Gun Control

[1_man_army]

Once again, gun ownership is essential if you want to keep your civil liberties intact.

 

 

 

 

The vast majority of EU nations have far more restrictive firearms laws but have greater civil liberties. Lets face it, if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians is going out-gun the entire US military. This guns = civil liberties argument doesn't work nowadays.

[Zierro]

She is saying, that weapons make it easier to commit crimes.

 

Moreover, guns are the best weapons, and most available to commit crimes with.

 

Also, it is easier to commit a crime with a gun, than any other weapon. (For obvious reasons)

 

 

 

If they are very effective at committing a crime, that translates to them being very effective at self-defense too. It's a stalemate.

[mmmcannibalism]

Just thought I would add

 

 

 

gun control isnt a bad idea in a country that doesnt have many guns. Im thinking along the lines of post ww2 japan and Im sure some european countries. If you keep weapons from getting into a country(in large numbers) it will have some effect in preventing deaths from crimes(effect on crime rate is debatable). The US however, has an insane amount of firearms for both private and less legitimate use. Regulation on guns that have no private use is a good thing to have, Im not saying dont let people fire a chain gun at a range just saying no machine gun for 200$ at walmart. The problem with any attempt at a gun ban is that it is going to blow up in the countries face, a lot of cops/militia are going to die if you try to round up the guns, and it is going to cost millions(billions) of dollars to organize that large scale of an operation.

[Lenticular_J]

Hm. Gun education needs to be mandatory, I believe. Too many people don't understand them, at least judging from here. I guess if you come down here, where school has been canceled before due to everyone hunting at the opening of deer season, things take on a different perspective. Many people don't seem to know very much about guns...

[JIM]

Once again, gun ownership is essential if you want to keep your civil liberties intact.

 

 

 

 

The vast majority of EU nations have far more restrictive firearms laws but have greater civil liberties. Lets face it, if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians is going out-gun the entire US military. This guns = civil liberties argument doesn't work nowadays.

 

 

 

That is the most misguided comment I've seen in this thread. I would try and enlighten you but I CBA.

 

 

 

If that's what you think then good luck to you.

[1_man_army]

Just to clarify when I said:

 

 

 

[hide=]

if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians is going out-gun the entire US military.

 

 

 

I meant:

 

 

 

if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians aren't going out-gun the entire US military.

 

 

 

An slight error that can happen as I type then restructure my sentences.[/hide]

 

 

 

As for me being misguided, I'm not saying the US government would take away your civil liberties, I said they could. If the US government wanted to go completely dictatorial and still had control over the military there is no way in hell your little hunting rifles or handguns are doing much against the world's most sophisticated fighter jets & tanks. Hell, Lincoln did take away civil liberties during the civil war.

 

 

 

That being said, I would love to know where I've went wrong. Please tell me for future reference.

[JIM]

Hey I'm sorry if my last post seemed a little rude, I've just read it back to myself and it's not very nice.

 

 

 

I'm in the middle of something ATM but I will respond with some info/links/references in a bit.

[1_man_army]

I didn't find it particularly rude, I just disagree with you.

[Barihawk]

Just to clarify when I said:

 

 

 

[hide=]

if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians is going out-gun the entire US military.

 

 

 

I meant:

 

 

 

if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians aren't going out-gun the entire US military.

 

 

 

An slight error that can happen as I type then restructure my sentences.[/hide]

 

 

 

As for me being misguided, I'm not saying the US government would take away your civil liberties, I said they could. If the US government wanted to go completely dictatorial and still had control over the military there is no way in hell your little hunting rifles or handguns are doing much against the world's most sophisticated fighter jets & tanks. Hell, Lincoln did take away civil liberties during the civil war.

 

 

 

That being said, I would love to know where I've went wrong. Please tell me for future reference.

 

 

 

There's no real way after Vietnam that such a thing could ever happen. All of the special liberties Presidents can use in Executive Orders died with the War Powers Act. Lincoln's tyranny can never happen again. Tie this into a military that is structured in a way to where control could never be taken by a single power. There's no way it could happen, ever, unless there was such a talented orator as the Antichrist.

 

 

 

As for civil liberties, we have more than most European nations, believe it or not. Our Constitution actually protects free speech while in many European lawbooks it's perfectly legal to jail someone for speaking out against the government. In fact, the United States is often criticized worldwide for giving it's people too many rights.

[Omar]

So what does cause crime ? I agree, social and cultural attitudes within a community have a large part to do with it, but can you really be so naive to believe that guns are 100% safe?

