NationStates Jolt Archive

We should ban guns. Forget gun 'control,' those are just half-assed measures. We should ban every single gun, rifle, firearm, explosively propelled projectile weapon in the states.

1) Guns Kill People

Yes they do. The fact that cars also kill people is irrelevant. We need cars. But no one needs a gun. I suppose it could be argued that I might need a gun if a criminal with a gun comes into my house looking for rape and violent crime. But I will ignore such arguments as they obviously forget that after banning guns, guns will not exist, and therefore I can defend myself with a kitchen knife even if I happen to know nothing about melee combat tactics using knives.

2) The High Gun Crime in the US is Due to it's Free Gun Laws

It's a proven fact that getting a gun in the US is actually easier than getting e-mail spam. (Particularly with today's effective spam blockers.) It should be no surprise that in 1999, there were 8,259 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir) murders committed with guns (out of 12,658 murders). Clearly, if in 1998 or earlier we had banned guns, 8,259 people would still be living.

3) Switzerland Doesn't Count

Swiss people are genetically predisposed towards not killing each other with firearms. But Americans have a predisposition toward killing each other, when there are firearms available to do so. Therefore it doesn't matter how few deaths there are in Switzerland to guns, since they can more easily resist their biological urges.

4) Banned Weapons Are Hard If Not Impossible To Come By

Currently it is illegal for civilians to own and operate an armed and loaded B-52 bomber. How many people die to murders committed with B-52 bombers? None, at least in the US. Therefore banning guns will make gun crime as nonexistant as heavy bomber crime.

5) Children Are Too Stupid To Be Allowed Anywhere Near Firearms

Let's face it, the immature human being doesn't have the full mental facilities of an adult, and is therefore not able to tell the difference between, say, a Playstation depiction of a gun, and a .44 Magnum kept in his father's desk; in the natural playtime children enjoy, they are therefore just as likely to shoot each other with real guns, as they are to shoot each other with game guns. Again, Swiss children don't count (see #3).

6) Well-Organized Militia Does Not Mean Everyone Owns a Gun or Five

So you can throw that second amendment out the window. Since it doesn't even address the issue of Automatic Weaponry, it doesn't apply to today.

7) Knives Kill People, But Have Utilitarian Value Too So Are OK

Utility is very important in deciding whether something is illegal to own or not. For example, common household chemical products are legal to own even though they could be used to make explosives that terrorists might use, but since they make our shirts and socks clean-smelling, this far outweighs any possible threat of bombs or explosives used by terrorists or other criminals. Similarly, there is little wrong with a medieval afficiando with an arsenal of stilettos, daggers, broadswords, arrows and crossbows, since all of these serve the useful utility value of appealing to someone's sense of historical appreciation.

8) Guns Kill People Even By Accident

Guns are known to be volatile, even explosive devices that can at any time accidentally trigger themselves without human intervention, often murdering 8,259 people in the process. Clearly, the pro-gun-nutjobs frequent arguments referring to "responsible use" are void since with a gun, there is no such thing as responsible use. (At least not for Americans. See #3.)

9) Police Defend You, Stop Being Paranoid

Let's face it. In the rare instance of a potentially violent intruder into your house, dialing 911 will have the local police there in a jiffy to save you. "To serve and protect," remember? It's THEIR job to protect. Your job is to wait for others to protect you, and if the situation is really iminent, you can always just run away, hide, or engage in knife combat with a potentially drugged-out psychotic armed with a SMG.

10) Guns Make Killing People Much, Much Easier

Guns are long-range weapons which are notoriously easy for anyone to use with lethal force, especially children trained with Playstations (see #5). Obviously, I could kill someone with a stapler, but it would be far more difficult to do than with a sawed-off shotgun. (This doesn't mean staplers are innocent. They share many qualities with guns apart from the long-range issue. See my next thread wherein I describe these dangers and advocate the banning of the stapler.) Basically, if something makes it easier for someone to kill, that something is wrong. Conversely, providing "speed bumps," as it were, to the easiness of killing will of course reduce both the impetus to kill and the number of killings.

11) Guns Don't Protect Against Tyranny, People Do

It's pretty much a given that the US military (for example), would face the potential threat of 300 million angry Americans armed with guns in exactly the same way as it would the potential threat of 300 million angry Americans armed with staplers. That is, with nuclear weapons, heavy artillery, and air strikes. So you can forget about protecting Democracy with firearms, when the other side has and will obviously use strategic bombing to deal with dissent.

12) Banning Things Eliminates Them

This is very true. For example, in 1937 when marijuana (also known as cannabis) wasn't criminalized, it was estimated there were 100,000 addicts (users). Today however, marijuana is banned, and there aren't any Americans who smoke marijuana. Success!

So in conclusion, I've totally changed my stance re: gun control and agree. Guns should be banned. That'll solve everything.

*Sadly needed disclaimer: I am not trolling, but I am not seriously in favor of banning guns. However, I am highlighting some of the less-than-cohesive arguments (or more appropriately implied arguments) I've seen hurled around, in the hopes that the heavy dipping in sarcasm will reveal their folly. I am not saying everyone who is pro-gun-control wants to ban guns, or that everyone who wants to ban guns uses these arguments. I am not deliberately misrepresenting anyone, nor am I making snide commentary about anyone in particular. These are basically real arguments, though cast in a less than complimentary light. Please do not flame me or anyone else in this thread. Smoking cigarettes has been known to cause birth defects.

Banning drugs has not stopped the drug trade, banning guns won't stop the gun trade.

Guns don't go off by themselves. I've accidentally dropped loaded guns before. No boom. You might as well claim that cars occasionally start themselves up and drive for no apparent reason.

The odds of being shot to death in the USA are lower than the odds of being killed in a motor vehicle accident. Want to save lives? Work on safer cars and highways.

Guns are used responsibly by the vast majority of gun owners. Hunting, target shooting, and self defense are legitimate uses for guns.

In Switzerland every citizen has an assault rifle. A real one. They have almost no gun crime. It's clearly not the guns, it's the culture.

You and many others have been conditioned, much like Pavlov's dogs, to associate guns with crime. The news never reports the situations where gun owners live happy peacefull lives because it's not newsworthy. They seldom report the incidents where private gun owners detered or shot criminals who attacked them because it's not as sensational as Columbine. Every time you read or hear about guns it's in the context of crime. You've been brainwashed.

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. :eek:

I'd disagree with #4 though... banned items of any kind aren't all that hard to get if they're small enough. I can't keep a B-52 under the drivers seat of my car. Look how the 'War on Drugs' is working out for example.

I'd like to see guns go, but they're too ingrained into our culture to really be effectively banned now.. a ban on guns would lead to some retarded 'War on Guns' program, which would join 'War on Drugs' and its younger brother, 'War on Terror' in occupying our TV news time and national budget.

If there was a good way of enforcing it, then it would be great. But I don't think there is. May as well leave things as they are and at least try and ban the worst of the guns out there, i.e... anything but shotguns, handguns, and single shot rifles.

Gee whiz, guys, you don't know what you are reading. As an author of poorly written attempts at humor I can always spot another similar attempt.

1) Guns Kill People

guns don't kill people, wappas do.....

Gee whiz, guys, you don't know what you are reading. As an author of poorly written attempts at humor I can always spot another similar attempt.
Damn. I only skimmed the post so I got fooled.

Nice job!

Gee whiz, guys, you don't know what you are reading. As an author of poorly written attempts at humor I can always spot another similar attempt.

Boy, is my face red! :eek:

Oy, I almost fired off an intricate rebuke of your position... then my smashing-typing fingers paused (thank God) as I saw the little known facet of sarcasm. Nice parody, and sorry about *almost* letting fly the heavy artilley (complete with LaPierre quotes).

-You can have my guns, when you pry them from my cold, dead, and somewhat powder-burned fingers!-

I started to have serious doubts part way through, but I read it dutifully until number twelve - that was the clincher.

8) Guns Kill People Even By Accident

Guns are known to be volatile, even explosive devices that can at any time accidentally trigger themselves without human intervention, often murdering 8,259 people in the process. [/size]


This one was my favorite.

The disclaimer should be removed. It's funnier that way.

Great post Santa Barbra!

