Gun control: the results are in?

[Undecided]

Perhaps you should write a detailed letter to the US DEA informing them of your miracle cure.

Nah, I don’t care what you Americans do. If you enjoy living in a society where guns are perceived to be the only way to keep things in order then I’ll let you reside in that “bliss”. I’m just saying that gun control laws are ineffectual because they simply deal with the effect not the cause, that being the manufacture of guns themselves. I don’t believe that banning handguns (not all guns) will end all crime; but what it will do is reduce the number of deaths in the long run, and increase the confidence of the population in the long run.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

I’m just saying that gun control laws are ineffectual because they simply deal with the effect not the cause, that being the manufacture of guns themselves.

Just like the manufacture of cars is the cause of the world's traffic deaths.

 

[phlogistician]

Just like the manufacture of cars is the cause of the world's traffic deaths.

Since you mention cars, ... everybody is supposed to have a license before they can drive a car. All cars have license plates. Car manufacturers DO get sued if they produce a dangerous product. Car manufacturers DO try to make their products safer, for both the driver and the general public. Cars DO come with locks fitted, so they are harder to steal.

The contrast should be so obvious I needn't point it out.

 

[Undecided]

Just like the manufacture of cars is the cause of the world's traffic deaths.

Me and Persol already went through this, the purpose of the car is to get me from point A to B. A Gun’s purpose is to kill me, a car is not meant to kill me. There are very few machinations out there that are readily available to the public whose purpose is to kill. That argument is truly a illogical comparison.

 

[Persol]

Yes, we did go through this. My guns purpose is not to kill you, but prevent you (or whoever else) from injuring me. If, in the process, it needs to be fired... so be it.

 

[Undecided]

My guns purpose is not to kill you, but prevent you (or whoever else) from injuring me. If, in the process, it needs to be fired... so be it.

Not really, the gun is meant to hurt/kill me, be it defensive or not.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Just like the manufacture of cars is the cause of the world's traffic deaths.

Me and Persol already went through this, the purpose of the car is to get me from point A to B. A Gun’s purpose is to kill me, a car is not meant to kill me. There are very few machinations out there that are readily available to the public whose purpose is to kill. That argument is truly a illogical comparison.

It isn't. You inferred that the restriction of manufacture of firearms will lead to a subsequent reduction in firearm-caused deaths. Really, all you are doing is falling into the trap of attacking a symptom and not a cause. If your argument had merit, we wouldn't have had thousands of years of violence administered with bows, swords, and other melee weapons.

One point both sides of this argument frequently miss is that Japan, a nation with some of the most draconian gun laws in the world, has very little gun crime. Switzerland, on the other hand, has a long and distinguished history of pervasive firearm custody within the citizenship. They also have very little gun-related crime. The common denominator between the two cultures is that each exhibits a high degree of civic responsibility that most other nations aren't as blessed with.

Restricting gun ownership in the US will only lead to a rise in violent crimes administered with clubs and swords - just like it has in Australia and the UK.

It's a culture thing. Don't be distracted by a few superfical footnotes.

 

[phlogistician]

Switzerland, on the other hand, has a long and distinguished history of pervasive firearm custody within the citizenship. They also have very little gun-related crime.

Aaaaargh, the Swiss fallacy again! The Swiss are Army reservists, and _have_ to keepa rifle and a sealed box of ammunition at home. They are trained in the use of weapons, and respect them. The weapons are recorded as being aloocated to them, and there are stiff penalties for their misuse.

This shows only that training should be a pre-requisite for firearms ownership, and tha tregistration works. So why doesn't the USA try that? I'm not anti-gun, I used to shoot myself. What I am against, is anonymous access to firearms, in particular, no questions asked second hand sales.

 

[Undecided]

all you are doing is falling into the trap of attacking a symptom and not a cause. If your argument had merit, we wouldn't have had thousands of years of violence administered with bows, swords, and other melee weapons.

Oh I know I am not attacking the cause here, guns aren’t the cause of crime. But what they are doing is causing that crime to be much more dangerous for all involved. I am not proposing here to ban guns because they cause crime, much rather because they make crime more viable for those involved. Why? Because idiots feel that they are invincible with a gun, and feel they can do whatever they want. Surely someone will use a knife, or some other object, but those objects are not designed to kill me. A knife has many practical purposes; one of them is hurting and individual, and peeling a potato. Guns have only one practical purpose, which is to hurt me. I could use a spoon to kill someone but that’s not the intended purpose of the spoon. That’s the quantitative difference.