 

 

 

cars arent 100% safe, we still allow people to drive them. The main point is noone(excluding maybe a true psychopath) has ever gone "dude I totally have a gun its telling me to kill you", any gun crime would have been commited with a knife or heavy rock or whatever if the guns were illegal.

 

A car isn't a weapon. Weapons are designed to harm or kill. Cars are a method of transportation.

[mmmcannibalism]

There's no real way after Vietnam that such a thing could ever happen. All of the special liberties Presidents can use in Executive Orders died with the War Powers Act. Lincoln's tyranny can never happen again. Tie this into a military that is structured in a way to where control could never be taken by a single power. There's no way it could happen, ever, unless there was such a talented orator as the Antichrist.

 

 

 

Is it really fair to call what Lincoln did tyranny? Agreed, he definetely took away a lot of rights and im sure in a few ways violated the constituion, but its not as if it was a mad power grab he was trying to help the country. I recall he declared martial law in a lot of areas and took away habeus corpus, but did Lincoln do anything beyond that to suggest tyrannical acts that I am forgetting? Also, the limit on freedom of speech is a litter stricter during an in country way(unlike Iraq) so was Lincoln even doing anything unusual. Honestly, I dont have a great history background other then a college level american history class, so I concede your greater knowledge surrounding this.

 

 

 

edit--my car comment was directed at someone saying guns werent safe, I agree a car isnt a weapon. The same could be said of a steak knife or plenty of other objects.

[Barihawk]

So what does cause crime ? I agree, social and cultural attitudes within a community have a large part to do with it, but can you really be so naive to believe that guns are 100% safe?

 

 

 

cars arent 100% safe, we still allow people to drive them. The main point is noone(excluding maybe a true psychopath) has ever gone "dude I totally have a gun its telling me to kill you", any gun crime would have been commited with a knife or heavy rock or whatever if the guns were illegal.

 

A car isn't a weapon. Weapons are designed to harm or kill. Cars are a method of transportation.

 

 

 

The only true weapon is the mind. At the end of the day it's the brain that makes the call to pull the trigger, plunge the knife, drop the pipe, hit the gas pedal, push the button, clench the fist, tighten the rope, throw the rock, inject the needle...

 

 

 

The urge to kill is not going to care what tool is at hand. If one is not available, it will improvise. The gun does not magically invoke hatred into the user. It's simply the medium that the person uses to execute their impulses. If you want to clamp down on guns, that's fine. Make it tougher to obtain them, require psychiatric exams, whatever. But is it necessary to completely remove them from people who use them for completely harmless reasons? My sister and her husband save thousands of dollars a year by hunting. I win awards for shooting sports, yet I've never even intentionally harmed a living creature (there was that one bird that happened to fly in front of the clay. I cried :(). A gun has saved my family in the face of a burglar.

 

 

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you can not ban firearms. You will only remove them from those who legally claim them. Period. Unless you go back and find the Chinese guy who invented gunpowder thousands of years ago and remove him from the timeline, people in this nation are going to have guns if they want them. The same can be said for anything. All it takes to get anything is time and money, a credo in our popular culture. Good or bad.

 

 

 

"But if we ban guns, people who might not have committed a crime won't do it because the tool is not as easily accessable!"

 

 

 

If you ban guns, they will join the stalls of street peddlers like the sale of cocaine and marijuana. And as many people say, how good a job do we do of keeping those off the streets?

 

 

 

Is it really fair to call what Lincoln did tyranny? Agreed, he definetely took away a lot of rights and im sure in a few ways violated the constituion, but its not as if it was a mad power grab he was trying to help the country.

 

 

 

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. That's not an excuse. If someone does try to take away our rights in the future, rest assured they will say it's for the better. Patriot Act anyone? That wasn't even really a danger, but still proves a point.

[1_man_army]

[hide=]

Just to clarify when I said:

 

 

 

if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians is going out-gun the entire US military.

 

 

 

I meant:

 

 

 

if the US government wanted to take away all your civil liberties they could, normal US gun-owning civilians aren't going out-gun the entire US military.

 

 

 

An slight error that can happen as I type then restructure my sentences.

 

 

 

As for me being misguided, I'm not saying the US government would take away your civil liberties, I said they could. If the US government wanted to go completely dictatorial and still had control over the military there is no way in hell your little hunting rifles or handguns are doing much against the world's most sophisticated fighter jets & tanks. Hell, Lincoln did take away civil liberties during the civil war.

 

 

 

That being said, I would love to know where I've went wrong. Please tell me for future reference.

