Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

If an aspect of your culture, made legal by an outdated document, leads to the injury or death of fellow citizens: should the law be changed? 

77%
2,580 deviants said Yes.
23%
758 deviants said No.

Devious Comments

:icon10megaman:
10megaman Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2013
Question for JollyJack: Outdated according to whom?

The term "outdated" is often arbitrary.
Reply
:iconsunflowerintherain:
SunflowerInTheRain Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
It will take a LOT of effort and support but yes, yes a thousand times. It will also take time to change as well, with public awareness being key on the issue. It's a shame progress takes so long to happen, No?
Reply
:icond4rksilver:
D4rkSilver Featured By Owner May 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
I didn't see where he mentioned 'guns' anywhere. Everyone seems to be playing fill in the blanks and point the blame.
Reply
:iconirg555:
irg555 Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2013
Oh, you must be talking about the right for everyone to operate a motor vehicle. Yes, causes a hideous amount of fatalities every year but I can't see how you can simply make all the cars disappear by making them against the law. I mean drugs are illegal but people still seem to be able to do those pretty much whenever they want if they're willing to do them.
Reply
:icona7i20ci7y:
a7i20ci7y Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Assuming we're referring to the the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, it is not "made legal." It is intrinsically a right. Second, the constitution is not outdated. This presumption reflects a hubris displayed throughout history. Third, I disagree both that it is an aspect of our culture and that it has lead to the injury and death of citizens in the way that you imply. Guns are no more responsible for murder than cars are for drunk driving, and they kill far fewer people. We ban neither cars, nor alcohol as a result.

In short, your poll is a straw man argument in which both answers support a biased position. The answer isn't just "no", it's "screw this".
Reply
:iconroninpsycho:
RoninPsycho Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
If you're referring to the 2nd Amendment, then no; stop right there, and do some real research. First of all, it does NOT lead to the injury/death of fellow citizens. The most violent crime in the nation occurs in the areas of the country where strict gun laws or gun bans are already in place. Nearly every major shooting occurs in "gun-free zones", where the only people who obey the law are those with no ill intent. If a criminal or psychopath wants to kill people, you think the law is going to stop them? If you look at other parts of the country where more citizens own guns, there is vastly less violent crime. In fact, if you compare the United States' average violent crime rate with that of the UK's, the numbers will show you - plain as day - that the UK has a much, MUCH higher violent crime rate. Yes, the murder rate is lower in the UK, but armed robberies, assaults, home invasions, rapes, etc. are ALL a lot greater than those in the U.S. Same goes for Australia, too. And hell, look at what gun bans did for Mexico. Drug cartels and gangs run rampant down there.

As for the myth about "assault weapons" being so deadly, how about you do a little fact-checking? There are more people beaten to death with absolutely no weapons (bare-handed) every year than there are who are shot and killed with ALL rifles (the actual figure for "assault rifles" is even lower). There are also more people killed with blunt objects and knives (or other bladed objects) every year than with rifles. This information is all straight from the FBI, so you can look it up for yourself. Just look up the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). They arrange the data in neat, easy-to-understand tables. When you do look this up, you'll see that most homicides are committed with handguns. Might I also add that the founding fathers of the United States actually WANTED the people to have the same weapons as the military so that we could defend ourselves in the event that our government became tyrannical (which it rapidly is becoming). Thomas Jefferson once defined tyranny as that which is legal for the government, but not for the people. So, why is it ok for the police to use AR-15s, but not citizens? What makes them any different from us? Does handing them a badge and a uniform make them more qualified? Do you even realize that the average American gun owner is better trained with their firearms than your average American police officer? Do you even know that the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle?

The real definition of an assault rifle is a rifle which fires an intermediate rifle cartridge, features a detachable magazine, and is select-fire. Select-fire means that it can fire both in semi automatic and fully automatic (or burst-fire) firing modes. An AR-15 is ONLY semi-automatic, so it is not an assault rifle. Not only that, but most hunting rifles are actually MORE powerful than the AR-15 and the 5.56x45mm cartridge. In fact, there are many handguns that are more powerful.

When you actually sit down and look at the facts, it's clear that there is absolutely NO justification for gun control, gun bans, etc. If you truly want to reduce crime, you need to improve education, get more people out of poverty, improve the economy, and have MORE honest citizens with guns.
Reply
:iconbrian-easton:
Brian-Easton Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
I can not really answer because I believe both yes and no can apply.
Yes; because some laws need to change with the flow of society and how culture functions. Having something out dated, lets say with a type of old farming equipment and how it's used, no one presently is taught everything about it, so there is so much room for error that injury can occur.
No; because ultimately if the action that conforms to the law is harmless, unless someone does something reckless or foolhardy, then the real fault lies in the person who did the action and they need to take responsibility for their actions.
But everything is subjective to circumstance.
Reply
:iconbrian-easton:
Brian-Easton Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
I feel the need to touch base on the issue of guns just for the sake that I have spent a lot of time with a friend who is pro guns on the subject. Please do not take this as an attack on any of your opinions, I just want to present a counter argument as a point of thought. You are well within your right to feel the way you do.
The real problem I have with anti-gun laws, lobbyists, and groups is that they focus on the gun being a problem, and not the user. Anything can be used as a tool to kill a person, a knife, hammer, bat, or my lamp sitting next to me. It all depends on how desperate a person gets, and if pushed hard enough will find a way around not having a gun.
The next thing is, yes a gun is a tool made for no other reason than to destroy something else. But a tool does not act by its self and depends on its user. A gun picked up and used by someone to kill someone for cheating on them can be used by the police to stop that same person before they hurt someone else. Much like a hammer can be used to build a house or smash someones brain in.
The last point I'll make is that gun laws do not work. People who want a gun in a place that has laws against it, will find a way to get them regardless, it's happened. Those people already want to break the law, while the law abiding citizens are unarmed and defenseless against them. You may think the overly spread police will help protect you, but how comforting is that when someone has already broken into your home and is pointing something at your head?
Gun laws take power away from the people and put it in criminal hands who will take by force with no resistance. If a criminal knows every house has a gun and a knowledgeable owner, they won't try it. It's proven.
Reply
:iconmike-shattered:
Mike-Shattered Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Professional Filmographer
I don't have culture, I am a pavement special, so I can't relate. My real answer.
Reply
:iconmike-shattered:
Mike-Shattered Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Professional Filmographer
What is this brain thinking thing? I hear heart beat.....
Reply
:iconserth15:
Serth15 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
You cannot apply a law to both countrysides, AND metropolitan areas.
Reply
:icontexasvnc:
texasvnc Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Seems everyone here is arguing the merits but not the substance, so I will say this...