NIce thread i have abump on my head from reading it !

I started to have serious doubts part way through, but I read it dutifully until number twelve - that was the clincher.

I was feeling doubtful by the time one was done, two had me totally convinced it was sarcasm.

"And remember, guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do!"

How many robberies, rapes and murders are stopped by widespread gun ownership in America?
How many robberies, rapes and murders are carried out by people using guns?

How many robberies, rapes and murders are stopped by widespread gun ownership in America?
How many robberies, rapes and murders are carried out by people using guns?

Depending on who's estimates you look at, for the top one, anywhere from 100,000(lowest), to 600-700k(from a pro gun-control organization) to 1.5 million(Gary Kleck and assossiates).

Depending on who's estimates you look at, for the top one, anywhere from 100,000(lowest), to 600-700k(from a pro gun-control organization) to 1.5 million(Gary Kleck and assossiates).

Do those numbers refer to robberies, rapes or murders?

How are they calculated?

Violent crime in the US has basically continued to drop since 1992. It leveled off around 2001 and has stayed rather low.

Yet, there are more guns in the US than in 1992. So banning guns does not stop crime. Nor was crime ever a concern for the founding fathers

For the founding fathers, the utility of owning arms...not just guns...but weapons of all kinds... was to keep an unjust governmentt off your back...in their case the King of England.

Let's not forget that Lexington and Concord were fought when the British marched out of Boston to CONFISCATE COLONIAL ARMS.

This was very fresh in the founding fathers minds and they new that their own form of government had the potential to become oppressive. Therefore the right to bear arms was guaranteed as a citizen's last defense against their own government. Because the gov't has heavy weapons does not guarantee control either: I will reference you to Iraq in this case, albeit this is a VERY negative case.

As an aside, back in Colonial times, every gun was an "Assault Weapon" so banning automatic firearms seems to be directly cotrary to the wishes of the constituitonal framers.

Violent crime in the US has basically continued to drop since 1992. It leveled off around 2001 and has stayed rather low.

Yet, there are more guns in the US than in 1992. So banning guns does not stop crime. Nor was crime ever a concern for the founding fathers

For the founding fathers, the utility of owning arms...not just guns...but weapons of all kinds... was to keep an unjust governmentt off your back...in their case the King of England.

Let's not forget that Lexington and Concord were fought when the British marched out of Boston to CONFISCATE COLONIAL ARMS.

This was very fresh in the founding fathers minds and they new that their own form of government had the potential to become oppressive. Therefore the right to bear arms was guaranteed as a citizen's last defense against their own government.

As an aside, back in Colonial times, every gun was an "Assualt Weapon" so banning automatic firearms seems to be directly cotrary to the wishes of the constituitonal framers.


I would never ben handguns, but...

do you really think that a bunch of civilians with automatic rifles is really going to stand against the United States Army? There aren't enough guns in the world. If the government is ready to take us down by force of arms, they have the advantages of superior weaponry and, more importantly, organization and training. It wouldn't be much of a fight no matter how many rounds per minute you are firing.

The only uses for automatic weapons are a) shooting at a fence with Osama Bin Laden's face painted on it or b) drive by shootings, etc. A) is fun, but I don't think it outweighs the harm that results from b).

The only uses for automatic weapons are a) shooting at a fence with Osama Bin Laden's face painted on it or b) drive by shootings, etc. A) is fun, but I don't think it outweighs the harm that results from b).

Don't forget hunting.... *cough*

I would never ben handguns, but...

do you really think that a bunch of civilians with automatic rifles is really going to stand against the United States Army? .

Yes. Consider how just a few nuts with Ak47's and grenades have sadly kept the US Army pretty occupied in Iraq.

I'll grant you this is a very neagtive situation, but obviously, guerilla warfare is nothing new and it is an effective tactic.

I am awed. That's the biggest intentional strawman I've ever seen! I betcha it burns real nice. :p

We don't need cars, people lived without them until ford came along.

Yes. Consider how just a few nuts with Ak47's and grenades have sadly kept the US Army pretty occupied in Iraq.

I'll grant you this is a very neagtive situation, but obviously, guerilla warfare is nothing new and it is an effective tactic.

It seems that the improvised explosives are the bigger problem, but no one sees the NIEA (national improvised explosives association,) having an impact in Washinton.

They're gonna have to pry my improvised explosive device rom my cold dead hand!

If gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they won't keep them out of the hands of revolutionaries either.

I would never ben handguns, but...

do you really think that a bunch of civilians with automatic rifles is really going to stand against the United States Army?

Have you heard of a place called Vietnam? or Iraq?

I would never ban handguns, but...

...

The only uses for automatic weapons are a) shooting at a fence with Osama Bin Laden's face painted on it or b) drive by shootings, etc. A) is fun, but I don't think it outweighs the harm that results from b).

Well, that is just wrong. As any cop will tell you the 99% of crimes commited with guns are commited with HANDGUNS because the are easily concealed.

How many muggings have you heard of that involved a FAL? Exactly NONE.

Were that a serious post, my response to #12 would be:
*raises hand* I smoke marijuana.

Yes. Consider how just a few nuts with Ak47's and grenades have sadly kept the US Army pretty occupied in Iraq.

I'll grant you this is a very neagtive situation, but obviously, guerilla warfare is nothing new and it is an effective tactic.
But those terrorists aren't going to take down the US military. Believe me, if the US thought those people threatened the existence of the state, they would be done for, along with a lot of innocent people no doubt. And frankly, I would be hitting the border before I watched my country turn into Iraq. I love my country but when we get to that point I don't see what's left of what I love about it to defend.

Guns cause crime, like flies cause garbage.

Well, that is just wrong. As any cop will tell you the 99% of crimes commited with guns are commited with HANDGUNS because the are easily concealed.

How many muggings have you heard of that involved a FAL? Exactly NONE.
That's not the point though. I am aware of those statistics and they aren't really relevant. I don't know of any muggings that were done with a rocket launcher or anthrax or a flamethrower either. The point is, there is no legitimate reason to have an automatic rifle other than to kill lots of people at once. And unless you are in the military or expecting to be home invaded by a mongol horde, killing lots of people is always murder.

That's not the point though. I am aware of those statistics and they aren't really relevant. I don't know of any muggings that were done with a rocket launcher or anthrax or a flamethrower either. The point is, there is no legitimate reason to have an automatic rifle other than to kill lots of people at once. And unless you are in the military or expecting to be home invaded by a mongol horde, killing lots of people is always murder.

Pssst... They have been illegal in the US since 1934. The anti's want to take away guns that look like assault rifles.

But those terrorists aren't going to take down the US military. Believe me, if the US thought those people threatened the existence of the state, they would be done for, along with a lot of innocent people no doubt.


You miss the point.

Let's say, hypothetically, the US military were to attempt some type of coupe to overthrow the rightfully elected government of the US. In this case, the MILITARY WOULD BE THE THREAT TO THE EXISTANCE OF THE STATE.

That is what the founding fathers were seeking to protect against.

...But you are going to run away and let Democracy die...or not fight at all... and let Democracy die because you don't have any arms. Kinda limits your choices doesn't it?

Let's face it. The founding fathers have that covered and they new what they were doing.

AND you'd want an Assault Weapon...not a handgun in this case.

Pssst... They have been illegal in the US since 1934. The anti's want to take away guns that look like assault rifles.
I'm aware of that. I was responding to someone who thinks that we should be allowed automatic weapons. Why does everyone automatically assume that if you make an argument you are joining some political party? I'm actually pretty center-right when it comes to gun control. I'm for registration of handguns, limiting ownership to what is reasonably necessary for self-defense, hunting, sport, etc. I've fired a semi-automatic AK-47 before and I thought it was pretty fun.

You miss the point.

Let's say, hypothetically, the US military were to attempt some type of coupe to overthrow the rightfully elected government of the US. In this case, the MILITARY WOULD BE THE THREAT TO THE EXISTANCE OF THE STATE.

That is what the founding fathers were seeking to protect against.

...But you are going to run away and let Democracy die...or not fight at all... and let Democracy die because you don't have any arms. Kinda limits your choices doesn't it?

Let's face it. The founding fathers have that covered and they new what they were doing.