[/hide]

 

 

 

There's no real way after Vietnam that such a thing could ever happen. All of the special liberties Presidents can use in Executive Orders died with the War Powers Act. Lincoln's tyranny can never happen again. Tie this into a military that is structured in a way to where control could never be taken by a single power. There's no way it could happen, ever, unless there was such a talented orator as the Antichrist.

 

 

 

As for civil liberties, we have more than most European nations, believe it or not. Our Constitution actually protects free speech while in many European lawbooks it's perfectly legal to jail someone for speaking out against the government. In fact, the United States is often criticized worldwide for giving it's people too many rights.

 

 

 

True, there is little possibility of that ever happening my point was more that the "well armed militia" isn't workable nowadays as an argument for guns maintaining civil liberties.

 

 

 

As for America and civil liberties, I admit to not being an authority on the subject but I was really referring to the far more recent measures involving preventing terrorism (the Patriot Act being the main one) that have been used to sneak in curbs on civil liberties - the UK is getting worse also in that regard according recent reports (in the link). As for Europe, the EU nations are pretty solid in regards to civil liberties and human rights with the exception of laws against Holocaust denial. Obviously, I

 

can't speak for each nation but most of the archaic laws that limit liberties are either not enforced, superseded by more recent legislation or superseded by wider European law. I'm sure there will be exceptions to that.

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 23795.html

 

 

 

JIM - I was rude earlier. Sorry, was a bit ratty and overly sarcastic to boot.

[baalboy5]

So what does cause crime ? I agree, social and cultural attitudes within a community have a large part to do with it, but can you really be so naive to believe that guns are 100% safe?

 

 

 

cars arent 100% safe, we still allow people to drive them. The main point is noone(excluding maybe a true psychopath) has ever gone "dude I totally have a gun its telling me to kill you", any gun crime would have been commited with a knife or heavy rock or whatever if the guns were illegal.

 

A car isn't a weapon. Weapons are designed to harm or kill. Cars are a method of transportation.

 

True and I agree, guns were meant to protect people, which didn't work so well. Now tis used to kill and hurt people.

 

Are there really THAT many cases of people using guns in the U.S? Problely about 1k while there are over 1k murders a year in the U.S

[Zierro]

So what does cause crime ? I agree, social and cultural attitudes within a community have a large part to do with it, but can you really be so naive to believe that guns are 100% safe?

 

 

 

cars arent 100% safe, we still allow people to drive them. The main point is noone(excluding maybe a true psychopath) has ever gone "dude I totally have a gun its telling me to kill you", any gun crime would have been commited with a knife or heavy rock or whatever if the guns were illegal.

 

A car isn't a weapon. Weapons are designed to harm or kill. Cars are a method of transportation.

 

 

 

A gun can be used as a method of self-defense or hunting. I'm sure the manufacturers of guns don't make them because they want to increase crime activity, just like I don't think car manufacturers make cars because they want more traffic accidents.

[Baconxl]

For a gun avid person or hunter rifles and shotguns have a purpose. Handguns do not. Rifles and shotguns are both used in hunting which is done for sport or food. There is no need for someone like that to own a handguns besides the fact that they like them, which really isn't a valid reason. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns which, as stated, have no real use. Regulate those, not rifles and shotguns.

 

 

 

About the civil liberties, the whole "Right to bear arms" isn't a real argument, that was made hundreds of years ago when the U.S. didn't have an army, common men were expected to join or be drafted and often used their guns if they had it.

[venomai]

If they are very effective at committing a crime, that translates to them being very effective at self-defense too. It's a stalemate.

 

As we have discussed in the past, simply because a weapon is effective in self-defense does not mean it would necessarily be worth implementing as a means of citizen self-defense. For example, the introduction of certain handguns, automatic rifles or explosives for citizen use can have extremely detrimental side-effects, and it often far surpasses what is necessary to defend one's self.

 

 

 

If [a gun] is not available, [they] will improvise.

 

Which is exactly why we should aim to make these weapons unavailable. The improvisations will, in most cases, be much less reliable than, say, a semi-automatic handgun. In the long run, as less people are getting fatally injured, the homicide rate will be significantly reduced.

 

 

 

people in this nation are going to have guns if they want them.

 

The secondary (unlicensed) market is dependent on the primary (licensed). Restrict production and distribution in the primary market and you will see a reduction in availability in the secondary market. Over time, if this is well enforced, the secondary market will become a far less viable option for acquiring firearms.

 

 

 

And as many people say, how good a job do we do of keeping those off the streets?