Restricting gun ownership in the US will only lead to a rise in violent crimes administered with clubs and swords - just like it has in Australia and the UK.

Is it a raise, or merely making up for the loss of the gun? Are more people dying now post-restriction, then before?

It's a culture thing.

Oh I know it is, the gun culture is no different. So, lets stop the production of these vile, useless weaponry.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Aaaaargh, the Swiss fallacy again! The Swiss are Army reservists, and _have_ to keepa rifle and a sealed box of ammunition at home. They are trained in the use of weapons, and respect them. The weapons are recorded as being aloocated to them, and there are stiff penalties for their misuse.

Irrelevant for the dispute at hand. The point (that nico raised) was that the availability of weaponry aggrandizes already existing crime. The Switzerland example breaks that line of reasoning. Don't worry, I rarely raise it because of the reasons you listed. I'd not be so keen on having the Swiss firearm laws implemented here in the US, either.

Oh I know I am not attacking the cause here, guns aren’t the cause of crime. But what they are doing is causing that crime to be much more dangerous for all involved. I am not proposing here to ban guns because they cause crime, much rather because they make crime more viable for those involved. Why? Because idiots feel that they are invincible with a gun, and feel they can do whatever they want. Surely someone will use a knife, or some other object, but those objects are not designed to kill me. A knife has many practical purposes; one of them is hurting and individual, and peeling a potato. Guns have only one practical purpose, which is to hurt me. I could use a spoon to kill someone but that’s not the intended purpose of the spoon. That’s the quantitative difference.

Is it a raise, or merely making up for the loss of the gun? Are more people dying now post-restriction, then before?

Australia:

Four years into the British and Australian gun bans, the verdict on gun control is in: disaster.

Those who argue for the right of self-defense have always said that banning guns would disarm the law-abiding while encouraging the criminals. Yet even by the standards of most pro-gun arguments, the actual results of total gun control have been startling, leaving anti-gunners and government officials at a loss to explain the debacle.

Take Australia. Just over one year ago, the Australian government spent more than $500 million to confiscate 640,381 privately-owned firearms, even using deadly force. This followed a partial ban of over 60 percent of the country's private weapons in 1996. The promise: a dramatic reduction in crime, in exchange for the right of common citizens to defend themselves.

The results: utter mayhem, showing yet again that, as in most things, government cannot take care of you as well as you can.

In the first year of the ban, Australian homicides increased 3.2 percent, and in the state of Victoria, gun homicides shot up 300 percent. Assaults increased 8.6 percent. Armed robberies rose a whopping 44 percent, after having dropped for 25 straight years before the ban. Since then, homicides have jumped 29 percent, kidnappings have risen 38 percent, assaults have increased 17 percent, and armed robberies have skyrocketed an additional 73 percent.

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/000711.shtml

Great Britain:

BRITAIN may have slipped down many world league tables over the past few decades, but it beats all other rich countries except Australia in one activity: crime. According to a new victimisation survey of industrialised nations, people in England and Wales are at greater risk than anywhere else of having a car stolen. And apart from Australia, people who live in England and Wales are at greater risk of being assaulted, robbed, sexually attacked and having their homes burgled than are people in any other rich country.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=513031

Oh I know it is, the gun culture is no different. So, lets stop the production of these vile, useless weaponry.

You completely missed my point.

Gun crime in America is symptomatic of crime in America. When people want to rob, rape, pillage, and murder, they are going to do it. Period. And they will use whatever implements they can avail themselves in order to make their job easier along the way. If they can't get their hands on guns, they'll use knives. No knives? Baseball bats. No baseball bats? Gingerbread and dandelions. Add to this that, by implementing bans or summarily confiscating and destroying weapons, you are also disarming the law-abiding populace and effectively rendering them helpless to defend themselves against the thugs who would do them harm. Finally, consider that, for every gun you take out of the hands of a criminal through confiscation and what not, you will be confiscating a magnitude more from honest citizens, because criminals don't show much of an inclination to go through legal channels of firearm procurement.

Confiscation and destruction has been tried. It has failed.

We are a violent nation. That is our problem. When you figure out a solution to that, please, let me know.

 

[Undecided]

You completely missed my point.

