[QUOTE=Lankist;16578612]Newsflash: Australia's economy isn't very reliant on their manufacturing and selling of both civilian and military grade firearms.
[editline]07:11AM[/editline]
The US and other nations like Austria (Glock) get a bit of a boost to their respective economies from the US civilian gun market.
Not to imply that trumps the philosophical aspect of the argument for gun ownership, it's just a nice little plus.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit like saying Columbia's heroine production as an economic necessity is a nice little plus for the argument for heroine production. (it's just an example, I don't know if the heroine is an economic necessity in Columbia)
It doesn't justify anything or support the argument at all.
[QUOTE=Taishu;16578755]That's a bit like saying Columbia's heroine production as an economic necessity is a nice little plus for the argument for heroine production. (it's just an example, I don't know if the heroine is an economic necessity in Columbia)
It doesn't justify anything or support the argument at all.[/QUOTE]
Except Columbia's profits aren't being funneled into a national economy, they are being funneled into a criminal industry.
None of that money gets taxed, none of that money goes toward average employees, none of that money goes to regular stores, none of that money gets used legitimately.
[editline]07:27AM[/editline]
Criminal profits are completely independent from national economy. Why do you think the 18th amendment failed so miserably? The money that could have been going to the country as a whole went to Al Capone. He didn't hire contracting companies, buy resources from steel companies or hire full-time employees. He shot people and took things.
[editline]07:30AM[/editline]
FYI firearms manufacturers put a lot of money into contractors and steel/lead/copper suppliers. That's a lot of cash that goes to some average, hard working dudes, and a lot of supporting businesses that would go down with them. We're talking millions of jobs lost if we banned guns, or even banned certain types of guns. Every time we add new gun control restrictions, there comes a wave of layoffs at all the manufacturing and contracting companies.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16578793]Except Columbia's profits aren't being funneled into a national economy, they are being funneled into a criminal industry.
None of that money gets taxed, none of that money goes toward average employees, none of that money goes to regular stores, none of that money gets used legitimately.
[editline]07:27AM[/editline]
Criminal profits are completely independent from national economy. Why do you think the 18th amendment failed so miserably?[/QUOTE]
I just used it as a hypothetical example. I don't know about the economical conditions in Columbia. My point was that, just because something provides a profit, doesn't mean you can justify it.
Glock, for instance, would die instantly if we banned handguns, and that would really hurt the Austrian economy and every economy from which they procure their physical and human resources. It isn't just our own shit that would go down the drain, it would affect a LOT of people.
[editline]07:35AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Taishu;16578863]I just used it as a hypothetical example. I don't know about the economical conditions in Columbia. My point was that, just because something provides a profit, doesn't mean you can justify it.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Not to imply that trumps the philosophical aspect of the argument for gun ownership, it's just a nice little plus.[/quote]
I'm not saying it's justification. The philosophy is its justification, just like the philosophy of individual rights is justification to legalize drugs.
What I'm explaining are the rational and tangible downsides to banning civilian firearms in part or as a whole. The American Firearms market makes up a big chunk of international trade, it'd honestly be like banning, say, Vodka, or English Crumpet sales or New York Pizza or whatever the fuck. It destroys an entire industry and costs a lot of people their jobs, finances, retirements and livelihoods. I'd say now of all times we need to think pretty fucking carefully before we decide to ban something, ethics and individual rights aside.
It isn't an argument for firearms, it's an argument against the banning of firearms.
I'm glad i live in VA i can get any gun i want with no needed lisences or permits. You dont even need anything to OPEN carry a gun. You however do need a special thing to conceal carry a gun.
I can walk downtown with a shotgun on my back or pistol in my waist with the butt sticking out. But the law quickly changes if you hold the gun as it is considered "Brandishing" the firearm and that is a seirous offense.
It is illegal to carry a shotgun, rifle or pistol in any way that can be construed as threatening. That means if you are carrying a rifle it is expected to be unloaded, safety on (if it has one) with the rifle in clear view always pointing at the ground.
Any other manner is proper cause for police to at very least give you a proverbial spanking. And carrying a firearm openly at all is reason for police to ask you a couple questions as to what you're doing with it out in the open. Ownership is invariably legal but there are some instances in which you aren't allowed to be bringing it out openly in public without a good reason, like walking it to a shooting range or gun show.