 

The difference, obviously, lies in the production of the good. It is much more difficult and more expensive to manufacture quality firearms than it is to produce quality cocaine/marijuana.

 

 

 

And, of course, nobody is proposing a ban akin to the current war on drugs. It's become quite clear that labelling a high-demand good as "illegal" does not help to reduce its demand and subsequent (ab)use.

[Lenticular_J]

For a gun avid person or hunter rifles and shotguns have a purpose. Handguns do not. Rifles and shotguns are both used in hunting which is done for sport or food. There is no need for someone like that to own a handguns besides the fact that they like them, which really isn't a valid reason. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns which, as stated, have no real use. Regulate those, not rifles and shotguns.

 

 

 

About the civil liberties, the whole "Right to bear arms" isn't a real argument, that was made hundreds of years ago when the U.S. didn't have an army, common men were expected to join or be drafted and often used their guns if they had it.

 

Shooting is a sport in the Olympics. Using a handgun to train is very important in target shooting. Plus, if liking something isn't a valid reason to own something, we should all probably toss out the majority of our stuff.

[dragoonson]

The right to bear arms is that whenever you kill a bear you can keep his arms along with his head,so that your plaque looks cooler.

 

 

 

If liking stuff is not a good reason,are you telling me you only have things you need?A gun lover is just a glorified way to say he likes guns,and has no need to keep them.

 

 

 

I wish I wasn't echoing Lent.

[Barihawk]

[hide=]

If they are very effective at committing a crime, that translates to them being very effective at self-defense too. It's a stalemate.

 

As we have discussed in the past, simply because a weapon is effective in self-defense does not mean it would necessarily be worth implementing as a means of citizen self-defense. For example, the introduction of certain handguns, automatic rifles or explosives for citizen use can have extremely detrimental side-effects, and it often far surpasses what is necessary to defend one's self.

 

 

 

If [a gun] is not available, [they] will improvise.

 

Which is exactly why we should aim to make these weapons unavailable. The improvisations will, in most cases, be much less reliable than, say, a semi-automatic handgun. In the long run, as less people are getting fatally injured, the homicide rate will be significantly reduced.

 

 

 

people in this nation are going to have guns if they want them.

 

The secondary (unlicensed) market is dependent on the primary (licensed). Restrict production and distribution in the primary market and you will see a reduction in availability in the secondary market. Over time, if this is well enforced, the secondary market will become a far less viable option for acquiring firearms.

 

 

 

And as many people say, how good a job do we do of keeping those off the streets?

 

The difference, obviously, lies in the production of the good. It is much more difficult and more expensive to manufacture quality firearms than it is to produce quality cocaine/marijuana.

 

 

 

And, of course, nobody is proposing a ban akin to the current war on drugs. It's become quite clear that labelling a high-demand good as "illegal" does not help to reduce its demand and subsequent (ab)use.[/hide]

 

 

 

To my quotes, at least...

 

 

 

1) That's ideological nonsense. If someone is going to kill someone, they are going to do it. Period. If they have to use a knife, they stab until the person is dead. If using a pipe, they keep hitting. Guns simply made it "convenient" to kill. The likelyhood of someone saying "omg, this is horrible and I need to stop" is slim. Is it more difficult to kill someone via a different method? Yes. But for someone with the impulse and desire to kill, this is not a problem, it's simply a matter of convenience.

 

 

 

Will homicide rates go down? Sure, a little. Some gangbanger might be a little less trigger happy and not accidentally shoot someone. But most murders are made with the intent to kill. We can't be like England and treat an 8% reduction in homicide as a true freaking victory.

 

 

 

2) The problem with this is that there are stockpiles of illegal weaponry everywhere. People are not getting Tec-9's and similar weapons from Wal-Mart. They are stealing them, buying them off smugglers and contacting the black market. You will make it more difficult for the average idiot to get a gun, but certainly not impossible. Like I said, time and money are all it takes.

 

 

 

3) Yeah, making a gun is tough. So is making meth and cocaine. Guess where those come from. Oh, right. Other countries. A ban on firearms will simply make gun traffickers even more wealthy than they already are now. The guys who previously brought you submachine guns and assault rifles to the streets may now diversify into small arms! And guess what? It will be just as impossible to stop them from bringing the guns into the country as it is stopping illegal narcotics. Tougher, actually, because guns without ammo are usually impossible to detect if hidden, unlike drugs, and ammunition can be easily made here.

[venomai]

If someone is going to kill someone, they are going to do it. Period. If they have to use a knife, they stab until the person is dead. If using a pipe, they keep hitting.

