I can garuntee you if they ban guns, there WILL be a black market for them. Shit, they dont buy guns in stores anymore unless is somethin crucial like a Ak and even then.....
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Guns...
- Thread starter .astrokid
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry, but saying something that sounds like it's out of a book titled 101 Quotable Quotes doesn't exactly give backing to such claims.
I'd like to know on what basis these opinions are being formed upon. People are talking here as if they've lived through such instances themselves, when I highly doubt that's the case.
In the event of armed uprising, of course not. I'm an American who was too young to have taken part in the LA riots.
My basis of opinion for my fear of totalitarianism as a result of de-weaponizing the populace comes from logic: When someone comes to take what's yours, how do you fight back if they're armed and you're not?
I fear being predated upon by a corrupt government (more than I fear the dissolution of our social structure into temporary feudalism in the event of large-scale national catastrophe).
The terms of success when fighting against intrusion by your government (ATF/FBI vs. The Branch Davidians, for example) or another (Afghanistan vs. the Soviet Union) are decided by your weapons.
I've not lived through these things, but understanding briefly some of Europe's history, I seem to recall learning about armed uprisings overthrowing absolute monarchs, and nationalist rebels ending an empire.
Weapons are a tool of change, for better or for worse, but I worry most about stagnation.
As for handguns being banned:
I could agree with that, if there were other effective personal defense weapons in production (stun guns only hurt so much, and pepper spray doesn't scare multiple or masked assailants). Ideally, firearms would only be used by hunters, law enforcement, and the military.
Must we suffer to have a valid opinion?
Ban people.
I tell you what, I will support a gun ban if all of the following are banned:
Machetes
Baseball Bats (wood or aluminum)
Golf Clubs
Metal Pipes
Steak Knives
Chainsaws
Martial Artists (their whole body is a deadly weapon!)
Belts
Bricks
Pianos
Anvils
Dog Doo on a stick
If you aren't getting the point, it is that people cause crime, not random inanimate objects. Where are these mystical mind-controlling guns I've heard about?
Beating our swords into plowshares means that the people who didn't feel free to enslave us.
You know what a hand gun is good for? When a woman is in a back-alley and a motherfucking rapist starts advancing on her. Nothing stops an attacker faster than the idea they can be killed before they even get near their intended victim. The threat of death alone wards them off.
What else does Orwell want banned? Perhaps to get rid of those "violent gun nuts" who dissent from his absolute will?
Criminals have no respect for the law, therefore they will subvert legal channels to get what they want. Certainly there should be a basic background and mental health check before anyone can purchase a firearm, but beyond that it is an individual person's right to do as they please.
As to "Europe," try "Massachusetts," which has the "best gun control laws in the nation." And yet, criminals still manage to rob convenience stores with guns, and violent crime rates continue to soar. Except, oddly enough, for those convenience store managers packing a rifle behind the counter. "Gun control" seeks to disarm the convenience store where the criminal works outside the system to begin with, and is thus unaffected. If a criminal gets his face shot in, too damn bad, thats the risk you take when you turn to a life of crime.
I tell you what, I will support a gun ban if all of the following are banned:
Machetes
Baseball Bats (wood or aluminum)
Golf Clubs
Metal Pipes
Steak Knives
Chainsaws
Martial Artists (their whole body is a deadly weapon!)
Belts
Bricks
Pianos
Anvils
Dog Doo on a stick
If you aren't getting the point, it is that people cause crime, not random inanimate objects. Where are these mystical mind-controlling guns I've heard about?
Beating our swords into plowshares means that the people who didn't feel free to enslave us.
You know what a hand gun is good for? When a woman is in a back-alley and a motherfucking rapist starts advancing on her. Nothing stops an attacker faster than the idea they can be killed before they even get near their intended victim. The threat of death alone wards them off.
What else does Orwell want banned? Perhaps to get rid of those "violent gun nuts" who dissent from his absolute will?
Criminals have no respect for the law, therefore they will subvert legal channels to get what they want. Certainly there should be a basic background and mental health check before anyone can purchase a firearm, but beyond that it is an individual person's right to do as they please.
As to "Europe," try "Massachusetts," which has the "best gun control laws in the nation." And yet, criminals still manage to rob convenience stores with guns, and violent crime rates continue to soar. Except, oddly enough, for those convenience store managers packing a rifle behind the counter. "Gun control" seeks to disarm the convenience store where the criminal works outside the system to begin with, and is thus unaffected. If a criminal gets his face shot in, too damn bad, thats the risk you take when you turn to a life of crime.
as long as they exist, criminals will always have them.... nothing can really be done about that. Many drugs have been illegal for years, yet what do you see on your corner every day?
Except that crime statistics are a bit more complex than that. Things like population density, poverty and such are all some of the contributing factors, so it's not a clear cut case of "A leads to B." What also doesn't help is that different countries gather statistics in different ways: I mean, the number of gun-related deaths Queen posted looks nasty until you realize over half the deaths are suicides, and I can probably guarantee that most of those people would have found a way to kill themselves had guns not been available.