And yes, I know commenters will say "apples to oranges" but hear me out...

I like most of your artwork. Most. But some (maybe 5-10%) offends me. In fact if statistics are to be believed, a fair number of people would be offended by some or even all of your work. So we will make a compromise: I will give up my Second Amendment Rights and turn in my guns, as soon as you give up your First Amendment Rights and stop posting artwork that offends me. In fact, stop posting artwork period. After all, my guns "could" kill someone, and all of your artwork "could" offend someone. Fair?

No it's not, is it? Now I know what you're thinking. "You can't compare the two! Art can't kill people!" True, but it can save people.

For that, I need to ask you a question: why was the Constitution written as it was? Why does "The right to keep and bear arms" immediately follow prohibition on the "abridging the freedom of speech?" Simple, read the writings of the founders, they were very distrustful of government in general, even the one they built! The Constitution should read "When your government displeases you, speak up. When your government ignores you, group together and make more noise. When your government oppresses you, and all else fails, rouse the militia and remove it."

So you say, "You don't 'need' your guns, why not turn them in?"

I say, I don't ever want to "need" my guns. But I want them there if I need them.
Reply
:icongobba42:
Gobba42 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013  Student Writer
Well put.
Reply
:icondoomsday-device:
Doomsday-Device Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Since we're carefully choosing words to formulate a context-free question to get an answer that we want -in context to specific events (unmentioned by the questions), why not try this one?

Should a person be forced to forfeit any option for personal protection as a result of other people, with established mental instability, using such methods of personal protection in an aggressive manner?

The correct answer to this question, as well as the original one is, of course, "Fuck you, asshole".
Reply
:iconpaperori:
PaperOri Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
This isn't a simple yes or no question. If you really wanted to word it, the First Amendment is responsible for a lot of deaths through the US history, and I for one am for the freedom of speech. Simply because you don't like it, or don't see the whole picture doesn't mean the amendment should be changed. To add on, I also disagree with the notion that the Bill of Rights are outdated. The whole point of the bill of rights to prevent a government in which the people are afraid of said government.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2012
You're talking about America here. The same country that's extremely low in everything but guns and gun violence. We're freaking number one in that catergory.We barely make top 10 in most stuff but that. If anything we make it an art to produce and kill others with guns. I'm sorry but, the day anyone makes an effort to improve gun laws or mental health is if a string of mass shooting involving kids happen. Also, kill ban cars? have fun walking or biking alround the country. Ban alcohol and other stuff? Go on ahead. People can move to other countries for their fix. Ban household cleaners? Might as well throw move out of your house because what in that was probably used to make your house. Natural causes being a killer? Hello? The keyword is natural. Blame your kin first for giving you that. Heck, blame the pollution that we so create. We created a this problem and we're going to stay in it until we grow some common sense.
Reply
:iconclassicknuckles:
ClassicKnuckles Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
I'm just going to say this: Outlawing guns will not help at all. Thats like saying a drug being outlawed will stop being a problem. The best things we can do is teach our children the values of human life, and hope for a better future built around the lessons we teach our children.
Reply
:iconthe-unlimited:
The-Unlimited Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
It depends, the law itself is not outdated, it needs a bit of tweaking to make it functional in this day and age. I won't say guns are the solution, but people abstain from seeing themselves as the problem. The guy had issues, his mother didn't lock up the weapons and innocent children paid the price for this man's insanity and her incompetence.
Reply
:iconmistresskill:
MistressKill Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
I think that if the second amendment was made with the contemporary weapons of the time in mind, those are the only weapons allowed under that amendment. You want to own an arsenal? Sure, but they are all muskets, one-shot pistols, or a bayonet. Try to go on a rampage balancing a 7-foot gun on a tripod. There is no reason for any citizen to have an assault rifle, and that is not the weapon that the American founding fathers had in mind. They meant to protect their citizens from an invading foreign force by allowing them to protect themselves, and to allow the citizens to know that they can fight against a government which does not represent them to the extent they wish. They likely never meant for anyone to have the capacity to murder dozens and dozens of people in a mere matter of hours.
Reply
:iconbookwum3:
bookwum3 Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
bull.back then those were the military's top arsenal as well and they made these type of laws to protect against all threat including your government military as-well foreign military and you aint defending sh** with arsenal of muskets when facing high powered .50 cal. mounted machine guns of trained military
Reply
:iconvalgaavthedragon:
ValGaavTheDragon Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Ok just to say this once it wasnt the guns fault or the people buying so called assault rifles assault by definition means to attack its just a rifle until its used on someone by someone.the gun isnt at fault someone could do the same thing in just a few added minutes with almost any other weapon or improvised weapons. Its rather tragic everyone seems to think the second amendment and the guns are to blame. And its funnier to me that foreigners have more problem with this or try to make a judgement. On our way of life when they dont live work play or grow up here and spout nonsense. Just because they have an internet connection.i dont dislike or mean anyone around here but for the last few days this has been the norm with everyone ive confronted across the net. I dont want to make any judgements but this is and has been my on going observation.
Reply
:iconcique:
Cique Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I voted yes cause it's fucking obvious to anyone with a brain cell; reading some of the comments here I would've start reverse engineering their arguments or putting forward my arguments to them but I really don't think it's going to be worth my time since they're not going to change their bigoted opinion.
Personally all this has shown me is that the UN should impose massive restrictions on the US and all other countries should cut all ties with them, they'd probably even like the last part.
Actually no skip that - since banning guns would 'apparently' not make a difference since people will always kill and anything can be a weapon so therefore the people are to blame, after all there is no precedent of it working in absolutely no other countries, I think that the US should have MORE freedoms to what they can buy and make everything legal in that case; free grenades with every assault rifle, a wheelbarrow of heroin from the Post Office, and uranium from Walmart; it can't be helped if those things are used to kill, after all what if I need a crate full of TNT to defend my neighbourhood with in-case al-Qaeda invade.
Hell Health & Safety Laws are a needless regulation for public safety, it's not my fault if a cereal company uses radioactive flavourings cause it's cheaper, or McDonalds lace their burgers with cocaine, or anti-freeze in alcohol; it's your fault if you buy it.
Hopefully with those new sanctions (or lack of them) all the gun-nuts, morons, and republicans will have wiped themselves out of the gene pool within 50 years and left the non criminally stupid to get on with their lives.
Reply
:iconborisvdb:
borisvdb Featured By Owner May 3, 2013
Thank you for echoing my thoughts, couldn't have said it better myself.
I can say as an American, it's ridiculous the how much gun fanatics will stigmatize any suggestion of realistic gun regulation.
Reply
:iconconradthecoinhunter:
ConradTheCoinhunter Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012
@~Cique: That is one hell of a rant man :D I absolutely love it! :^^
Reply
:iconcique:
Cique Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
:) ranting is my speciality.
Reply
:icontw8687:
tw8687 Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
Their is difference between wanting some degree of self-protection and thinking you can get all the weapons you want. The one without a brain cell is you.
Reply
:iconcique:
Cique Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
So what your saying is that without some form of weapon, in this case a handgun, people will just get murdered? That's an odd stance when in 2008 there were 11 gun related deaths in Japan but 11,000 in the USA, guess which one doesn't have legal firearms. Take a look at this graph: [link]