 

The number of patients entered with non-fatal injuries sustained from (even multiple) stabbings, pipe-hits, punches, etc. seems to suggest that many attackers are either (a) "failing" to kill their victim or (B) simply not bothering to ensure the death of their victim. When these injuries are replaced with gunshot wounds, the chances of mortality increases significantly (and so too will the homicide rate).

 

 

 

The problem with this is that there are stockpiles of illegal weaponry everywhere. People are not getting Tec-9's and similar weapons from Wal-Mart. They are stealing them, buying them off smugglers and contacting the black market. You will make it more difficult for the average idiot to get a gun, but certainly not impossible. Like I said, time and money are all it takes.

 

These stockpiles will dwindle over time, e.g. through police seizures.

 

 

 

You overestimate the average criminal: most of them, while not necessarily idiots, do not have the blackmarket sources to acquire Tec-9's and other high-end weaponry. The vast majority acquire their guns -- most of which are simple revolvers, or short semi-automatic pistols (e.g. MP-25) -- from family, friends and drug dealers. Often, these guns were originally stolen from the manufacturers or from legitimate owners.

 

 

 

With stricter regulations on production, distribution and ownership, the supply of guns in the secondary market could be significantly reduced. A 1996 study, for example, showed the positive effect of restricting the sale of guns in the primary market:

 

"Gun control policies involving licensing, registration, and restricting the number of purchases represent efforts to limit the supply of guns available in the illegal market. This study provides evidence that restricting handgun purchases to 1 per month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms." [1]

 

 

 

Yeah, making a gun is tough. So is making meth and cocaine. ... A ban on firearms will simply make gun traffickers even more wealthy than they already are now. The guys who previously brought you submachine guns and assault rifles to the streets may now diversify into small arms! And guess what? It will be just as impossible to stop them from bringing the guns into the country as it is stopping illegal narcotics.

 

Meth is very easy to produce:

 

 

 

The processing required to make methamphetamine from precursor substances is easier and more accessible than ever. There are literally thousands of recipes and information about making meth on the Internet. An investment of a few hundred dollars in over-the-counter medications and chemicals can produce thousands of dollars worth of methamphetamine. The drug can be made in a makeshift "lab" that can fit into a suit case.

 

[2]

 

 

 

Cocaine is more difficult to produce, but still nowhere near as difficult or expensive as manufacturing quality firearms.

 

 

 

As I've mentioned, I am not proposing a widespread firearm prohibition akin to the failed War on Drugs. Outright prohibition would, of course, only serve to push the market further underground -- it would do little to reduce the demand and subsequent (ab)use of guns. In order to reduce gun violence in the United States, a different approach would be necessary than what we've used in past drug prohibitions.

[Barihawk]

And what approach would that be? I'm sorry, my comments were assuming you supported a complete ban on firearms.

[venomai]

Changes in...

 

• [*:21ekmumj]Culture: Whether this be at school or in the home, a shift in public attitude is crucial to reduce the problem of gun violence in the United States. Guns should not be seen as the end-all means of self-defense, gun control should not be seen as an attempt to eradicate personal liberty, and (deadly) vigilantism should not be something to strive for. Most importantly, the southern states need to drift away from the "It's Personal" type of murders that contribute to America's disproportionately high homicide rate.

(click for more info)
 
 
 
[*:21ekmumj]Production/Distribution: Better regulation ("gun control") is needed to lower the supply in the secondary market (e.g. one per month rule discussed in the study I linked to) and ultimately make firearms more difficult for youth and criminals to acquire.
 
 
 
[*:21ekmumj]Ownership: Owning and using a firearm should not be seen as a right, but rather a privilege (much like driving a car). In particular, circumstances such as the use of gun lockers must be met in order to receive and maintain a 'gun permit'.

 

 

 

Although full removal of citizen ownership and personal use would be ideal, it is unrealistic given America's current gun culture.

[Barihawk]

Those I can agree with. I particularly stress education. People need to learn how to freaking store firearms.

[Zierro]

As we have discussed in the past, simply because a weapon is effective in self-defense does not mean it would necessarily be worth implementing as a means of citizen self-defense. For example, the introduction of certain handguns, automatic rifles or explosives for citizen use can have extremely detrimental side-effects, and it often far surpasses what is necessary to defend one's self.

 

 

 

Don't you think if self-defense was widespread and prevalent, that criminals would have less of a reason to attack people in the first place since they know there is a good chance that attacking someone could actually lead to their own death?