Which doesn't really prove anything. That's like me saying America's managed fine without a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system of government, so England should burn down Buckingham palace and setup an electoral college.
.. how is that at all relevant? you could also have said 'WELL ENGLAND DOESN'T HAVE LUCKY CHARMS' for all of the sense that made. when do you see queen elizabeth lining people up and shooting them?
If you're going to argue "America doesn't need guns because our count(ry/ies) get along fine without guns", then an equally absurd statement is also relevant. I mean, from where I'm standing having the concept of "motion of confidence" frequently being used to enforce ironclad party loyalty is a pretty shitty deal.
And then another problem with this statement is that there are examples that counter that one, like Sweden: if they can get along fine with fully automatic weapons, what's your holdup?
You won't deal with anything because you've got the best point of view on gun control. At least that's is what I'm to believe, unless of course you somehow have any control over what United States citizens do or do not do. Oh, and the "it" in you last sentence is an ambiguous pronoun which would lead the reader to believe someone from outside the United States has a better point of view toward the country than a US citizen.
Also; your analogy in the second quote is false. You have incorrectly assumed that because two things are alike in one respect, they must be alike in others. The unknown variables confronting arms researchers are far fewer than those confronting medical scientists and doctors. Guns and AIDS both kill but beyond that have little in common.
Screw these lame guns! Who cares about them! Real men use katana!
On a side note, I don't think this is true. Just as it's a lot easier to kill someone else with a gun than by other means, it's a lot easier to just pull the trigger on yourself than to actually kick the bucket or tie the weights onto your legs because while you're setting all this up you have time to think and stop. A gun is an immediate death.
A few facts for you:
In 1991 guns were used in 60.1% of all suicides and 67.8% of all homicides in the USA
The US has nearly 14 times Australia's population. It has 64 times Australia's total gun deaths, and 211 times its gun homicides. In the other direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just over seven times Australia's population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest homicide rate, it had just 60 people murdered with guns--nearly 30% less than Australia's recent annual average of 85 people murdered with guns.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7059/739
So basically this proves
a) Stricter gun laws DO reduce gun crime
b) Stricter gun laws lead to a lower murder rate
c) Guns are the favoured measure of murders/suicides.
In 1991 guns were used in 60.1% of all suicides and 67.8% of all homicides in the USA
The US has nearly 14 times Australia's population. It has 64 times Australia's total gun deaths, and 211 times its gun homicides. In the other direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just over seven times Australia's population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest homicide rate, it had just 60 people murdered with guns--nearly 30% less than Australia's recent annual average of 85 people murdered with guns.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7059/739
So basically this proves
a) Stricter gun laws DO reduce gun crime
b) Stricter gun laws lead to a lower murder rate
c) Guns are the favoured measure of murders/suicides.
I'm not saying you're incorrect in what you're saying, just that the likeliness of that happening is so ungodly remote, why allow all the gun crimes to continue just because you think something might happen sometime in the near future? I'm of the mindset that our country, as well as the vast majority of the world, is so technologically advanced that the government isn't so primitive as to warrant an overthrow. Besides, they don't need to come through your front door with guns to keep you under their thumb, that's what taxes are for.
This is kinda ridiculous. You try killing someone from 30 feet away with a chainsaw or martial arts, tell me how that works out for you.
Or, if she DOES shoot the man, how will she prove he was going to rape her? Maybe he was taking a shortcut home. Now she's in prison for homicide. Great idea.
So what you're basically saying is that all criminals don't deserve to live. Wonderful. And MA might have the strongest gun laws in the nation, but guess what... it's surrounded by other states that DON'T. It needs to be an across-the-board ban or none at all.
UGH... for the last time, STOP comparing guns to drugs.
Putting this in 2 posts so I don't lose it all.
Um, yeah... that's what "murder rates" are for. Also, sentences started with "I can probably guarantee" should be kept to a minimum, because they end up reeking of bullshit.
No, it's NOT relevant. Because the Monarchy of England isn't used to kill people. Well, maybe it is, we just don't know about it. Her statement isn't "absurd" if it points out that a country very similar to ours in cultural and societal mores has proved that stringent gun control lowers homicides.
Because they've had them for a very long time. Do you think it's at all responsible to legalize automatic weapons in the United States? Do you have ANY idea the surge in violent crime that would produce? Yeah, THAT'S my holdup.
Well, sometimes I believe that to be true. We have a large amount of people in this country who are completely ignorant and still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that we found WMD's there. The rest of the world sees us for what we are: a selfish, self-important nation who thinks it can tell everyone else what to do. As such, they have an honestly unbiased view on what we do here.
True, I was comparing two different kinds of apples there, but the point I was trying to make is that both those things kill thousands of people a year, hundreds of thousands in the case of guns; so regardless of any benefits either has to our society, is it really worth having either of them around?