Whereas the leader of one of the main oppositions in the US proclaims "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", which is wrong on many levels, but I'm the one who is stupid? I see, consider me told then _

Also even in the UK you are much more likely to be knifed when being robbed if you yourself are carrying a knife for self-protection...
Reply
:icontw8687:
tw8687 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
Educate yourself [link]
Reply
:icontw8687:
tw8687 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
Yeah, I don't trust statistics from sites with a bias, sorry.
Reply
:iconcique:
Cique Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The graph I linked is one of many from a site (and sites like it) which gets it's information from numerous independent sources or various government surveys of different countries (ie. accountable facts) whereas the site you linked is one man's opinion (opinion is even in the title of the website); so that's rather ironic.

Even ignoring that it is plain to see that of 1st world countries mass shootings and gun related deaths are much higher in the US than anywhere else, 90 times that of the UK for instance. So you can draw one of two conclusions either; A) Freely available guns are the problem, or B) Americans are the problem.

Now I agree with A in that any society with guns easy to access means that they can fall into the wrong hands and shit will happen, human nature etc. However if you think that current gun laws are fine, then you have to believe in B. Really you're shooting yourself in the foot (pun not intended), since if it's not the gun's fault then it's the peoples' fault but since no other 1st world country has these problems it means it's specifically something only in the American culture that causes more deaths or mass killings than everywhere else.
Reply
:icontw8687:
tw8687 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
I never said that the current gun laws are fine, my problem is that people think that a gun ban will help anything is naive and stupid at best.
Reply
:iconmetal-kitty:
Metal-Kitty Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
It makes me laugh how many 'murricans fight to keep gun laws as they are.

Part of the importance of a system is to look at it's laws and revise them if they're not meeting their citizens' needs. Some people seem to be unwilling to part with... with what? The ability to carry ammo in drums? Access to high calibure, high fire rate guns? Weapons that they (hopefully) never intend to actually use?

Really, I don't see why people are so threatened by the idea of gun control. As far as I know, the idea isn't to eliminate the actual ability to purchase guns and ammo - just restrictions on what kinds you can get. Like... no high-capacity ammo barrels... and no high fire rate guns.

Is that really so bad? Do you really NEED those things when someone is breaking into your house? Seems to me unless that someone is some sort of criminal syndicate with highly trained operatives, you'd do just as well to have a pistol or something.
Reply
:iconroninpsycho:
RoninPsycho Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I ask that you take the time to read everything I've written below, not only for your benefit, but for the benefit of everyone.

1) Drum magazines are not all that is at stake here. Gun control advocates are trying to limit us to 10 round magazines. Most drum magazines carry 50 rounds or more. Your average AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds, which is also considered a "high capacity" magazine. Do most people need them? No, but who needs cars that can go over 80 miles per hour? Who needs a big house? Who needs cell phones, or laptop computers, or video games, or television, or soft drinks, or junk food? It's not about need. At least, not always. Some people really have needed magazines that hold more ammunition. Just ask the store owner in Los Angeles who defended himself and his business from being ransacked by a gang of thugs. Ask anyone who has needed to defend their home from multiple assailants. Ask the police, who use AR-15s, themselves. Who are you to tell us we don't "need" them?