Not really, although “crime” has gone up in these nations, that doesn’t mean that banning guns is the reason for that. According to your own economist article these are the reasons listed for the rise in the crime rate:

The study points out that violent crime is higher than average there, but the overall pattern of offences is not unusual. Heavy drinking, particularly among young men, is certainly responsible for some of the violence.
------------------------------------]
Nor can high rates of burglary be attributed to lack of precautions. More houses in England and Wales have burglar alarms or special locks than do those of any other rich country.
---------------------------------]
Criminologists, who find the survey results as difficult to explain as ministers, tend to blame the “get-rich-quick” attitudes of the 1980s. Other possible factors, put forward more in desperation than belief, include increased social mobility, and urbanisation.
-------------------------------

Mind finding me the supposed Gun connection? It seems that in the UK much of the violence is due to drinking, social-economic problems. Not a mention of tough gun laws. Your attempt to join the tough gun laws with higher crime totally and completely disregards the causes for crime. I am simply not buying it.

When people want to rob, rape, pillage, and murder, they are going to do it. Period. And they will use whatever implements they can avail themselves in order to make their job easier along the way.

A spoon? Are you telling me in all seriousness that people are just as likely to commit a crime with a spoon compared to a gun? As you said make their job easier what’s easier then a gun? If a criminal had a choice btwn a spoon and a gun, I am certain the gun would be used. Crime will never go away, I never insinuated as such, but why give the criminals the ability to inflict more damage then they should? If we ban the outright production of hand guns, then we get rid of ¼ of the problem.

Add to this that, by implementing bans or summarily confiscating and destroying weapons, you are also disarming the law-abiding populace and effectively rendering them helpless to defend themselves against the thugs who would do them harm.

Oh Whoa is me! Attitude is not cutting it; the population should have no reason to have guns if they aren’t going to be confronted with them. Here the rule is “don’t be a hero”, I assume you know what I am getting at. Having a gun is really a false sense of security. I already dealt with all these arguments already with Persol. I suggest you read that first.

you will be confiscating a magnitude more from honest citizens,

How do I know that citizen is “honest”, is this a serious attempt at a argument? I already dealt with this with Persol.

because criminals don't show much of an inclination to go through legal channels of firearm procurement.

Exactly, so then why give the ability in the first place? Stop the production, stop the black market. 1,2,3 it’s elementary.

Confiscation and destruction has been tried.

Possibly, but my measures go a step further.

We are a violent nation. That is our problem. When you figure out a solution to that, please, let me know.

And easy access guns have no blame for that?

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Not really, although “crime” has gone up in these nations, that doesn’t mean that banning guns is the reason for that. According to your own economist article these are the reasons listed for the rise in the crime rate:

Strawman. I did not say that a lack of guns would cause the crime increase, just not cause crime to decrease, as the gun-grabbers have promised us it would. Where you may have become confused was that I also said that criminals would merely obtain other weapons in lieu of firearms, causing a rise in "robbery at swordpoint", for example. Sociologists call this the substitution effect, and it has been observed many times before. Verbose apologies for any confusion.

Mind finding me the supposed Gun connection? It seems that in the UK much of the violence is due to drinking, social-economic problems. Not a mention of tough gun laws. Your attempt to join the tough gun laws with higher crime totally and completely disregards the causes for crime. I am simply not buying it.

See above. I'm arguing a lack of connection, rather than the presence of one.

A spoon? Are you telling me in all seriousness that people are just as likely to commit a crime with a spoon compared to a gun? As you said make their job easier what’s easier then a gun? If a criminal had a choice btwn a spoon and a gun, I am certain the gun would be used. Crime will never go away, I never insinuated as such, but why give the criminals the ability to inflict more damage then they should? If we ban the outright production of hand guns, then we get rid of ¼ of the problem.

Are you seriously advocating that all handgun production be banned? How are you going to do that, while continuing to supply the police and military with weapons?

Anyway, your spoon example is ridiculous and you're being deliberately obtuse. If you and I were locked in a room together and wanted to kill each other (don't worry dude, I love you) and we had guns, we'd be fucked. But if Big Brother came in and disarmed us, we would just find something else to inflict ourselves with, and we would be none the better.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Oh Whoa is me! Attitude is not cutting it; the population should have no reason to have guns if they aren’t going to be confronted with them. Here the rule is “don’t be a hero”, I assume you know what I am getting at. Having a gun is really a false sense of security. I already dealt with all these arguments already with Persol. I suggest you read that first.