AND you'd want an Assault Weapon...not a handgun in this case.


I'm sorry man, but you against the rogue US Military is no kinda contest. You could turn your cities into a war zones, get a lot of people killed, etc, but in the end you lose. In addition to guns, they have these things called tanks, helicopters, airplanes, bombs, etc., not to mention years of military tactical training and discipline. You are living in a fantasy world if you really think that you are going to be anything more than a speed bump for them.

I'm sorry man, but you against the rogue US Military is no kinda contest. You could turn your cities into a war zones, get a lot of people killed, etc, but in the end you lose.

Yeah...that is called defending democracy. The cities WERE in the warzone in 1776...yet the founding fathers did not shirk the task.

In addition to guns, they have these things called tanks, helicopters, airplanes, bombs, etc., not to mention years of military tactical training and discipline. You are living in a fantasy world if you really think that you are going to be anything more than a speed bump for them.

Do you watch the news? Because you seemed really ill informed about guerilla warfare.

Yeah...that is called defending democracy. The cities WERE in the warzone in 1776...yet the foudning fathers did not shirk the tastk.



Do you watch the news? Because you seemed really ill informed about guerilla warfare.
I hate it when people say things like this. If I am so misinformed, why don't you take a shot at informing me?

Anyway, do you really think the Iraqi insurgents are going to win? And they are fighting an army from across the world. Here you have a military on its own territory, where its own bases are. I'm sure the battle plans for putting down an internal rebellion were written down a long time ago and have been revised and honed for years and years.

I'm aware of that. I was responding to someone who thinks that we should be allowed automatic weapons. Why does everyone automatically assume that if you make an argument you are joining some political party? I'm actually pretty center-right when it comes to gun control. I'm for registration of handguns, limiting ownership to what is reasonably necessary for self-defense, hunting, sport, etc. I've fired a semi-automatic AK-47 before and I thought it was pretty fun.

My apology. It wasn't readily apparent to me what your knowledge of the facts were, and this is a common misunderstanding that comes up in many gun debates.

I hate it when people say things like this. If I am so misinformed, why don't you take a shot at informing me?

Anyway, do you really think the Iraqi insurgents are going to win? And they are fighting an army from across the world. Here you have a military on its own territory, where its own bases are. I'm sure the battle plans for putting down an internal rebellion were written down a long time ago and have been revised and honed for years and years.

1. I DO NOT think the Iraqi insurgents will win because they do not have the moral high ground. HOWEVER,
a. ) They have effectively tied up the most powerful military in the world for the last 2 years.
b. ) I KNOW that the US ARMY LOST in Vietnam, which proves the effectiveness of guerilla warfare against a powerful foe.

2. If there is a military coupe in the US and a revolt to oppose it...who is going to feed the army? Supply them with oil? Reinforcements? Parts? Anything? These things come from the populace. And if the populace is against you, you are going to have a rough time. The army could not function for more than a few weeks without the US people behind it. If they try to take what they need by force, you must oppose them. Effective guerillas do not attack people...they attack THINGS. Oil tanks, pipe lines, electric wires, and suply depots can all be shot up, blown up and destroyed...and they cannot defend themselves.

3. Yes battle plans have been written down for dealing with internal rebellion...fortunately they are so old, they were meant to put down the rebellion of the Confederate States of America.

Bottom line. The right to bear arms is guarnteed in the Bill of Rights, and I will no more surrender that right than surrender any of the the rights.

As Ben Franklin said: " The man who would trade his freedoms for security, deserves neither."

Therefore, I will old my freedom to bear arms. And as Ben new, if you don't you may end up with neither the freedom nor the security that you desire.

I have never found anyone who agreed that the US should ban :sniper: . My only problem is they should not ban hunting guns from people who use them for food...people should know, though, that certain guns are made for killing people and killing people only, when it's ILLEGAL.

People who should be allowed to have guns:
-Police
-FBI, CIA
-Guards for establishments such as the White House
-Army

I have never found anyone who agreed that the US should ban :sniper: . My only problem is they should not ban hunting guns from people who use them for food...people should know, though, that certain guns are made for killing people and killing people only, when it's ILLEGAL.

People who should be allowed to have guns:
-Police
-FBI, CIA
-Guards for establishments such as the White House
-Army


I think the US should ban guns for the simple reason that the only reason people need guns is to protect them from criminals with guns. Let the police etc have assault weapons and they can take care of the criminals. They can just shoot muggers and burglars and anyone else using an illegal gun. make owning a gun so dangerous to criminals it simply wont be worth it.

We should ban guns. Forget gun 'control,' those are just half-assed measures. We should ban every single gun, rifle, firearm, explosively propelled projectile weapon in the states.

1) Guns Kill People

Yes they do. The fact that cars also kill people is irrelevant. We need cars. But no one needs a gun. I suppose it could be argued that I might need a gun if a criminal with a gun comes into my house looking for rape and violent crime. But I will ignore such arguments as they obviously forget that after banning guns, guns will not exist, and therefore I can defend myself with a kitchen knife even if I happen to know nothing about melee combat tactics using knives.

2) The High Gun Crime in the US is Due to it's Free Gun Laws

It's a proven fact that getting a gun in the US is actually easier than getting e-mail spam. (Particularly with today's effective spam blockers.) It should be no surprise that in 1999, there were 8,259 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir) murders committed with guns (out of 12,658 murders). Clearly, if in 1998 or earlier we had banned guns, 8,259 people would still be living.

3) Switzerland Doesn't Count

Swiss people are genetically predisposed towards not killing each other with firearms. But Americans have a predisposition toward killing each other, when there are firearms available to do so. Therefore it doesn't matter how few deaths there are in Switzerland to guns, since they can more easily resist their biological urges.

4) Banned Weapons Are Hard If Not Impossible To Come By

Currently it is illegal for civilians to own and operate an armed and loaded B-52 bomber. How many people die to murders committed with B-52 bombers? None, at least in the US. Therefore banning guns will make gun crime as nonexistant as heavy bomber crime.

5) Children Are Too Stupid To Be Allowed Anywhere Near Firearms

Let's face it, the immature human being doesn't have the full mental facilities of an adult, and is therefore not able to tell the difference between, say, a Playstation depiction of a gun, and a .44 Magnum kept in his father's desk; in the natural playtime children enjoy, they are therefore just as likely to shoot each other with real guns, as they are to shoot each other with game guns. Again, Swiss children don't count (see #3).

6) Well-Organized Militia Does Not Mean Everyone Owns a Gun or Five

So you can throw that second amendment out the window. Since it doesn't even address the issue of Automatic Weaponry, it doesn't apply to today.

7) Knives Kill People, But Have Utilitarian Value Too So Are OK

Utility is very important in deciding whether something is illegal to own or not. For example, common household chemical products are legal to own even though they could be used to make explosives that terrorists might use, but since they make our shirts and socks clean-smelling, this far outweighs any possible threat of bombs or explosives used by terrorists or other criminals. Similarly, there is little wrong with a medieval afficiando with an arsenal of stilettos, daggers, broadswords, arrows and crossbows, since all of these serve the useful utility value of appealing to someone's sense of historical appreciation.

8) Guns Kill People Even By Accident

Guns are known to be volatile, even explosive devices that can at any time accidentally trigger themselves without human intervention, often murdering 8,259 people in the process. Clearly, the pro-gun-nutjobs frequent arguments referring to "responsible use" are void since with a gun, there is no such thing as responsible use. (At least not for Americans. See #3.)

9) Police Defend You, Stop Being Paranoid

Let's face it. In the rare instance of a potentially violent intruder into your house, dialing 911 will have the local police there in a jiffy to save you. "To serve and protect," remember? It's THEIR job to protect. Your job is to wait for others to protect you, and if the situation is really iminent, you can always just run away, hide, or engage in knife combat with a potentially drugged-out psychotic armed with a SMG.

10) Guns Make Killing People Much, Much Easier

Guns are long-range weapons which are notoriously easy for anyone to use with lethal force, especially children trained with Playstations (see #5). Obviously, I could kill someone with a stapler, but it would be far more difficult to do than with a sawed-off shotgun. (This doesn't mean staplers are innocent. They share many qualities with guns apart from the long-range issue. See my next thread wherein I describe these dangers and advocate the banning of the stapler.) Basically, if something makes it easier for someone to kill, that something is wrong. Conversely, providing "speed bumps," as it were, to the easiness of killing will of course reduce both the impetus to kill and the number of killings.