2) You apparently don't know what a high caliber gun is.... The firearms in question recently are what gun control advocates and ignorant media reporters like to call "assault weapons". Aside from the fact that they're NOT assault weapons, these rifles, such as the AR-15, are typically chambered for the 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) rifle cartridge. This is far from a "high caliber". In fact, it's actually quite weak, compared to other rifle calibers, and isn't even powerful enough to hunt deer with (not humanely, anyway). Do you know what a common use of the .223 Remington cartridge is? Hunting varmints. Small game. Things like groundhogs, squirrels, rabbits, etc. That's all it's good for when hunting. Your average deer hunting rifle is 2-3 times more powerful, in terms of kinetic energy of the bullet. Not only that, but when used against people (such as in a defense situation), it has an iffy track record. To put it in perspective, the .357 Magnum handgun cartridge has a one shot stop rate of over 90%. That means that more than 90% of the time, all it takes to stop a person in their tracks is one shot from a full-size .357 Magnum revolver. The 5.56x45mm often takes multiple shots to stop a person. Why do people use it, then? Because it's a helluva lot better than most handguns, and has light recoil. This is also why the police use them.

3) "High fire rate guns"? Ok, let's go back to the AR-15, which I'm guessing you think is a "high fire rate gun". The AR-15 is semi automatic. That means it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. And despite what some people, like Piers Morgan, would have you believe, a "high capacity" magazine does not magically make a gun fire faster. It has the same fire rate regardless. It has the same fire rate as most handguns. What you seem to be referring to is a fully automatic gun. There are already heavy regulations on fully automatic firearms (such as REAL assault rifles and machine guns). They are practically banned. I say practically because the only way to get one (legally) is to register it under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, or ATF, as many people refer to it). Not only that, but the tax stamps and registrations for such guns cost thousands of dollars, which is out of reach for most gun owners. As for the few legal fully automatic guns in the US, only two of them have ever been used to commit crimes in US history, and one of those was by a corrupt police officer.

4) People feel threatened by gun control because it leaves law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves. Criminals and psychopaths don't give a shit about laws. They can buy guns on the black market, or steal them from other people. Not only that, but the Second Amendment was created by our founding fathers mainly as a last defense against tyranny in government. They actually WANTED the people to have access to the same weapons as the military, in case we ever needed to defend ourselves from THEM. Thomas Jefferson also once defined tyranny as that which is legal for the state, but not for the people. So, why do you propose that citizens not be allowed to have "assault weapons", or any kind of firearms? You think it makes everyone safer? Because no, it doesn't. If you want proof of that, look at countries where more people have firearms, and compare them with those where very few or no people at all have them. Countries with lenient firearms laws have dramatically less violent crime than those that ban firearms. The European Union has named the UK as the most violent country in the EU, and for good reason. They have the highest violent crime rate (which is, if I remember correctly, more than three times that of the US). Look at the other end of the spectrum, at Switzerland. In Switzerland, nearly 50% of their population owns and carries firearms. It's even common to see men and women with assault rifles slung around their backs. According to your logic, it'd be a violent, crime-ridden hell. But no, Switzerland has THE LOWEST violent crime rate in the world. Australia, the UK, Mexico, and other countries that ban firearms or place severe restrictions on them tend to have the absolute highest violent crime rates.

5) "High capacity ammo barrels"? There is no such thing. In fact, this just goes to show how little you really know about guns. (I'm guessing you know next-to-nothing....)

6) Yes, that IS really so bad. When you have people breaking into your house, trying to hurt or kill you, or worse - hurt or kill your spouse and children - it's better to be prepared than not to be. Do we need those things? Yes, we might...because shit happens.

With all that said, do you realize how ignorant and nave it is to say the things you've said? Have you done any actual research for yourself? If you have any critical thinking skills, whatsoever, you will do the research, and you will see for yourself that everything I've told you is true.
Reply
:iconmetal-kitty:
Metal-Kitty Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
That was a bit lengthy, so I hope you don't mind I skimmed.

1.) So you're limited to ten magazines... what do you need more than that for? You expecting to be attacked by a shady organization? Have a gunfight? If that's your expectation, I'd say gun laws are the least of your worries.

2.) I know what a high-calibur gun is. I also know that while they're perdy to look at, I see no logical reason for a civilian to have a minigun in their possession. If you want a high calibur weapon, get one that's none-functional. It may sound bad, but it also keeps these dangerous tools of death from reaching the hands of crazies.

3.) I don't know crap about guns, fire-rate or otherwise. I'm lucky to know what an AK-47 is. I know enough, though, to know that if you can't get the job done with an old fashioned pistol, it's probably not legal to begin with. But I'm a practical man like that.

4.) Defend themselves from what? The gun laws effecting you will also effect your neighbore. Unless you're in a neighborehood where people are getting their mitts on illegal firearms, I'd say it's not a big deal. If you're expecting to be attacked by a shady organization-- well, see point 1.

5.) Ridicule my poor use of wording all you want, but I think you know what I mean. Any clip that holds either massive amounts of ammunition or, simularly, massive amounts of unneededly destructive firepower. Once more, if you can't do it with a pistol (or, at the very most, an old fashioned shotgun) you probably shouldn't be doing it to begin with.

6.) Once more, if they're breaking into your house, they're subject to the same laws you are, and have, at best, the same ammunition you do. At worse, they got more guns. This assumes, once more, you're not dealing with someone whose threat level is so high, even with our current gun laws you'd be in major trouble.

You've proven nothing to me and you havent shaken my views. You simply made me decide to elaborate. Hopefully you can see the ration in all that I've said.

As an added bonus...