Incorrect. If you want to deny a person the right to something, the onus is on you to prove why they should not have it. Read yourself some John Locke sometime. It will give you a more-than-tacit understanding of the US Constitution as well.

"Don't be a hero" is also a pretty easy thing to say from the computer chair in your parents' basement. If you'd have told that to me three years ago, when an intruder entered my home in the middle of the night (with his own gun) and my family was in the home, I'd have told you to get fucked. The police didn't get there until after he had been down for a good 20 minutes, in spite of my wife calling 911 the instant I went to see what the noise was. One can only imagine whether or not he'd have shot me, my wife, or the rest of my family had he had the chance.

Also, it's "woe is me".

How do I know that citizen is “honest”, is this a serious attempt at a argument? I already dealt with this with Persol.

I'm glad he went over it with you, but you are still as wrong now as you were then.

Burden of proof fallacy.

Exactly, so then why give the ability in the first place? Stop the production, stop the black market. 1,2,3 it’s elementary.

Develop superconductors, develop fusion power, and we'll be able to make Mars in weeks. 1,2,3 it's elementary.

You do understand how difficult such a venture would be, don't you? This tenuous grasp of reality isn't really doing much for your argument.

Possibly, but my measures go a step further.

...into fascism, no doubt. You'd be happy in 1930s-Nazified Germany.

And easy access guns have no blame for that?

Guns do not load and fire themselves. In fact, if I sat one in front of you on the desk, I'd venture to say you wouldn't know the first thing to do with it.

Like I said, it's malice, not its instruments.

 

[laughing weasel]

If taking away my guns does not cause a drop in homicides then you have to give me a reason for taking away my rights. You cannot just arbitrarily say that guns are dangerous so you cannot have them. You have failed to produce an example of a time when gun confiscation has worked to reduce homicides. There have been several examples of when it has failed to produce the desired result. This means that unless you can show an example of gun control reducing homicide or crime then your arguments are just superstition.

 

[Undecided]

Strawman. I did not say that a lack of guns would cause the crime increase, just not cause crime to decrease, as the gun-grabbers have promised us it would.

Well I never said that banning guns would decrease crime, at least not in the short run. Your analysis is taking a time frame that is outrageously short to jump to any conclusions as of yet. When the gun banning has been around for about 10-15 years then we can compare the situation, pre and post.

Sociologists call this the substitution effect, and it has been observed many times before.

Granted, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t ban guns because a criminal is going to use a significantly less dangerous weapon. It’s like saying, “we shouldn’t ban the A-bomb, they have grenades!” That is a very odd argument; I would have to check if that’s even a fallacy of some sort.

Are you seriously advocating that all handgun production be banned?

Well Stokes you must understand my position on this issue: Sorry I am not an aficionado on this subject, I’m merely wasting time. Since I am pretty much just talking out of the sake of talking…my response to you is yes I would endorse a total ban on handguns, (note I still support the use of recreational gun use, and guns).

How are you going to do that, while continuing to supply the police and military with weapons?

Well first to deal with the military, they would be given guns out of necessity, but the guns should they be sold to the black market through military source, the supplier will get a hefty jail sentence. The police, because there would an absence of guns, why should they need them? In England “bobbies” don’t carry any gun, yet they seem to get alone rather well. Obviously Compton is not Reading… but there are hi-tech, non-lethal ways of dealing with criminals. Since the population would be disarmed, the police in turn wouldn’t need so much firepower.

Anyway, your spoon example is ridiculous and you're being deliberately obtuse. If you and I were locked in a room together and wanted to kill each other (don't worry dude, I love you) and we had guns, we'd be fucked.

You can keep your gladiatorial dreams to yourself…

But if Big Brother came in and disarmed us, we would just find something else to inflict ourselves with, and we would be none the better.

Something called hands I assume? If “Big Brother”, “Papa Stalin”, “Saddam” whoever took away guns from the population took our guns away, I would assume the chances of one person dying would decrease rather significantly, and the chances of me suing you would increase ten fold.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Granted, but when ur stealing a bank, you aren’t going to strangle the person behind the counter. Let’s get realistic shall we. We aren’t all involved in homoerotic dreams about killing people in an enclosed space, there’s the real world.

Incorrect. If you want to deny a person the right to something, the onus is on you to prove why they should not have it. Read yourself some John Locke sometime. It will give you a more-than-tacit understanding of the US Constitution as well.