11) Guns Don't Protect Against Tyranny, People Do

It's pretty much a given that the US military (for example), would face the potential threat of 300 million angry Americans armed with guns in exactly the same way as it would the potential threat of 300 million angry Americans armed with staplers. That is, with nuclear weapons, heavy artillery, and air strikes. So you can forget about protecting Democracy with firearms, when the other side has and will obviously use strategic bombing to deal with dissent.

12) Banning Things Eliminates Them

This is very true. For example, in 1937 when marijuana (also known as cannabis) wasn't criminalized, it was estimated there were 100,000 addicts (users). Today however, marijuana is banned, and there aren't any Americans who smoke marijuana. Success!

So in conclusion, I've totally changed my stance re: gun control and agree. Guns should be banned. That'll solve everything.

*Sadly needed disclaimer: I am not trolling, but I am not seriously in favor of banning guns. However, I am highlighting some of the less-than-cohesive arguments (or more appropriately implied arguments) I've seen hurled around, in the hopes that the heavy dipping in sarcasm will reveal their folly. I am not saying everyone who is pro-gun-control wants to ban guns, or that everyone who wants to ban guns uses these arguments. I am not deliberately misrepresenting anyone, nor am I making snide commentary about anyone in particular. These are basically real arguments, though cast in a less than complimentary light. Please do not flame me or anyone else in this thread. Smoking cigarettes has been known to cause birth defects.



Bwaaaaahahahahaahahahahahahaa ...... *sniff *...* sniff *.....( breath )...whew...Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha...... :mp5: :mp5:


so who gets to collect all the banned guns ? What happens to the people whho say " bite me " you cant have my gun ? How do you get criminals to give up guns ? How do you find them ? You gonna search house to house ? Since your throwing away ammendments...why not the whole bill of rights...wtf needs them ? Of course your life span once you attempt to implement these things would be measured in minutes ...but hey....I needed a good old cleasing chuckle...talk about naive....whew.... my sides hurt .

What about Airsofters, the film industry, and everything else?

GDP would fall, and it wouldn't matter anyway, because criminals BREAK THE LAW. That's why they're called CRIMINALS.

Therefore, they will still be able to import weapons, but the difference is you will have pissed off a lot of people.

Like myself.

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Why not do what the UK did after Dunblane?

4% of gun crime was committed with LEGAL handguns.
96% of gun crime was committed with ILLEGAL handguns.

Handguns were (almost totally) banned.

A huge number of previously legal handguns were sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of criminals. Law-abiding citizens were victimised because they liked target practice.

Guess what? Gun crime went up.

Im sorrey if some one has already said this but

Guns dont kill people
people kill people

6) Well-Organized Militia Does Not Mean Everyone Owns a Gun or Five

So you can throw that second amendment out the window. Since it doesn't even address the issue of Automatic Weaponry, it doesn't apply to today.


See, the problem with "sarcasm" such as this is...you do occasionally make the oppositions point.

What - precisely - does the American nation - with a regular army - need a "well armed militia" for? Your whole problem with Indians, French and British has slightly disappeared...the Constitution was written in a certain context, at a certain time. Some of it's tenets are beautiful and holy and sacrosanct and quite frankly as a non-American, i feel glad that yours was the first state to make them the cornerstone of the states existence.

Others, however, like the right to bear arms...aren't.

The UK - where i live - has gun control. You ever see that Bill Hicks sketch about gun control? Where he points out that the UK has seventeen deaths in 1991 due to firearms (it might have been seven, or twenty seven, i misremember, white wine, but it was certainly a hundredth, maybe a thousandth, maybe even a ten-thousandth of the USA figure). Yeah, occasionally - very occasionally - criminals get guns. And occasionally - very occasionally - they then use them.

Surprisingly less than you'd think though. I don't believe in the right to bear arms.

Now, the right to arm bears, on the other hand...

;)

Im sorrey if some one has already said this but

Guns dont kill people
people kill people

Yeah but...people kill people WITH GUNS that were DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.

god, i love the way the pro-gun lobby in the states come out with this pathetic fortune cookie style statement as though it was the height of Zen.

Yeah but...people kill people WITH GUNS that were DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.

god, i love the way the pro-gun lobby in the states come out with this pathetic fortune cookie style statement as though it was the height of Zen.

you can kill people just as easy with a gun thats designed to shoot targets or animals ...the point is the animate thinking being has a choice to make ...DO I KILL OR NOT...... ?
Thats what is important not the tool they use .
But your pathetic cookie cutter argument does'nt address this .

See, the problem with "sarcasm" such as this is...you do occasionally make the oppositions point.

The UK - where i live - has gun control. You ever see that Bill Hicks sketch about gun control? Where he points out that the UK has seventeen deaths in 1991 due to firearms (it might have been seven, or twenty seven, i misremember, white wine, but it was certainly a hundredth, maybe a thousandth, maybe even a ten-thousandth of the USA figure). Yeah, occasionally - very occasionally - criminals get guns. And occasionally - very occasionally - they then use them.

The UK introduced its draconian handgun laws after Dunblane - AFTER 1991 and as a direct result of the law change.

Use of handguns in crime in England and Wales reached its highest level for seven years in 1999-2000. This is in spite of the ban on private ownership of the weapons introduced in the wake of the Dunblane massacre. There were 42 people killed with handguns during the period - more than in any other year in the 1990s. Some 3,685 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries, the Home Office revealed. The total was more than one-third (37%) up on the previous year, and the highest level since the Dunblane tragedy in March 1996, when 16 children and a teacher died. The details were released in a parliamentary written answer by Home Office Minister Lord Bassam of Brighton. A ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in November 1997, but handgun offences have risen each year since then. Levels of handgun offences were higher in 1992 and 1993, at 3,997 and 4,202 respectively, but in each year there were fewer homicides than in 1999-2000. The higher figures then were down to a far greater incidence of robberies using handguns, which reached a peak of 3,605 in 1993 before falling every year until 1999-2000, when they jumped from 1,814 to 2,561.


Daily Telegraph : March 2004
Senior officers fear that a dramatic increase in the use of guns, particularly in battles between gangs competing over the trade in drugs, is the prime cause of the sharp rise in the number of deaths.

Other explanations include an increase in drive-by shootings and of murders committed for no other reason than that the killer perceives that personal or family "honour" has in some way been impugned by the victim. The increased use of guns by criminals has caused concern at the Home Office, which fears that the rise in the murder rate could overshadow a general decrease in overall crime figures that are due to be announced next month.

Norman Brennan, a Metropolitan Police constable who chairs the Victims of Crime Trust pressure group, said that renewed efforts to halt the increase in murders were essential.

"We need urgent action to stem this tide. Behind each murder there is a tragic story of a family left behind, children left fatherless and wives who are now widows," he said.

"Gun crime and murder are two of the crimes that make people most scared to leave their homes. The fact that the rate has doubled will cause alarm and anxiety."

you can kill people just as easy with a gun thats designed to shoot targets or animals ...the point is the animate thinking being has a choice to make ...DO I KILL OR NOT...... ?
Thats what is important not the tool they use .
But your pathetic cookie cutter argument does'nt address this .

You have no right to call someone pathetic when you thought the original post in this thread was serious and reacted in scorn to someone on your own side of the issue.

Bwahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! breath. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

What - precisely - does the American nation - with a regular army - need a "well armed militia" for?

In my opinion, that's irrelevant to the right to bear arms, which is why I made fun of the concentration on militias utility by both sides. It wasn't a logical proposition, "If a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It's not a question in the text. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It also says the right to bear arms won't be infringed. Whether the first statement is true or not (and I and many others believe it is), the second's veracity is not necessarily dependent on that of the first.

It's also my opinion that given many of the beliefs of some of the authors of the constitution, the right to bear arms had more than one reason behind it, and this was just offered as being the most obviously true at the time. Probably because there were even then there were a lot of people who desired only the government to own guns.