7.) Yes, people who really want to kill will. But, there are those who kill with guns that cannot kill in other ways. Killing someone with a weapon or, worse, your bare hands, takes a bit more testicular fortitude than it does to aim a piece of metal/plastic and pull a trigger.
Reply
:iconroninpsycho:
RoninPsycho Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
1) No, I did not say we are limited to 10 magazines. I said they are trying to limit us to 10 round magazines (meaning magazines that can only hold 10 rounds). Many states already have 10-round limits on their magazines, and New York just reduced it to 7 rounds. No, I do not expect to be attacked by a shady organization. I'm more worried about being attacked by my own government, which already is out of control, and continues to get worse. To think that that can't happen is nave. No government in the world is immune to corruption, and the US government is no exception. There've already been numerous cases where they have abused their power and passed unconstitutional acts, such as HR 347, the indefinite detention provision of the 2012 NDAA, Executive Order 13603, the Drone Bill, etc. Hopefully, we can peacefully reverse the damage done by corrupt politicians before it gets out of hand. I certainly don't WANT to have a war, but as I've said before, shit happens. It happened to Germany, it happened to Austria, it happened to Russia, it happened to China, it happened to Mexico, etc. The Second Amendment is there for our protection, and I refuse to give up the ability to protect myself. As a human being, it is my natural right to be able to protect my life, my property, and my loved ones.

2) Do you really think most gun owners have miniguns? I've never even seen one, let alone known anyone who has owned one. But you know what? It's also legal for citizens to own tanks and flamethrowers. You don't see people running rampant with those, do you? As for high caliber guns, they are not "tools of death". What you describe as "tools of death" are used mostly for hunting and survival. Up north, in places such as Maine, Washington, Alaska, etc., you virtually NEED those large caliber guns to protect yourself from bears or other large predators. And for hunting, you also NEED those powerful calibers to take down big game. Some common calibers for whitetail deer hunting alone are the .30-30 Winchester, .308 Winchester, and .30-60 Springfield. All of those calibers are far more powerful than anything the AR-15 can fire. Not only that, but as it is, very few homicides are committed with any rifles, as it is. Most homicides in the US are committed with cheap handguns. You think crazy people are a problem? Then address the mental health problem of the country. Don't unjustly go after the good, honest gun owners of America. We had nothing to do with the mass shootings. In fact, how about you take a look at the US government, which literally gave guns to criminals and Mexican drug cartels through Operation Fast and Furious. They GAVE the criminals the very guns that we're being prosecuted about, so that they'd have an excuse to push more gun control on us. However, they were caught, and the media doesn't even talk about it, nor does the media ever mention how many lives are saved by good people with guns every day.

3) And because you don't know much about guns, it's also easy to see why you don't know that "an old fashioned pistol" just doesn't cut it most of the time. Most handguns are UNDERpowered for defense. That's why they are considered sidearms, or backup weapons. The only handguns that are not underpowered are the larger caliber handguns (.357 Magnum and higher). However, not everyone can handle the recoil of those guns. An old woman, for example, would never be able to effectively use such a gun. That's why some guns, such as AR-15s or other rifles, are better choices for them, because they are adequate for defense, and have light recoil. And if you are being attacked by more than one person, do you really think someone with a 9mm handgun and only 10 rounds in the magazine is going to be able to defend themselves? It's not likely, unless you manage to shoot your assailants in the head, which is extremely difficult when you're under severe stress and in panic mode, not to mention the other factors involved.

4) No, and here's the problem you don't seem to understand. Even if "assault weapons" were banned, or if people were limited to 10 round magazines, do you honestly believe that criminals would abide by that law? You can take whatever you want from the law abiding citizens, but the criminals will still have them. Why, then, must the good people be put at a disadvantage? Firearms are equalizers. They level the playing field. They are what allow the physically small and weak to defend themselves against the big and strong. When you restrict anything about guns, you are only affecting the people who have no intent to hurt anyone in the first place. Is that really so hard to understand? I'm not afraid of my neighbors. I have no reason to fear them, regardless of what kind of firearms they own. It's the psychopaths and criminals, and a tyrannical government that I fear. If you restrict what we can own, simply because you THINK it makes us safer, or because it makes YOU feel safer, then all you've done is make us less able to defend ourselves. You effectively make things MORE dangerous.

5) Again, tell that to the man who defended his business in Los Angeles against a gang of thugs who attacked him and his store. You think he could have done so with a pistol? You think he could have done so with a shotgun? If he was limited to a pistol, he would have been utterly screwed. He'd be DEAD. If he had a shotgun, he MAY have been able to defend himself, but there's no guarantee. He NEEDED that AR-15 to defend himself, just like millions of Americans across the nation need theirs to defend their lives, homes, and families in case they are ever attacked. And again, I stress the fact that the founding fathers of the United States WANTED the people to have access to the very same weapons that the military had. With the gun control legislation already in place today, we can't do that anymore. People don't have assault rifles, or machine guns, or anything like that. If our government ever turned the military against us, which it already has in some cases, we'd be severely outgunned. At this point, we'd have to hope that at least some of the military would refuse to follow their orders, and side with us.

6) "They're subject to the same laws"? I'm sorry, but do you even realize how stupid that is? It's also illegal to break into someone's house. It's illegal to murder, rape, assault, and steal. What the hell makes you think that laws that I'm subject to will stop them from breaking into my house with illegal guns? Do you seriously not realize that you do not make ANY sense with your arguments? Do you really not see the flawed logic here? If prohibition of alcohol and drugs have never worked, what the fuck makes you think prohibiting any types of firearms is going to be any different?

7) You've never even fired a gun, have you? Do you seriously think it's so easy as just pointing a gun at someone and pulling a trigger? You don't know how much time and training it takes to actually be accurate with a gun when target shooting, let alone in a high-stress situation where you have to protect your life. But if you think it's so easy, then riddle me this. Why are cars, alcohol, and tobacco not banned? The amount of people killed each year by firearms pales in comparison to those killed in car accidents, or from smoking or drinking. Why are matches and lighters not banned because of how many people die from fires, or from the amount of damage caused by wildfires? Why are all of these FAR more dangerous things not banned when the amount of people that are shot to death is but a tiny fraction of those killed by the above? There's certainly nothing in the Constitution protecting people's right to own any of them, so why? Can you answer that? Can you actually stop and understand the facts? Can you finally see the truth of the matter?
Reply
:iconmetal-kitty:
Metal-Kitty Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
1.) Is ten-round magazines really so bad? Especially if you can have multiples? Or are they limiting that too? Be specific, because if they limit you to one clip of ten rounds, then I can see how that'd be irritating.