Read Hobbes, the public cannot be trusted on its own. Humans are inherently bad, and thus the sovereign being the government has to do what is best for the population whether they like it or not sometimes. Also if we are to use your own logic, drugs should not be illegal they are victimless crimes but of course we seem to ignore those laws don’t we?

If you'd have told that to me three years ago, when an intruder entered my home in the middle of the night (with his own gun) and my family was in the home, I'd have told you to get fucked.

No I would laugh at you actually(as shown:

); I would have said what an “idiot” not to the burglar but to you. The same way you got your gun the criminal got his. If the burglar didn’t have a gun could he have killed so easily, could he have stolen things with relative ease? Although I would have denied you the right to own a gun, I would denied the criminal the same right. How do I do that? Ban all gun production, 1,2,3.

One can only imagine whether or not he'd have shot me, my wife, or the rest of my family had he had the chance.

Wha?!? Oh, really the only one to blame for that would have been you and your ideological stance.

I'm glad he went over it with you, but you are still as wrong now as you were then.

I don’t have to prove anything to anyone imo, it is assumed to be bad to own a gun and that it would be abused like illegal drugs.

Develop superconductors, develop fusion power, and we'll be able to make Mars in weeks. 1,2,3 it's elementary.

Waste all that money for Mars…BORING! Let the Chinese do it.

You do understand how difficult such a venture would be, don't you?

We aren’t talking about a drug cartel in Colombia; I think you are overestimating the power of industry here. Guns have factories, that are large, and can be easily be closed. Of course I would endorse a worldwide ban of handguns so illegal imports would be stopped at the source, somewhat like land mines. It’s not all that difficult imo…

...into fascism, no doubt. You'd be happy in 1930s-Nazified Germany.

Don’t get hyperbolic on me, your little example would have bought you a one way ticket to Auschwitz.

Guns do not load and fire themselves.

Hmmm??? (Drooling)

In fact, if I sat one in front of you on the desk, I'd venture to say you wouldn't know the first thing to do with it.

You assume I would actually give shit about the gun in the first place…

Like I said, it's malice, not its instruments.

True, but why make the malice worse then it should be?

 

[laughing weasel]

It would be very nice if all the people in this world melted down every single weapon and we all got together in one giant commune and every body had enough to eat and no one was without shelter. In the real world there will always be inequities. I am willing and able to work 90 hour weeks to accomplish my goals some people cannot. I feel that I should be rewarded for those sacrifices that I make. I do not care weather my neighbor can be trusted that is why we have some laws and I have surrendered some of my rights to the government. I do not think that I exist at the sufferance of the government it exists at my consent and only has the power that I and other citizens agree to let it have. The government is my slave I am not its slave. That is what makes America strong and free. Our ability to keep what we produce and to obtain whatever we feel is important to us. Our rights have to be constantly fought for or else they disappear. Last week it would have seemed to be crazy to be worried about civil dissent in America. This week bush is thinking of delaying the election if terrorist interfere with it. Do you wonder why I want unregistered access to fire arms it is because I fear this kind of thing could happen? It has happened to other countries before. Hitler was voted into power.

 

[Undecided]

It would be very nice if all the people in this world melted down every single weapon and we all got together in one giant commune and every body had enough to eat and no one was without shelter.

I hope you aren’t trying to describe what I am suggesting? All I want gone is a simple handgun no one here is discussing the hippie ring around the rosy syndrome.

I do not care weather my neighbor can be trusted that is why we have some laws and I have surrendered some of my rights to the government.

I don’t get the gist of this sentence, you don’t care about your neighbor yet then you’re espousing the virtues of law?

I do not think that I exist at the sufferance of the government it exists at my consent and only has the power that I and other citizens agree to let it have.

If true, then the US should have gun control, most Americans support Gun control. No what controls the US is special interest groups who have easily energized bases, in the case of guns that is the NRA.

The government is my slave I am not its slave. That is what makes America strong and free.

Your government is the slave to special interest, not you. Let’s get seriously shall we, democracy in the US is largely a farce. Whether it is the NRA, the Zionist lobby groups, the balloon lobby! They have millions to spend and are politically active, what do most Americans do? Lounge in front of a TV watching Monday Night Football, or Trading Spaces.

Our ability to keep what we produce and to obtain whatever we feel is important to us.