The UK - where i live - has gun control. You ever see that Bill Hicks sketch about gun control? Where he points out that the UK has seventeen deaths in 1991 due to firearms (it might have been seven, or twenty seven, i misremember, white wine, but it was certainly a hundredth, maybe a thousandth, maybe even a ten-thousandth of the USA figure). Yeah, occasionally - very occasionally - criminals get guns. And occasionally - very occasionally - they then use them.

Surprisingly less than you'd think though. I don't believe in the right to bear arms.

This is just a variant on the Swiss theory of gun control. All these comparisons between gun crimes are a red herring, nearly useless because of economic, social and political differences between the nations. I

And maybe in the US, we have a more of a (I think, justified) antipathy towards the idea of an unarmed populace and an armed military and government. It sticks in our craw.

The UK introduced its draconian handgun laws after Dunblane - AFTER 1991 and as a direct result of the law change.

Use of handguns in crime in England and Wales reached its highest level for seven years in 1999-2000. This is in spite of the ban on private ownership of the weapons introduced in the wake of the Dunblane massacre. There were 42 people killed with handguns during the period - more than in any other year in the 1990s. Some 3,685 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries, the Home Office revealed. The total was more than one-third (37%) up on the previous year, and the highest level since the Dunblane tragedy in March 1996, when 16 children and a teacher died. The details were released in a parliamentary written answer by Home Office Minister Lord Bassam of Brighton. A ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in November 1997, but handgun offences have risen each year since then. Levels of handgun offences were higher in 1992 and 1993, at 3,997 and 4,202 respectively, but in each year there were fewer homicides than in 1999-2000. The higher figures then were down to a far greater incidence of robberies using handguns, which reached a peak of 3,605 in 1993 before falling every year until 1999-2000, when they jumped from 1,814 to 2,561.


Daily Telegraph : March 2004
Senior officers fear that a dramatic increase in the use of guns, particularly in battles between gangs competing over the trade in drugs, is the prime cause of the sharp rise in the number of deaths.

Other explanations include an increase in drive-by shootings and of murders committed for no other reason than that the killer perceives that personal or family "honour" has in some way been impugned by the victim. The increased use of guns by criminals has caused concern at the Home Office, which fears that the rise in the murder rate could overshadow a general decrease in overall crime figures that are due to be announced next month.

Norman Brennan, a Metropolitan Police constable who chairs the Victims of Crime Trust pressure group, said that renewed efforts to halt the increase in murders were essential.

"We need urgent action to stem this tide. Behind each murder there is a tragic story of a family left behind, children left fatherless and wives who are now widows," he said.

"Gun crime and murder are two of the crimes that make people most scared to leave their homes. The fact that the rate has doubled will cause alarm and anxiety."

42 Homicides. Oh whoopy. So we did a net search and found 42 homicides.

Do a similar net search and find me the 99/00 gun crime level for New York.

Yeah but...people kill people WITH GUNS that were DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.


Excellent argument - I trust you wish to ban kitchen knives too?

Guns were originally designed only for killing.
Knives were originally designed only for killing.

Guns now have other purposes (eg. recreational target practice)
Knives now have other uses (cutting things)

you can kill people just as easy with a gun thats designed to shoot targets or animals ...the point is the animate thinking being has a choice to make ...DO I KILL OR NOT...... ?
Thats what is important not the tool they use .
But your pathetic cookie cutter argument does'nt address this .

a gun "designed" to shoot targets or animals?

Oh, right, sorry, so you can kill people just as well with a gun designed NOT to kill?

I must have missed that.

Guns are designed to kill. Full stop. Or "period" as you americans charmingly put it.

42 Homicides. Oh whoopy. So we did a net search and found 42 homicides.

Do a similar net search and find me the 99/00 gun crime level for New York.

Or Switzerland? You must compare like with like. The point is the increase from the handguns ban.

Excellent argument - I trust you wish to ban kitchen knives too?

Guns were originally designed only for killing.
Knives were originally designed only for killing.

Guns now have other purposes (eg. recreational target practice)
Knives now have other uses (cutting things)

Knives have other uses that the vast majority of the population undertake. Guns have the use "recreational target practice" which begs the question - why exactly are you practicing how to shoot things better unless you wish to shoot people?

And - by the way - where did you decide knives were originally designed to kill things? Given we became hunter/gatherers and meat eaters at roughly the same stage of human development, why do you ASSUME they were originally designed to kill people instead of - oh, i dunno - cut branches so we could build shelter?

a gun "designed" to shoot targets or animals?

Oh, right, sorry, so you can kill people just as well with a gun designed NOT to kill?

I must have missed that.

Guns are designed to kill. Full stop. Or "period" as you americans charmingly put it.

Does it really matter what it was designed to do?

Let's say someone stabs you to death with a pearing knife. They tear your jugular, and then puncture your flesh wherever they feel like it as you bleed to death.

Let's say in another reality, someone stabs you to death with a combat knife. They tear your jugular, and then puncture your flesh wherever they feel like it as you bleed to death.

Which outcome do you prefer?

Or Switzerland? You must compare like with like. The point is the increase from the handguns ban.

I just gave you the entire of a nation - a much larger nation than Switzerland, with a greater history of violent crime - versus one city. And you refused to take it.

Does it really matter what it was designed to do?

Let's say someone stabs you to death with a pearing knife. They tear your jugular, and then puncture your flesh wherever they feel like it as you bleed to death.

Let's say in another reality, someone stabs you to death with a combat knife. They tear your jugular, and then puncture your flesh wherever they feel like it as you bleed to death.

Which outcome do you prefer?

At least i have a chance against a knife. Someone could shoot me from 10 yards away.

Or Switzerland? You must compare like with like. The point is the increase from the handguns ban.

No cause and effect has been shown though. Show that the increase came specifically from the handgun ban. Confusing cause and effect with correlation is one of the most common errors and it pisses me off.

At least i have a chance against a knife. Someone could shoot me from 10 yards away.

Someone could stab you in the back.

Someone could miss with a gun.

You could have a gun and shoot them first, or fire a warning shot and deterr them.

There's a chance involved in everything.

Knives have other uses that the vast majority of the population undertake. Guns have the use "recreational target practice" which begs the question - why exactly are you practicing how to shoot things better unless you wish to shoot people?

What kind of bigoted nonsense is this? Do you also want to ban boxing? (why release aggression in a controlled manner unless you intend to go out and beat up people at random on the streets?)

No sport has an inherent point to it. Why would someone want to kick a ball between some goalposts? Or whack a baseball with a baseball bat? Or throw a basketball into a net?

I don't have the slightest desire to shoot. I have friends who do, and I don't begrudge them their hobby. It doesn't make them deranged murderers. It doesn't make them criminals (though their options are now severely limited).

In my opinion, that's irrelevant to the right to bear arms, which is why I made fun of the concentration on militias utility by both sides. It wasn't a logical proposition, "If a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It's not a question in the text. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It also says the right to bear arms won't be infringed. Whether the first statement is true or not (and I and many others believe it is), the second's veracity is not necessarily dependent on that of the first.

It's also my opinion that given many of the beliefs of some of the authors of the constitution, the right to bear arms had more than one reason behind it, and this was just offered as being the most obviously true at the time. Probably because there were even then there were a lot of people who desired only the government to own guns.

I don't *particularly* want the government to own guns either, but can think of the odd occasion when it is justified.


This is just a variant on the Swiss theory of gun control. All these comparisons between gun crimes are a red herring, nearly useless because of economic, social and political differences between the nations. I

And maybe in the US, we have a more of a (I think, justified) antipathy towards the idea of an unarmed populace and an armed military and government. It sticks in our craw.

I don't really think it is justified, but i do recognise the cultural differences, the cult of "rugged individualism" that is a major part of the US mindset, the whole "levelling" thing that guns brought about, frontier justice and the like.

I just don't see how it translates to people who want to own semi-automatic guns in urban areas. You should be concentrating - in my VERY HUMBLE opinion - more on making your society more coherent and cohesive, and less on protecting yourself from your neighbour.

Just my opinion, please don't take it wrongly.

(although the "guns don't kill people" argument does stick in MY craw as unreconstructed bullshit)

Someone could stab you in the back.

Someone could miss with a gun.

