that are in fact used and designed for hunting. The majority will be manufactured for personal defense and law enforcement, but there are some created for competition, hunting small game, and large game. Most states require the caliber of ammunition to be above .223-.24 caliber, which covers the majority of handguns on the market. There are also handguns that operate that use black powder or pyrodex (these are loaded from the muzzle, or the end of the barrel) that have virtually no self defense purpose and are made strictly for hunting.

thirdhour wrote:I don't think automatic weapons should exsist at all, but hey, little late for that one.

that's how i feel too

pit_girl1 wrote:

dream in japanese wrote:harper wants to get rid of gun registry laws in canada

How the hell is he defending that one? Jeez...does he want to turn Canada into the US?

here's how:

harper's platform wrote:Ending the wasteful long-gun registry and using the savings to hire more front-line police officers.

so yes...make it easier for more people to own guns and then solve that issue by arming more police officers with more guns. more guns is his solution to violence

The thing is, the long-gun registry IS wasteful and has proved rather pointless so far.

xjsb125 wrote:

Rusty wrote:Handguns however have no purpose for hunting and are thus useless, except for police officers.

That's false. There are some handguns that are in fact used and designed for hunting. The majority will be manufactured for personal defense and law enforcement, but there are some created for competition, hunting small game, and large game. Most states require the caliber of ammunition to be above .223-.24 caliber, which covers the majority of handguns on the market. There are also handguns that operate that use black powder or pyrodex (these are loaded from the muzzle, or the end of the barrel) that have virtually no self defense purpose and are made strictly for hunting.

Ok, the handguns that are used for hunting and have no self defense purpose are hunting weapons then. But if they are no good for self defence, they wouldn't make a very good murder weapon i'd assume. Why do there need to be handguns for hunting anyway?

i don't know ONE person who owns a gun in their house. i just don't want that to change.

I'm happy that I can say the same thing

My stepdad had guns when i was a little kid, but he got rid of them when i was like 9, and I never actually SAW one.

Prohibited Fire arms in Canada: Fully automatic military assault weapons, semi-automatics which can be converted to automatics, along with a few other selected models not suitable for hunting or target shooting, short-barreled handguns, sawed-off shotguns and large capacity magazines.

I know a lot of people who own guns and none of them own a handgun or keep the guns they do own (rifles) in their house. This hasnt changed with the introduction of the registery and I imagine it wont change if it is axed.

Rusty wrote:Why do there need to be handguns for hunting anyway?

Challenge. It takes somewhat greater skill to gain accuracy with a handgun than it does with a rifle, and you also lose the ability to make the long distance shots that a rifle is capable of.

I see. Would those hand guns be easy to hide or effective against a human though?

Rusty wrote:

magicseamonkey wrote:don't need automatic weapons either...

yet, they're allowed some places.

I'm against automatic weapons as well, save them for the military.

mosaik wrote:

Rusty wrote:I don't think the general public should have access to handguns. They have no use whatsoever. Rifles, shotguns, ok. They are used for hunting, it's not my sport but some enjoy it. Handguns however have no purpose for hunting and are thus useless, except for police officers. However, it is their job to enforce the law and it's a dangerous one at that sometimes, so they may need a firearm at times to protect themselves. However, the general population does not need handguns. I've said it before and I'm saying it again now.

i'll happily debate you on that.

Well I didn't say all that for my health. If I only lived with my opinion the world would be a pretty boring place. As long as we keep the debate civil, by all means please let us debate.

I just don't see how you can say that people do not have the right to every available opportunity to protect themselves from any and every threat they percieve.

Somtimes you even need a weapon to protect yourself FROM the police. The best check, in fact the only real check, on the power of the state is the number of the population that are armed.

I see a lot of posts in this thread that say something to the effect of "destroy all guns"

But of course you realize that even without guns, people have always found ways to kill eachother. A better dream would be to eliminate that desire in others to have or conquer our neighbors possesions.

The weapons are not the issue, it is the mindset of the people holding the weapons that needs to change.