2.) I do not, I was actually making a statement of having unneededly high ordinance within ones' possession by way of exaggeration. I know the highest firerate a civilian maybe able to have is probably an assault rifle (unless you value firepower of single-shots, which'd probably be the Desert Eagle, if I remember right? Not sure...) My point is that some weapons just have no purpose in the hands of civilians.

3.) Once more, the laws effecting you would effect the criminals as well. Silly as it sounds, unless you're dealing with crooks who have the connections to get illegal firearms and/or ammo, it works, and if you ARE dealing with such criminals, I'd say the gun laws (or lack thereof) werent going to do you much good in the first place.

4.) See statement 3. It's not just abiding by the law - the criminals would have to be able to get their hands on the materials, thus would need the connections to either manufacturers or suppliers that would allow them discreet gain of such weapons. If you're dealing with criminals like these, then you were probably going to be screwed anyway; the only difference is you won't be going out like the hero of an action movie.

5.) He could have if those other guys only had pistols. A shotgun would have worked. I redirect you to response 3 once more.

6.) No I do not. Law Breakers WILL break the law, yes. But breaking the law requires more than just the desire in this case - they'd have to be able to get their hands on the materials. While this would be possible for some, it wouldn't be for all.

7.) I have not, but I do not have a grudge against firearms either. I looked at Canada's "death by firearms" rate and realized that whatever they're doing seems to be working. And not all things that are potentially lethal should be banned - the thing is, guns are DESIGNED to be lethal. THEY SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE. Some people get them to sit there and look pretty, but functionally, they are designed to make people stop living. I firmly believe the whole 'guns don't kill people' concept, but one cannot deny that guns exist for no other reason than to bring harm in some form.
Reply
:iconroninpsycho:
RoninPsycho Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
1) If you have to change your magazine out while a bunch of thugs are breaking into your house, then yes, that IS bad. In a fight for your life, a fraction of a second and some extra rounds can mean the difference between coming out alive, or you and your family being killed.

2) Again, you're going back to the case of "need". Who are you to say that some weapons serve no purpose in the hands of civilians? Tell me why an AR-15 with a standard 30 round magazine shouldn't be in the hands of civilians, but is perfectly ok in the hands of the police. Do you think police are better trained or qualified? In most cases, no, they're not. Most police officers aren't as skilled or haven't had as much training as your average gun owners. These days, an ordinary citizen is more likely to be shot by a police officer than by a common criminal. Regardless of how powerful these guns are, your flawed logic says that because some are "too powerful", civilians shouldn't be allowed to own them, yet you refuse to give any real explanation as to WHY. More than 99% of gun owners are good, responsible people who never hurt anyone, don't want to hurt anyone, and are safe with their firearms. So why, then, should we ban something that isn't a real threat?

3) Oh really? By your logic, laws against murder, rape, assault, and theft should keep anyone from doing those things. But oh, wait...they don't. If laws against murder, rape, assault, and theft don't stop criminals from doing those things, what fucked up logic in your head tells you that gun laws will do anything? The goddamn "gun-free zones" across the country are HAVENS for criminals, which is a simple fact that you can't seem to wrap your fucking head around. Criminals do NOT obey the fucking law! That's why they're called CRIMINALS! I don't get it.... How the hell can you just ignore the straight facts like that? You refuse to accept the facts, and make up your own bullshit reasoning, because you don't want to accept that you're wrong.

4) If that's the case, then why do criminals and drug cartels wreak havoc down in Mexico? They have a near total gun ban in Mexico, and laws that make it virtually impossible for any law abiding citizen to legally buy guns. But even then, the gangs and criminals have them, and they kill thousands upon thousands of people. When D.C. banned guns several years ago, their crime rates skyrocketed. For a time, D.C. was known as the crime capitol of the world. And when the original Assault Weapons Ban passed back in 1994, it did not do ANYTHING to stop or reduce crime. The previous Assault Weapons Ban banned magazines that held more than 10 rounds, and banned the manufacture and sale of guns such as the AR-15. Violent crime rates didn't go down at all! In fact, after the ban expired, violent crime rates began dropping again, just as they had been for decades up until the first Assault Weapons Ban passed. Your logic does not stand up to the facts. This is real life, NOT some fantasy land that you seem to think we live in, where everything works the way you think it does.

5) Even if those guys had crowbars and rocks, he should have the best possible weapon he can get to defend himself. If you take away his rifle, and give him a handgun or shotgun, you have reduced his ability to defend himself. Why the fuck do you want to make things more fair for criminals? It's good, honest people who should have the upper hand. Even without the ban, as I've already said, most criminals use cheap handguns. If a law abiding citizen can defend himself with something better than what the criminals are using, then why the hell shouldn't he?

6) You seem to ignore the fact that corrupt people do exist. Whether it be corrupt business owners, politicians, governments, etc., they do exist, and they do help facilitate the smuggling of illegal firearms. How else would the gangs in Mexico be able to get firearms? And as I've already told you, our own government purposefully SOLD thousands of guns, including "assault weapons" to these gangs. Eric Holder was the head of Operation Fast and Furious. He and President Obama are both ultimately responsible for this, seeing as Holder headed the operation, and Obama most likely knew about it. Yet you don't see anyone who advocates gun control criticizing them for such acts. You say that it takes more than desire - that they'd have to be able to physically get their hands on the guns and ammo. Well, guess what...they can, and they do. Our very own government makes sure of that. They do this so that they can use the "gun violence" and crimes with these weapons as an excuse to ban them. Tell me how the hell you can excuse that, and side with them.