You happen to produce guns?

Our rights have to be constantly fought for or else they disappear.

Someone would be shocked at the Patriot Act now wouldn’t they? Conservatives and liberals failed to stop much of the questionable portions of that Act, why? Tyranny of the Majority that’s why, if they didn’t pass the law oh my they get in trouble by the electorate, and Papa Bush would be reminding Americans to this day.

Do you wonder why I want unregistered access to fire arms it is because I fear this kind of thing could happen?

Are you part of a militia? If not, then you’re a maniac. You’re not going to attack the Feds alone are you? The biggest weapon you posses is called…the ballot! Yes the ballot, this November make the right decision.

Hitler was voted into power.

He was appointed like Bush…

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Well I never said that banning guns would decrease crime, at least not in the short run. Your analysis is taking a time frame that is outrageously short to jump to any conclusions as of yet. When the gun banning has been around for about 10-15 years then we can compare the situation, pre and post.

Well, here in the United States, we've had various sorts of arbitrary firearm bans since the 1934 National Firearms Act; an act that was instituted reflexively to combat the rise in crime during the 1920s. Of course, it did not work the way people said it would, but unfortunately, it is still around.

What was the violence caused by? Prohibition. Another case where the "government knows what's best for you" mentality failed to keep something out of the hands of the citizenry during a time of demand. The gun control debate could learn a thing or two from Prohibition, or the war on drugs.

Well Stokes you must understand my position on this issue: Sorry I am not an aficionado on this subject, I’m merely wasting time. Since I am pretty much just talking out of the sake of talking…my response to you is yes I would endorse a total ban on handguns, (note I still support the use of recreational gun use, and guns).

The truth comes out. Thanks for letting us know you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Something called hands I assume? If “Big Brother”, “Papa Stalin”, “Saddam” whoever took away guns from the population took our guns away, I would assume the chances of one person dying would decrease rather significantly, and the chances of me suing you would increase ten fold.

Fists, baseball bats, sticks, rocks, whatever you can find. Removing weapons from a society (even if it were possible to do completely) will not make the same society any less violent any more than the makeup you use makes your acne go away. It's just a symptom, not a cause.

Granted, but when ur stealing a bank, you aren’t going to strangle the person behind the counter. Let’s get realistic shall we. We aren’t all involved in homoerotic dreams about killing people in an enclosed space, there’s the real world.

If "ur" going to "steal a bank", then you're not going to be concerned with firearm laws enough to bother procuring your arsenal legally. Criminals will always have guns as long as the guns exist, if it makes perpetrating crimes easier for them.

Read Hobbes, the public cannot be trusted on its own. Humans are inherently bad, and thus the sovereign being the government has to do what is best for the population whether they like it or not sometimes. Also if we are to use your own logic, drugs should not be illegal they are victimless crimes but of course we seem to ignore those laws don’t we?

Are you suggesting that I am a supporter of drug laws? Also, thank you for admitting you are a fascist. Reasoning like yours is the reason why the US Constitution was written to ensure that an autocratic government could be reigned in by its populace, and why the American people will never entirely relinquish their right to bear arms.

No I would laugh at you actually(as shown:

); I would have said what an “idiot” not to the burglar but to you. The same way you got your gun the criminal got his. If the burglar didn’t have a gun could he have killed so easily, could he have stolen things with relative ease? Although I would have denied you the right to own a gun, I would denied the criminal the same right. How do I do that? Ban all gun production, 1,2,3.

Thanks for the namecalling. If I hadn't defended myself and my loved ones we may have ended up dead. May I ask what you would have done in my situation? Bear in mind that the police were 20 minutes away.

Wha?!? Oh, really the only one to blame for that would have been you and your ideological stance.

Really? Why not the criminal? Would you explain how, if we had been shot, I would have been at fault?

We aren’t talking about a drug cartel in Colombia; I think you are overestimating the power of industry here. Guns have factories, that are large, and can be easily be closed. Of course I would endorse a worldwide ban of handguns so illegal imports would be stopped at the source, somewhat like land mines. It’s not all that difficult imo…

In your opinion. But let's take another look at the war on drugs. Surely it isn't all that difficult too, right?

Don’t get hyperbolic on me, your little example would have bought you a one way ticket to Auschwitz.

Do you deny that arbitrary restriction of personal freedoms by the government is a tenet of fascism?