You could have a gun and shoot them first, or fire a warning shot and deterr them.

There's a chance involved in everything.

How many gun-clubs actually teach you how to fire warning shots? And how many teach you how to aim at the head? Just so i know :)

No cause and effect has been shown though. SHow that the increase came specifically from the handgun bad. Confusing cause and effect with correlation is one of the most common errors and it pisses me off.

Well, it is not possible to absolutely prove cause and effect with any year-on-year statistics.

If you look closely at the stats they were level in the 1990s until the handgun ban, then they started to rise.

This provides a case for cause and effect - we see an effect and there is an obvious cause (flooding the market with illegal handguns).

If you are suggesting that there is some other lurking variable beginning exactly at the time of the handgun ban that wasn't there before, I'd be delighted to hear what you think it is.

What kind of bigoted nonsense is this? Do you also want to ban boxing? (why release aggression in a controlled manner unless you intend to go out and beat up people at random on the streets?)

No sport has an inherent point to it. Why would someone want to kick a ball between some goalposts? Or whack a baseball with a baseball bat? Or throw a basketball into a net?

I don't have the slightest desire to shoot. I have friends who do, and I don't begrudge them their hobby. It doesn't make them deranged murderers. It doesn't make them criminals (though their options are now severely limited).

I have no problem with boxing, because it's the competition of two equals in a set arena. Now, fencing, i'm not so sure about, but we don't have much of a history of people stabbing each other with rapiers in the last 100 years. We do, admittedly to an extremely low level, in comparison with the US, have a history of people taking guns and shooting others with them. I don't think it makes them deranged killers, no. But i don't really see the point in a civilized society of learning to shoot things more efficiently. Just me.

I have no problem with boxing, because it's the competition of two equals in a set arena.

And a shooting competition where points are scored for hitting a target more accurately isn't the competition of two equals in a set arena?

And a shooting competition where points are scored for hitting a target more accurately isn't the competition of two equals in a set arena?

I do like the way you ignored the rest of what i said...

Nice debating tactic, to take the odd line and pick at it :)

First off, sorry for not using acctual quotes, I'm too lazy, but this should work fine... I' m assuming people that have read this thread will remember these things being said, so I don't think it is needed anyway.


"What - precisely - does the American nation - with a regular army - need a 'well armed militia' for? Your whole problem with Indians, French and British has slightly disappeared...the Constitution was written in a certain context, at a certain time. Some of it's tenets are beautiful and holy and sacrosanct and quite frankly as a non-American, i feel glad that yours was the first state to make them the cornerstone of the states existence."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First statment:
A militia that is organized in the US is no longer to attack another countries invading troops, but rather an assult by the US government it self. If every Jew was alowed a gun in Nazi Germany, than perhapse they would have fought back ((though some might make the arguement that jewish people would not because they are passive, I personally think that depends on the jew. Either way that is irrelevent because most americains do not have such a nature.)) And yes I know jews obviously were not allowed to have guns in Nazi Germany, that is kind of my point.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Secound statment:
Anyway, do you really think the Iraqi insurgents are going to win? And they are fighting an army from across the world. Here you have a military on its own territory, where its own bases are. I'm sure the battle plans for putting down an internal rebellion were written down a long time ago and have been revised and honed for years and years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This was well thought through argument. However, you forgot a few things.
1:Iraq is another country. Obvious, but still important. We kill every one there, it would affect us very little. And so we ((well our government)) have no problem pulling out all the stops. But if the US government is going to try to destroy democracy, and we revolt, they will have to kill all the resisters. If they kill us all, they have no work force, and so even if they do manage to destroy our way of life, they screw them selves too.

I do like the way you ignored the rest of what i said...

Nice debating tactic, to take the odd line and pick at it :)

It would be - if I hadn't already answered your point in my previous post.

I just don't see how it translates to people who want to own semi-automatic guns in urban areas. You should be concentrating - in my VERY HUMBLE opinion - more on making your society more coherent and cohesive, and less on protecting yourself from your neighbour.

Just my opinion, please don't take it wrongly.

Duly noted, we're all just mentioning opinions on this sort of thing when you come down to it.

Well, we never needed to ban weapons for being too OMG dangerous before. Even when the repeater rifle came out. We do need to be making a more coherent and cohesive society, but we don't need to clamp down on the guns to do it.

I'm not sure exactly what we could do to do it, cultural changes seem to just happen on their own rather than are thought up of in advance. But a good step would be...*

How many gun-clubs actually teach you how to fire warning shots? And how many teach you how to aim at the head? Just so i know :)

Well, to be able to fire a warning shot and not hit someone or something accidentally, you need to be able to aim, and that's what they teach. Though it is of course done more with the intent of hitting a target versus not hitting a target, but the means are the same.

I do agree that *responsible gun use must be developed and incouraged. Drive-by shootings and such are not what anyone wants, but the thing I like to remember about those kinds of things is that it's people killing people. The tool is inconsequential in comparison to the fact that murder is happening, and the tool is not the cause of the crime. Something else's going on, and that needs to be addressed.

I don't have a full blown solution to that, as I said, but hey if I did I'd be doing something other than my current job, like running for president.

YOU GUYS R INSANE :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: YEA

when properly carried by legal and trained citizens the guns make for a more polite society!! would you try to mug someone if they may have a legal concealed weapon on them and be trained to use it. really ohio just did it and its working personal crime is down...bernie

How many gun-clubs actually teach you how to fire warning shots? And how many teach you how to aim at the head? Just so i know :)

Warning shots are a bad idea, period. Firing your weapon, even a warning shot, when faced when an armed opponent simply tells the armed opponent that you are ready and willing to fire that gun. Potential danger increases, as you've just wasted a shot or two - and they've had that time to draw and take you down instead.

If you have a gun club that teaches you how to aim at the head, you're in the wrong club. A good friend of mine is an NRA instructor and I've had the pleasure of helping him set up and work with his classes (good money on the side) and neither him, or any other instructors, should teach you that, if only because you want to aim at the center of mass (chest area) to provide the most effective stopping power. The main goal in any of these situations is to stop the immediate threat. Make sure the police have been called. Do not seek out trouble - make sure to have at least one room of the house that can be considered "a safe room", etc.

Headshots are for movies. Warning shots are for movies. Stop watching movies. :)

9) Police Defend You, Stop Being Paranoid

Let's face it. In the rare instance of a potentially violent intruder into your house, dialing 911 will have the local police there in a jiffy to save you. "To serve and protect," remember? It's THEIR job to protect. Your job is to wait for others to protect you, and if the situation is really iminent, you can always just run away, hide, or engage in knife combat with a potentially drugged-out psychotic armed with a SMG.

If we were to ban guns, why not ban them entirely? Let the police use tasers and stun guns. It works just as effectively without permanent damage and with less change of abuse. And that way, there will be no guns in the country. Military only, and personally I am for banning them in the military as well.

What kind of bigoted nonsense is this? Do you also want to ban boxing? (why release aggression in a controlled manner unless you intend to go out and beat up people at random on the streets?)

If you are taking your aggression out with a gun, you are exactly the reason we want to ban guns....

We should ban guns. Forget gun 'control,' those are just half-assed measures. We should ban every single gun, rifle, firearm, explosively propelled projectile weapon in the states.

1) Guns Kill People

Yes they do. The fact that cars also kill people is irrelevant. We need cars. But no one needs a gun. I suppose it could be argued that I might need a gun if a criminal with a gun comes into my house looking for rape and violent crime. But I will ignore such arguments as they obviously forget that after banning guns, guns will not exist, and therefore I can defend myself with a kitchen knife even if I happen to know nothing about melee combat tactics using knives.

2) The High Gun Crime in the US is Due to it's Free Gun Laws

It's a proven fact that getting a gun in the US is actually easier than getting e-mail spam. (Particularly with today's effective spam blockers.) It should be no surprise that in 1999, there were 8,259 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir) murders committed with guns (out of 12,658 murders). Clearly, if in 1998 or earlier we had banned guns, 8,259 people would still be living.

3) Switzerland Doesn't Count

Swiss people are genetically predisposed towards not killing each other with firearms. But Americans have a predisposition toward killing each other, when there are firearms available to do so. Therefore it doesn't matter how few deaths there are in Switzerland to guns, since they can more easily resist their biological urges.