7) And Japan has a very low crime rate as well. There ARE some exceptions. However, the United States is NOT one of them. Japan has such a low crime rate because they have better education, a thriving economy, happier people, and some cultural differences. However, it is also worth noting that they have an absurdly high suicide rate. You cannot just look at a couple countries, and say that gun control works. You have to look throughout history, and look at the bigger picture. We do not live in a utopia. Society is violent and dangerous, and people need to be able to defend themselves in the best way possible. Yes, guns are designed to be lethal. And so have swords, knives, axes, clubs, bows, spears, muskets, so many more weapons been designed to be lethal. But guns, as well as all of the above weapons, do NOT exist only to bring harm in some form. They exist to do what their owners and users CHOOSE to do with them, because they are merely tools. Just as a hammer may be designed to hammer in nails, but be used to kill or maim; a firearm may be designed to be lethal, but only used for target shooting, hunting, or just plain fun. The primary reason for keeping them, however, is for people to be able to defend themselves, because that is their RIGHT. As a living, breathing human being, it is just as much my right and responsibility to protect myself as it is for you to protect yourself. However, if people like you wish to take away or hinder that ability, then you are the enemy of humankind. If you try to disarm me, then YOU are my enemy, and I will NOT allow you, or anyone else, to do so. I will defend my rights to the death.

I'm done with you. If you cannot be bothered to educate yourself about the facts, then you have no business telling anyone what they can and cannot have, or what they do and do not need. If you want your opinions to be respected, then educate yourself. You have no excuse in this day and age to remain ignorant, especially if you act in your ignorance to harm the rights of others, and bring harm upon them, whether directly or indirectly.
Reply
:iconmetal-kitty:
Metal-Kitty Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
1.) If you're getting attacked by that many thugs, I'd say gun laws or no, the odds are stacked against you. Unless they've got some damn good connections, though, their clips are just as limited as yours.

2.) Those weapons don't belong in the hands of police either - they belong in the hands of soldiers and, at lowest, national guardsmen. They DON'T belong in the hands of a civilian because, really, what good does an AR-15 serve? Are you expecting to get attacked by a small army? Or are you just a sadist that wants to put as many holes as you can into one person? The right to bare arms was to allow people to defend themselves; not arm themselves to the teeth like Rambo.

3.) It is impossible to completely obliterate the crimes entirely, this is true - but, is having bigger guns and clips and more destructive firepower worth the innocent lives lost to people who can get their hands on that AR-15 with such ease? Yes, people will still get their hands on these weapons, but then it will be limited to those who have connections, and these people are a high tier threat as is anyway. If you've made people with such connections mad, you're screwed even under our current gun laws.

4.) Beats me. Maybe Canadians are just better people then? Gun laws in the united states would be pointless, under your arguement, because Americans are just naturally violent and bloodthirsty people - an arguement I am willing to concede to, considering how many people I've heard say would "die before giving up their guns."

5.) Wait, am I reading this right? It seems to me your focus is more on outgunning your potential attacker, as opposed to being able to functionally defend yourself. All it takes is one bullet to do the job, there's no reason to turn people into swiss cheese.

6.) I know corrupt people do exist. Thing is, they exist now too. If you're messing with someone who can get illegal weapons under restrictive gun laws, chances are, you're messing with people who could get them before. Just how screwed you might be can vary, is about the only thing I can say, but it is probably safe to say you're still screwed.

7.) So, in order for America to be safe, we need Rambo-esque weapons, ready to every man, woman, and psychopath who can pull a trigger and wait a few days? You've made some unfair assumptions of me, so I say you deserve this; you seem to think for America to be safe, citizens need to have as much destructive power available to them as possible. Under this knowledge, hey, why not give the public access to bombs and miniguns too? It's only right, right? After all, if someone breaks into your house, the only clear way to settle it is to render them sticky paste on a wall.

I'm done with you as well. You are stubborn and seem more focused on having destructive power as opposed to effective defense. If you can't do it with one or two bullets, why even try? If you have to turn everything infront of you into cheese, you're more destructive than any intruder that might come into your home, seeing as they'll want to keep valuable things intact (either that or they're coming for you, at which case they will likely be ready for anything they know about.)

Fun fact: a few years ago I'd have been on your side. I know guns can do good - in the right hands. Problem is, it is FAR too easy for them to get into the wrong ones, and far too often they do. Guns don't kill people, this is true, but they give people the tool and, sometimes, the balls -- after all, it's very comforting knowing you can take someone out without getting close to them I imagine.

If you have a better idea, then I'd sure as hell share it. Oh, and don't give me that "arm teachers" dribble; I've seen enough teachers get arrested and fired for abusing their power to know the inevitable conclusion to that route.
Reply
:iconlizardlegion13:
LizardLegion13 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Honestly, we 'murricans don't usually use assault weapons. But, the point is, would criminals really stop using weapons if it were 'against the law'?
Reply
:iconmetal-kitty:
Metal-Kitty Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Of course not.

The point isn't to make them stop using weapons - it's to limit their ability to obtain them. If someone wants to kill bad enough, they'll use their bare hands; taking away even just the ability for them to obtain a small army's worth of guns and ammunition would shatter a lot of that 'bravery'.

Why?

Because guns are easy, swift, and impersonal. It takes a lot more balls to kill someone up close.

Besides; there's no point in civilians having so much firepower.
Reply
:iconcaetechevalier:
caetechevalier Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Blaming guns for this is like blaming American Airlines for 9/11 or cars for people killed by drunk drivers.

People are to blame.