Hmmm??? (Drooling)

Did you not understand my example? I can elucidate, if need be.

You assume I would actually give shit about the gun in the first place…

People naturally fear what they do not understand. I think a lot of your position on this issue is based simply on ignorance, rather than data and experience.

True, but why make the malice worse then it should be?

How does holding a gun make one's intent more malicious?

 

[Undecided]

What was the violence caused by?

I agree with you, guns are not the cause of violence. But I still am still against them in the hands of the population.

The gun control debate could learn a thing or two from Prohibition, or the war on drugs.

It could indeed, but you see guns aren’t a commodity like alcohol, or drugs. You can’t exactly hide them as well as you can the former two.

The truth comes out. Thanks for letting us know you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Well, do you actually think I really give two shits about this? Jeeze if you Americans love killing, and gunz then go ahead be my guests.

Fists, baseball bats, sticks, rocks, whatever you can find

None of those are designed to kill me, get it, are you slowly getting this concept.

Removing weapons from a society (even if it were possible to do completely) will not make the same society any less violent any more than the makeup you use makes your acne go away. It's just a symptom, not a cause.

Those things you mentioned only become a weapon when they are used. A gun is a weapon independent of its use. Comprende?

If "ur" going to "steal a bank", then you're not going to be concerned with firearm laws enough to bother procuring your arsenal legally.

Exactly if ur (something called shorthand ) going to steal the bank why give him the gun in the first place either through legal or illegal means. The only way to make sure that doesn’t happen is that all gun production is banned, and all held guns are confiscated. Guns just don’t come out of thin air you know, I realize you think that guns grow widely like coca plants but it doesn’t.

Are you suggesting that I am a supporter of drug laws?

Your not? If not then I’ll get some crack dealers to your house to sell some crack to your children, kay?

Also, thank you for admitting you are a fascist.

W5H me on that one…

Reasoning like yours is the reason why the US Constitution was written to ensure that an autocratic government could be reigned in by its populace, and why the American people will never entirely relinquish their right to bear arms.


Most Americans think there should be gun control, if anything the current status is fascist.

Thanks for the namecalling.

Sorry but I really do you think that you must be an idiot to complain about the criminal having a gun, yet you have the same gun yourself. I’d bet you that criminal was just as “responsible” as you were . I mean I would imagine that you aren’t responsible once you actually commit a crime, once it’s to late. Yes the illogical stance of the Gun lobby.

If I hadn't defended myself and my loved ones we may have ended up dead.

Actually if that man was a burglar I would imagine that you would have had a greater chance of being killed if you did confront him. A burglar doesn’t kill for any reason; they usually do it when they are scared. Defense mechanism, another little thing from psychology.

May I ask what you would have done in my situation? Bear in mind that the police were 20 minutes away.

Well I don’t have a gun in my home now, nor do I ever intend to have one. I wouldn’t be a “Hero”, like the cops tell us.

Really? Why not the criminal?

Well I Mean he would be punished for his act obviously, but the act was only possible because of your complacency in regards to guns. You want it all Stokes you really do…

In your opinion. But let's take another look at the war on drugs. Surely it isn't all that difficult too, right?

Yes because the comparison is too logical…I assume guns are made by Colombian peasants as well?

Do you deny that arbitrary restriction of personal freedoms by the government is a tenet of fascism?

Democracies do it all the time, what do you thikn the Patriot Act is mein friend? Give me a break.

Did you not understand my example? I can elucidate, if need be.

No I understand…

People naturally fear what they do not understand. I think a lot of your position on this issue is based simply on ignorance, rather than data and experience.

Oh why yes of course, I want to experience the joys of being held at gun point by someone. Oh the joy! Please…I don’t need to experience a wax, I know it hurts.

How does holding a gun make one's intent more malicious?

Not one’s intent, one’s Actus Reus.

 

[Tiassa]

Stokes:

Neither the computer, knives, nor matches were designed specifically for killing things.

Nor was the rifle made for changing channels.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

I agree with you, guns are not the cause of violence. But I still am still against them in the hands of the population.

Why?

It could indeed, but you see guns aren’t a commodity like alcohol, or drugs. You can’t exactly hide them as well as you can the former two.

You can't? In my experiences (as a CCW holder who routinely carries a Steyr M .40 with him) concealing a weapon is quite easy.

Please explain how it is not.

Well, do you actually think I really give two shits about this? Jeeze if you Americans love killing, and gunz then go ahead be my guests.