4) Banned Weapons Are Hard If Not Impossible To Come By

Currently it is illegal for civilians to own and operate an armed and loaded B-52 bomber. How many people die to murders committed with B-52 bombers? None, at least in the US. Therefore banning guns will make gun crime as nonexistant as heavy bomber crime.

5) Children Are Too Stupid To Be Allowed Anywhere Near Firearms

Let's face it, the immature human being doesn't have the full mental facilities of an adult, and is therefore not able to tell the difference between, say, a Playstation depiction of a gun, and a .44 Magnum kept in his father's desk; in the natural playtime children enjoy, they are therefore just as likely to shoot each other with real guns, as they are to shoot each other with game guns. Again, Swiss children don't count (see #3).

6) Well-Organized Militia Does Not Mean Everyone Owns a Gun or Five

So you can throw that second amendment out the window. Since it doesn't even address the issue of Automatic Weaponry, it doesn't apply to today.

7) Knives Kill People, But Have Utilitarian Value Too So Are OK

Utility is very important in deciding whether something is illegal to own or not. For example, common household chemical products are legal to own even though they could be used to make explosives that terrorists might use, but since they make our shirts and socks clean-smelling, this far outweighs any possible threat of bombs or explosives used by terrorists or other criminals. Similarly, there is little wrong with a medieval afficiando with an arsenal of stilettos, daggers, broadswords, arrows and crossbows, since all of these serve the useful utility value of appealing to someone's sense of historical appreciation.

8) Guns Kill People Even By Accident

Guns are known to be volatile, even explosive devices that can at any time accidentally trigger themselves without human intervention, often murdering 8,259 people in the process. Clearly, the pro-gun-nutjobs frequent arguments referring to "responsible use" are void since with a gun, there is no such thing as responsible use. (At least not for Americans. See #3.)

9) Police Defend You, Stop Being Paranoid

Let's face it. In the rare instance of a potentially violent intruder into your house, dialing 911 will have the local police there in a jiffy to save you. "To serve and protect," remember? It's THEIR job to protect. Your job is to wait for others to protect you, and if the situation is really iminent, you can always just run away, hide, or engage in knife combat with a potentially drugged-out psychotic armed with a SMG.

10) Guns Make Killing People Much, Much Easier

Guns are long-range weapons which are notoriously easy for anyone to use with lethal force, especially children trained with Playstations (see #5). Obviously, I could kill someone with a stapler, but it would be far more difficult to do than with a sawed-off shotgun. (This doesn't mean staplers are innocent. They share many qualities with guns apart from the long-range issue. See my next thread wherein I describe these dangers and advocate the banning of the stapler.) Basically, if something makes it easier for someone to kill, that something is wrong. Conversely, providing "speed bumps," as it were, to the easiness of killing will of course reduce both the impetus to kill and the number of killings.

11) Guns Don't Protect Against Tyranny, People Do

It's pretty much a given that the US military (for example), would face the potential threat of 300 million angry Americans armed with guns in exactly the same way as it would the potential threat of 300 million angry Americans armed with staplers. That is, with nuclear weapons, heavy artillery, and air strikes. So you can forget about protecting Democracy with firearms, when the other side has and will obviously use strategic bombing to deal with dissent.

12) Banning Things Eliminates Them

This is very true. For example, in 1937 when marijuana (also known as cannabis) wasn't criminalized, it was estimated there were 100,000 addicts (users). Today however, marijuana is banned, and there aren't any Americans who smoke marijuana. Success!

So in conclusion, I've totally changed my stance re: gun control and agree. Guns should be banned. That'll solve everything.

*Sadly needed disclaimer: I am not trolling, but I am not seriously in favor of banning guns. However, I am highlighting some of the less-than-cohesive arguments (or more appropriately implied arguments) I've seen hurled around, in the hopes that the heavy dipping in sarcasm will reveal their folly. I am not saying everyone who is pro-gun-control wants to ban guns, or that everyone who wants to ban guns uses these arguments. I am not deliberately misrepresenting anyone, nor am I making snide commentary about anyone in particular. These are basically real arguments, though cast in a less than complimentary light. Please do not flame me or anyone else in this thread. Smoking cigarettes has been known to cause birth defects.
i agree that all guns should be banned cause with a sword you at least have a slim chance but with a gun you can kill from a long distance anyway enought about hello from ardaisn

Well, it is not possible to absolutely prove cause and effect with any year-on-year statistics.

If you look closely at the stats they were level in the 1990s until the handgun ban, then they started to rise.

This provides a case for cause and effect - we see an effect and there is an obvious cause (flooding the market with illegal handguns).

If you are suggesting that there is some other lurking variable beginning exactly at the time of the handgun ban that wasn't there before, I'd be delighted to hear what you think it is.

If you are suggesting that there is some other lurking variable beginning exactly at the time of the handgun ban that wasn't there before, I'd be delighted to hear what you think it is.[/QUOTE]

Two things starting at the same time is NOT sufficient to determine a cause and effect relationship. Also, your blurb shows a lag between the ban officially going into effect and the rate rising.

A few more things: What was the rate before the 1990's? Why is that the only time frame referenced over and over? That in itself makes me suspicious. Perhaps the rate during the 1990's was especially low?
As for other variables there could be lots of reasons other than the ban that coincide with the timeframe: More racial/gang tensions (referenced in your report.) The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism. Recession. There are probably more, but you get the picture.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that your evidence it not compelling.

If we were to ban guns, why not ban them entirely? Let the police use tasers and stun guns. It works just as effectively without permanent damage and with less change of abuse. And that way, there will be no guns in the country. Military only, and personally I am for banning them in the military as well.


So if we ban them from the military too what are we going do? Throw rocks at the other people with assualt rifles and try to shoot a plane down with a slingshot?

So if we ban them from the military too what are we going do? Throw rocks at the other people with assualt rifles and try to shoot a plane down with a slingshot?

I am not in support of having a military personally. And if you have to have a military, it seems possible to me to find alternative methods. I can't really pretend to know a lot about weaponry but it doesn't seem impossible to me to use another form of warfare that won't kill.

Ha it's funny because....oh wait that wasn't funny at all.

I hope you get shot.

I remember as a high school kid making napalm, my high school friends made thermite and a butane powered spud cannon. All from readily available items that this theorised ban won't cover. For that matter, a trebuchet could also be pretty dangerous, and the only way to ban them effectively is to outlaw all carpentry and welding.

I live in the UK and guns have become just like drugs. It's not like you *can't* get an assault rifle in the UK, you certainly can, but you have to pay an unscrupulous individual to get it. The more things you ban, the more you feed the market of unscrupulous people.

Those Dunblane statistics may not prove that there is a cause and effect relationship between banning guns and gun crime rising, but they do show that there isn't a cause and effect relationship between banning guns, and gun crime falling.

Why does Switzerland not count? Does Canada not count either? After all Canada has a similar amount of gun crime to the UK, and they have lots more guns 'cos they actually have bears and stuff to deal with. TV is kinda different up there apparantly. As Michael Moore said, the news isn't concocted of all the scariest gun crimes that happened that day.

I don't know if any of you guys remember the Rodney King incident in L.A. but it doesn't inpire me with confidence that the people videoed abusing a man for no apparant good reason (none the court found anyway) are one of the very few shortlisted to wield guns in a post-ban US society.

Also, if you banned guns, how would you deal with the thousand of freshly unemployed Americans who no longer work in gun factories? What jobs are provided for them? Later, when the president wants to go to war again, how do you get people back in the gun factories?

Because most people in the west live within spitting distance of a convenience store, people are starting to forget that stores do not produce food. Here in the UK, although handguns are banned (except for .22 cal target pistols) if you have a field, it's quite easy to get a shotgun license for "vermin-control"

I think the UK is one of the more difficult coutries to obtain a firearm in, and yet, shotguns are issued to farmers for the asking. No-one has dared suggest a shotgun ban, becuse we all want to eat tomorrow.

If guns were banned, and you had an appointment to keep in deepest grizzly country, what would you take to protect yourself?

Just a Q for pro gun ppl,

Some company has started advertising guns with fingerprint resistant handles,

that's as good as saying your gun is the best one to commit crimes with.