Since every murderer in history was a child, obviously children are to blame. So let us make children illegal! In a few decades this whole mess will solve itself and make the world a better place for the Feline Canine Global Wars! ;-)

Reply
:iconconradthecoinhunter:
ConradTheCoinhunter Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012
@caetechevalier: How do you figure that? Most airliners arn't built to be flown into buildings. Most guns however are made to shoot and kill living things. :/ I think there's a pretty stark difference there. Yes, people are to blame to some degree, but why does it have to be about blame? Why can't the rest of us take a step back and inform ourselves on the policies that make people take these kinds of drastic action. Why isn't the focus of the debate the helplessness of these people? :/ To just assign blame is the wrong way of going about understanding the deeper issues here. Social injustice, economic inequality etc.. Nothing is ever as simple as you seem to make it out to be.
Reply
:iconcaetechevalier:
caetechevalier Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012
It's the blaming of the tool and not the user that's the issue. The gun didn't make him go and kill people. Having a gun in the house doesn't make people go and kill people. It's that person's mental state that makes them pick up said gun and kill people.

What 'policies' are these?

How did social injustice and economic inequality make this person who had mental issues decide to kill people with a gun? You're confusing the issues and blending them together.

Mom had kids. mom got guns all legally and proper. One kid has issues. Mom even states this. Mom takes no action to secure guns/get serious help for said kid. Kid snaps, kills mom, takes her gun and kills more.

There will always be "economic inequality" and "social injustice" as we are human beings. Not everyone has the same skill set or even equal skill sets when it comes to jobs. That's because we are all different. Bob may prefer to draw in his text books instead of learning algebra. That doesn't mean we need to coddle him and hold his hand and make him CFO of Apple does it? No. The Constitution guarantees you the right for the PURSUIT of happiness. It doesn't say you will GET happiness. Business is the same way. Many businesses fail for one reason or another. No one is guaranteed success. To make everyone winners and give them trophies demeans and belittles the accomplishments of those who actually try their hardest to succeed. You fail? Try harder, learn more or maybe that's not the route for you and pick something else to try.

College is not a right. Going to college doesn't mean you are owed anything. Having a college degree doesn't mean you will get the maximum pay for your job either. There once was a time when you expected to start at the bottom and work/earn your way to the top. To scrape by paycheck to paycheck until you got up the ladder a rung or two and got more money.Expecting to be the CEO of IBM right after graduating from college is a pipe dream.

You don't like the hand life has dealt you? Try something else, apply yourself to learn new skills. You control your fate not the government. Blaming others/tools/the moon/etc is just a poor attempt to shift the focus from the core issue, personal responsibility/accountability to the current set of buzzwords.

tl;dr
Tools don't build houses, people do.
Everyone has the right to succeed AND to fail.
All men are created equal.
Reply
:iconconradthecoinhunter:
ConradTheCoinhunter Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012
First, sorry for the long post. I have trouble keeping myself from being too verbose at times...

It's interesting that you think that the mixing of issues is a problem. It's not an isolated problem. I'm in no way saying that an inanimate object is responsible for what it is being used for, I mean come on - are you sure you're not reading something into this that I did not say? I'm meerly pointing out that mental issues and social inequality are drivers for peoples anger and fear. Violence of this type are far more common in countries where there the divide between the poor and rich are greater.

If you want examples of this i suggest you look at switzerland to name one. I'm swedish, and we have about the same number of guns as the U.S. (per capita ofc), but only 1/5 the number of murders (again, per capita). My stats may be a bit out of date but it's something of that order. It's not just because of differing gun control laws, because they're pretty relaxed here aswell.

You don't have to tell me we're all different and that there will always be social and economic injustice, it's all over the world for anyone with their eyes open to see. The issue is more like 'what do you want to do about it?'. Just saying that something will always be so is no way of going about trying to solve the issue, and it is an issue that we should atleast attempt to solve, because in a more equal world everyone benefits.

On the matter of people getting what they deserve, there is no need to take the argument to ad absurdum. I'm all for the idea of people getting what they deserve on the job market, but as is often the case there's a middle ground. I don't know if you think that this kind of law of the jungle is one that produces a society in which compassion, empathy and a general sense of "we're all in this boat together" is a part at all, but i do know that such rampant ideologies are what causes systematic violence and results in people going batshit insane when they fail. This is, ofcourse something that must happen, but perhaps if when they failed they were not completely broken down, it would 1. be easier for them to have another go at it. 2. not snap and pointlessly kill other people.

I guess we differ when it comes to education. I believe eduation should be a right, and that it should be paid for by taxes paid by the population for the betterment of the society as a whole. I'm not saying that people should have an endless number of chances, but that everyone should be able to go to school and learn. It's proven to be quite the effective way out of poverty for a lot of people.

...and if all men are created equal then perhaps they should be afforded the same right to education. Those are not just words you can throw out in a law of the jungle context - they can still apply even if we agree to have some collective responsibilities to each other.
Reply
:iconthemocmaker:
theMOCmaker Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Maybe, unless the law is made to let people defend themselves
Reply
:iconowlity:
owlity Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012
Can we ban alcohol?
Reply
:icondfx2k9:
DFX2K9 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
We tried, it was called prohibition. And it made celebrities out of the Criminals. To the extent that part of the argument for repealing the amendment in the first place, was to take away these gangsters' money source.

There is a decent chance an outright ban, or even a restriction of some kind would have a similar effect. there well be demand, the sales boom after Sandy Hook was evidence of that. And there will be supply, either from theft, or someone getting themselves some CNC equipment (or a drill set and a Dremel, in the AK's case). It will make some very nefarious people very wealthy if it happens.

Folks need to think things though if they're going to own a gun. But, frankly, most folks buying these things are just scared senseless.
Reply
:iconowlity:
owlity Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013
I know. I was kidding.

Exactly. There are still guns in circulation, so it will never be possible to ban them all, but stricter guidelines should be in place before selling guns to people.
Reply
:icondfx2k9:
DFX2K9 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I would agree with that statement, rather then what you can own, more like 'what you must do before we'll trust you owning it'
Reply
:iconowlity:
owlity Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Exactly.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 

Poll History