So is this where I tell you your example of a European country where everyone has an automatic weapon in their house is irrelevant? Also, are you suggesting that it isn't worth it to even try?
Um, yeah... that's what "murder rates" are for. Also, sentences started with "I can probably guarantee" should be kept to a minimum, because they end up reeking of bullshit.
No, it's NOT relevant. Because the Monarchy of England isn't used to kill people. Well, maybe it is, we just don't know about it. Her statement isn't "absurd" if it points out that a country very similar to ours in cultural and societal mores has proved that stringent gun control lowers homicides.
Because they've had them for a very long time. Do you think it's at all responsible to legalize automatic weapons in the United States? Do you have ANY idea the surge in violent crime that would produce? Yeah, THAT'S my holdup.
Well, sometimes I believe that to be true. We have a large amount of people in this country who are completely ignorant and still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that we found WMD's there. The rest of the world sees us for what we are: a selfish, self-important nation who thinks it can tell everyone else what to do. As such, they have an honestly unbiased view on what we do here.
True, I was comparing two different kinds of apples there, but the point I was trying to make is that both those things kill thousands of people a year, hundreds of thousands in the case of guns; so regardless of any benefits either has to our society, is it really worth having either of them around?
So is this where I tell you your example of a European country where everyone has an automatic weapon in their house is irrelevant? Also, are you suggesting that it isn't worth it to even try?
I am of that persuasion, y'know, of simply eliminating things that are of no benefit to us. There are some things you may ask yourself though:
1) Is it a problem that so many people die every year due to these "killers"? "Monster!" would be a common response here. From the perspective of the thousands of extinct species and our continually deteriorating climate stability, the death of humans is a-ok. Should stopping death really be a priority? Maybe letting people die is necessary if we don't want more people to die of starvation or environmental effects later.
2) The only problem is not how to eliminate these "killers" by simply undoing them or burning them or what have you. The other problem is that which exists within people. Sure, destroying AIDS and guns is the right way to go, but even if we melted down every last virus and weapon there would be no way to melt down the fear and suspicion we can instill in each other. It's one of those cosmic questions: can we undo what makes us special? As humans is it even realistic to believe we can overcome trying to be better and more alive then the next person?
Hahaha, I like this paragraph. Honestly, yes, this entire planet is MUCH better off without us around, but for the sake of self-preservation... let's lose the guns.
It's true, we will always find ways to harm each other. It reminds me of Ray Bradbury's "A Piece of Wood," where a man says he can destroy all the metal weapons in the world, and he is told that if you take away the guns, people will kill each other with sticks and stones. Take away those, and they will beat each other to death with their hands and feet. Cut those off, and the hatred will just build up in the air until everyone chokes to death. Pretty bleak view, but it's realistic in the sense that mankind will never find true peace in itself. As anti-gun people are just saying... let's make it a lot harder for one man to take another man's life.
Haven't read a single post in this thread, so I'll probably be saying what a lot of people said. I'm usually against violence, as I'm sure everyone else is, so I could say any type of ammo shouldn't be legalized, but for one
a) Guns don't kill, people do;
b) Even if they were made illegal outside law enforcement and the like, they'd still be around the black market
Do you know how many ilegal transactions occur? It's illegal to market endangered species, but it still exists.
If manking were able to stop these things from existing completely, imo there would be no need for guns in general.
a) Guns don't kill, people do;
b) Even if they were made illegal outside law enforcement and the like, they'd still be around the black market
Do you know how many ilegal transactions occur? It's illegal to market endangered species, but it still exists.
If manking were able to stop these things from existing completely, imo there would be no need for guns in general.
Look, take it from a dude who spent most of his life on the streets, banning guns wont do anything period, theres guns on the streets that are illegal right now, trust me if the military can get the guns then dope dealers and gang bangers yall scared of can get them too because they come from the same place. All banning guns is gonna do is keep guns out of the suburbs, and for the dude who thinks guns and dope arnt the same, they get smuggled, sold, and controlled the exact same way if you get caught with a gram of heroin thats a life sentence, if you fire a sawed off shotgun thats a life sentence its the same shit, if you havnt spent a day of your life in the streets how are you an expert on controlling shit that comes through the hood? There probably is a solution to shit like Virginia tech but its not gonna be in gun laws period.
It's an interesting point, but considering I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs, I don't see how it's relevant. But that's another thread entirely.
The important part is a gun ban means no more manufacturing for the public's use. Anything that gets siezed is destroyed. There are programs in effect across the USA that are greatly reducing the number of handguns in large cities through a series of strategies. Guns can be eliminated, it just depends on if we have the patience and willpower to do it.
It's also got to do with morale and unity. If we weren't having trouble in Iraq, and 9/11 hadn't ever happened, gun sales would be way down and people would be more willing to give them up. There are also things like Don Imus making fun of the black basketball players, and the New Orleans Katrina response, that don't instill trust in anyone and are only exploited by the media to make racial lines look bigger and more threatening then they really are.
- Status