Don't you think that sort of shit should be banned?

--snip--

Good point about evidence against a cause and effect between banning guns and lowering gun crime at that place and at that time. It doesn't rule it out completely though, and could have still been affected by other variables such as ban implementation (not collecting enough of the now contraband guns/having an effective enough exchange program, etc.)

One can never look at a single instance as concrete proof, but it should give one pause for thought. Which is a good thing.

Okay. Here's a question. Other than banning guns, what is a workable idea for reducing gun violence and irresponsible gun use in general?

I'd like to hear serious views on this from both the pro and anti gun contol people. Even the most ardent gun supporter has to admit that this is a problem that should not be ignored. So how can we begin to make things better?

Nice post! I'm a pathetic coward and thus NEED a gun to carry on in life without letting my paranoid delusions that all non whites are out to get me. I'm more likely to kill an innocent person with it than a possible attacker, but hey - who cares about anyone apart from myself?

We should ban guns. Forget gun 'control,' those are just half-assed measures. We should ban every single gun, rifle, firearm, explosively propelled projectile weapon in the states.

<snipped for brevity>

So in conclusion, I've totally changed my stance re: gun control and agree. Guns should be banned. That'll solve everything.

I laughed so hard I cried. Thanks, SB. :)

Okay. Here's a question. Other than banning guns, what is a workable idea for reducing gun violence and irresponsible gun use in general?

I'd like to hear serious views on this from both the pro and anti gun contol people. Even the most ardent gun supporter has to admit that this is a problem that should not be ignored. So how can we begin to make things better?
If we are going to devote our energy to new solutions, there are some other things that need more attention. First we need figure out how to keep teenagers from killing themselves and others in the outrageous number of accidents they have each year. Then, we need to make backyard swimming pools safe. Then we can work on guns.

A couple or a few years back there was a particular city in the news. The local prosecutor was reducing the gun crime rate by prosecuting each and every violation of existing gun laws. Apparently, this is the exception, rather than the rule. It's always nice to see existing laws enforced and I suspect it would be a good approach to start on. I'm at a loss to find the city right now, but I keep thinking it was Richmond, or some other Northern Virginia city that was the showcase for this effort.

Or, you could always take the approach that Kennesaw, Georgia did. There is a ordinance that requires every homeowner to own a firearm. I don't know how well it's enforced, but except for an occasional convenience store robbery, there isn't much crime in Kennesaw.

Of course guns shouldn't be banned. Then only the criminals will have them. sheesh!!

]--snip--[/I]Or, you could always take the approach that Kennesaw, Georgia did. There is a ordinance that requires every homeowner to own a firearm. I don't know how well it's enforced, but except for an occasional convenience store robbery, there isn't much crime in Kennesaw.

Interesting. What's the crime rate of neighboring counties?

Of course guns shouldn't be banned. Then only the criminals will have them. sheesh!!

Ah then we should legali9ze murder. I mean, right now, only criminals murder people! How is that fair?

Interesting. What's the crime rate of neighboring counties?
Kennesaw is just a fifteen minute drive from downtown Atlanta. Crime is rampant around Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, and the non-Kennesaw parts of Cobb counties. Predators take the path of least resistance, so it's easier to prey on the undefended types in the metro area.

Kennesaw is just a fifteen minute drive from downtown Atlanta. Crime is rampant around Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, and the non-Kennesaw parts of Cobb counties. Predators take the path of least resistance, so it's easier to prey on the undefended types in the metro area.

Am I correct in assuming that Kennesaw is mostly rural, while those other counties mostly have a higher population concentration?

This is kind of interesting. I was just looking for the Kennesaw stats.
City Population: 25,183

Murder: 1
Forcible Rape: 0
Robbery: 7
Aggravated Assault: 15
Burglary: 89
Larceny or Theft: 455
Car Theft: 47
Arson: 0

( I tried to make this a nice looking table, but jolt hosed me)

All violent crime is 00.15% of the national averages.

The stats were at http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA

Banning guns will just make ppl want them more. Like drugs... kids think " oh it's cool coz it's banned".

There's a thing you're forgetting I like to call the Second Amendment to our Constitution. I'm personally for more gun control( it is way too easy to export and buy firearms in the U.S. I admit) But banning them outright? No sir.


The reason being that


a. U heardly ever hear about someone getting shot up with a shotgun or an automatic. We could just tighten gun control laws on them( but more so on pistols)

b. Many guns in this country used to commit violent crimes are purchased illegally.

c. If we just ban guns all together it would destroy an important part of Southern ure and put a lot of people who are hunting guides etc. out of a job.

d. Crooks would still probably be able to get them, just illegally and then where would the honest citizen be?

I agree guns are a problem in this country, but frankly I just don't think banning them completely is fair to the law-abiding citizen or doable( especially not at the moment.)

Am I correct in assuming that Kennesaw is mostly rural, while those other counties mostly have a higher population concentration?
The Atlanta metro area includes Kennesaw and many other outlying areas. It's a lot like L.A. ( Los Angeles, not Lower Alabama) in that the metro area has just sprawled out of control. Maps don't really do the area justice; it's a solid network of housing and commercial with plenty of highways to connect them. Lexington is more isolated from Boston than Kennesaw is from Atlanta.

To compare to my last post, Smyrna is an adjacent city. A little larger but much more than twice as violent.

City Population: 46,342

Murder: 2
Forcible Rape: 15
Robbery: 96
Aggravated Assault: 79
Burglary: 368
Larceny or Theft: 1,490
Car Theft: 284
Arson: 4

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwww

Outlawing guns ensures only outlaws use them..i only with guns were not banned in britain..half my dads collection would be de-activated if the constabluary ever found out >.> <.<

After reading this I agree that guns should not be banned.

I have come to realise that althought there is a statistical link between gun crime and guns it is merely a coincidence. Kinda like the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.

Of course it is not gun ownership that kills people. Switzerland has a massive gun ownership. The fact that the guns are given to the people after a year being taught the importance of responsibility in National Service is irrevelant compared to the US where anyone can go into a shop and buy a gun on a whim.

I also understand that making guns easily available to criminals intent on using them to commit crime - muggings, drive bys, hold ups does not mean they would not have killed that person anyway. The fact that a gun gives the criminal little danger of being hurt himself compared to using say a baseball bat and the fact that a gun can very very easily kill compared to almost any other weapon if the criminal uses it is irrevelant to the debate on widespread gun ownership.

And a Milita is vital to the security of a nation. Many nations in the west have fallen to corrupt dictatorships in recent years. Like England, and uhh Canada. Of course the Milita may not have a year of training in the responsible ownership and use of guns as part of compulsery national service, which would also have made them a more effective milita, but thats beside the point.

And cars are a much greater tool for evil killing more people than guns each year. Those deaths may have been accidental while the gun deaths may have been deliberate but thats not the issue here.


Personally i dont have anything against the RESPONSIBLE ownership of guns - as in Switzerland. But in America that is far from the case, with the NRA seeming to campaign to make it ever easier for people to own guns with fewer checks on accountability or the persons responsibility (Because making sure someone is responsible enough is an invaision of civil liberties. As is having a child safety lock on a gun). Clearly something is very wrong in America as it has a murder rate that outstrips i think every other western nation in the world and probably quite a few third world countries.

I understand the protecting your home against intruders, but if an intruder knows you have a gun then they will bring one too - upping the stakes a lot. Personally i have a Machate... Which should anyone ever break into my house should be enough as in the UK burgulars are rarely armed with more than a Gorilla Bar (smal crowbar) as they do not expect the owner to be armed with more than an umbrella. Surprisingly few people are killed in these incidents where it is bar vs umbrella.

Does anyone have a demographic of the people who commit gun crime? At a guess would it perhaps be the poor who due to lack of welfare and a decent social system of education stay trapped in poverty and see crime as a viable carreer route?

Does no one realize that he is being sarcastic, and kinda funny too in this post?

Does no one realize that he is being sarcastic, and kinda funny too in this post?

Yeah, but how many pages can we fill up with different iterations of "Dude! I so thought you were serious for a moment. LMAO."

Doesn't actually make for gripping reading, does it?

kinda funny describes it well