Ignoring your spitballing, why are you posting in this thread?

None of those are designed to kill me, get it, are you slowly getting this concept.

So? Guns are not designed to kill you either. It all depends upon the shooter. Your position is based on fear and ignorance. May I ask why you naturally feel threatened?

Those things you mentioned only become a weapon when they are used. A gun is a weapon independent of its use. Comprende?

Understood and incorrect. The gun is not going to load itself, aim itself, and go through the firing process, unless there is somebody manipulating it to do so. You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object. I don't fault you for your ignorance.

Exactly if ur (something called shorthand ) going to steal the bank why give him the gun in the first place either through legal or illegal means. The only way to make sure that doesn’t happen is that all gun production is banned, and all held guns are confiscated. Guns just don’t come out of thin air you know, I realize you think that guns grow widely like coca plants but it doesn’t.

Just like the ban of cocaine production keeps it off our streets, am I right?

Your not? If not then I’ll get some crack dealers to your house to sell some crack to your children, kay?

I do not support the current drug policy. Decriminalization of some and legalization of others would both cut down drastically on organized crime and subsequently increase overall public safety.

Most Americans think there should be gun control, if anything the current status is fascist.

We agree on this. The 2nd Ammendment has not been in good health since 1934. Any infringement upon it is fascist. But your assertion that "most Americans favor gun control", is false. The 1990s showed a brief increase in support of firearm legislation but after this year's Million Mom March had an anemic showing of only 2,500, the fad of gun control is slowly ebbing from the political scene.

Sorry but I really do you think that you must be an idiot to complain about the criminal having a gun, yet you have the same gun yourself. I’d bet you that criminal was just as “responsible” as you were . I mean I would imagine that you aren’t responsible once you actually commit a crime, once it’s to late. Yes the illogical stance of the Gun lobby.

No dice. I own my guns legally, and use them responsibly.

Actually if that man was a burglar I would imagine that you would have had a greater chance of being killed if you did confront him. A burglar doesn’t kill for any reason; they usually do it when they are scared. Defense mechanism, another little thing from psychology.

Really? Would you be willing to bet your family's lives on your lofty academic credentials? I wouldn't. There are many others who don't subscribe to your same stance of preemptive capitulation:

Would-be victim busted for shooting burglar (CA)
Man with long rap sheet killed during break-in (TN)
Paper protection useless against violent thug; lead protection works best (NY)
Homeowner shoots and wounds alleged burglar (TX)
Burglar Shot by Homeowner (MD)
Homeowner confronts intruder with gunshots (MN)
Burglar killed by store owner (TX)
Home invasion thwarted by armed citizen (AR)
Homeowner wounds alleged home invader (TX)

I could go on. The simple fact is that any number of these people could have been robbed, injured, or killed had they not defended themselves using a gun. If you are so passive that you would bend over and take it up the keister from an invader, I advise you to move next door to a police department.

Well I don’t have a gun in my home now, nor do I ever intend to have one. I wouldn’t be a “Hero”, like the cops tell us.

So you'd be dead. Very compelling reasoning.

Well I Mean he would be punished for his act obviously, but the act was only possible because of your complacency in regards to guns. You want it all Stokes you really do…

How was I complacent?

Yes because the comparison is too logical…I assume guns are made by Colombian peasants as well?

Irrelevant.

Democracies do it all the time, what do you thikn the Patriot Act is mein friend? Give me a break.

what

No I understand…

Very well. I emplore you to explain how a gun presents an intrinsic hazard lying on a tabletop, unloaded, then.

Oh why yes of course, I want to experience the joys of being held at gun point by someone. Oh the joy! Please…I don’t need to experience a wax, I know it hurts.

Well, if you expect anybody to take you seriously on this issue, it behooves you to obtain more than a tacit understanding of the specifics involved. Otherwise you just come off as a pompous and uninformed windbag.

Not one’s intent, one’s Actus Reus.

Agreed. However, there is simply no way to remove the gun from the hands of the criminal without also removing it from the hands of the private citizen. Because you cannot punish the innocent for the crimes of others. The only logical and moral course of action is to prosecute the source of the aberration rather than but one of its symptoms. Like I said, crime in the UK and Australia has shifted from gun-related to knife, sword, or club-related. Your proposal is expensive and ineffective. Not to mention a blatant infringement on human and Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.