With a concealed carry, however, you can carry it anywhere not deemed a gun-free zone. You could probably get away with bringing it in one of those two, I mean fuck, it's concealed. Cops don't really give a fuck unless you brandish it or you're in a school or a playground or some shit.
[editline]07:49AM[/editline]
Foreigners seem to have this strange impression that we treat our guns like this is the wild west or some shit. People don't walk around with six shooters on their hips and spurs ringing on their boots. The mere sight of a firearm is probable cause for police investigation. The police can and do question anyone they see with a gun. If the gun is on the hip they demand proper reason for bringing it in public, and if they eye a gun in somebody's jacket or something they can ask for proof of concealed carry license, in the absence of which they can confiscate the firearm until such a time that the license can be brought to light or the suspect can be tried for illegally concealing a firearm.
We don't walk around like we're getting into shootouts every five seconds. Our police enforce this shit pretty well.
Not sure what annoys me more.
People who have blind faith in the government, and give up rights their ancestors died for
or people who seem to think that the government is a super-organized oppression system, when it clearly isn't.
Also, where does this idea that in Britain you can't get your hands on a gun come from.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16576016]Not so much for the purposes of carrying out a surgically precise rebellion but moreso the ability to cause mass, aimless havoc, destruction and death come the time we are angry enough as a people. If you look at things written by good old T. Jeff and all the other Founding Fathers (except Washington because he's a prick), there are a LOT more references to blood and general violence than there is justice. Rebellion implies a just cause, whereas things like the "Blood of patriots and tyrants" more implies simply wreaking havoc on a national scale to force the government into what its people want. Come time the First Amendment fails in addressing the woes of the people, the Second Amendment does not fail. Thus, government will always ensure its populace is as happy as reasonably possible, else they face an angry and armed mob marching through a federal building.
Then again, you're pulling this "some say" shit. When somebody says "some say" what they really mean is "I say but I'm too pussy to admit it." Who the fuck is "some" aside from yourself? If you think the government we live under now is worth rebelling against and costing millions of lives, you need your head checked. We're living under an incompetent regime, not a tyrannical one. It's less that our government forces us to do things and more that we are forced to help our government tie its own shoes.
Our government isn't evil and maniacal, it's bumbling and incompetent and sometimes it says stupid things.
Seinfeld analogy:
Our government is Kramer, not Newman.
[editline]02:21AM[/editline]
Even setting the Constitution aside which ensures the right to such things on a philosophical level, on a purely rational level banning a substance or type of possession on a federal level has never resulted in that thing going away, or even diminishing in the slightest. All it does is create an enormous and dangerous criminal industry built around that particular contraband.
Look at the Prohibition. People like Al Capone would never have ruled the streets had they not been given a product people were willing to buy. But no, we banned alcohol, and instead of going sober people went to dangerous criminals for their booze. Instead of funding legitimate businesses run by tax-paying, law abiding citizens, alcohol money funded crime rings and violence. Gun control and the war on drugs have an identical effect. Where money could be going to legitimate businesses and peaceful individuals it goes to violent criminals who fight in the streets for turf.
I would much rather two industrial giants fight in Wallstreet than actual streets.
[editline]02:22AM[/editline]
In essence, when we ban things, we CREATE criminals where there were none before. Most people think banning drugs and guns decreases crime, when in reality it's the opposite. By creating new legislation you create new crimes, and therefore new criminals. The US Government was entirely responsible for scum like Capone's rise to power, and don't think it won't breed even more violence if we decide to repeat our mistakes. We'll clog our prisons with innocent people and litter our streets with blood if we continue in the direction of mass contraband.[/QUOTE]
Lol, I love how you think that I think the goverment has 'perverted' itself. I don't.
Who does? Extremely 'liberal' (But actually misinformed) 15 year olds who wank to pictures of Micheal Moore.
Edit:
Glad I seemed to have pissed you off even though I agree with everything you said above. Although your aggression was misdirected it raised interesting points for others to read.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;16577790]True but if you get them before they get you, well you get the idea. At least when your stabbing someone it auctually takes skills over a gun where you can hide in a bush a mile away and pop someones brains out.[/QUOTE]
Go buy a rifle with effective range, and in the dark, in a bush a mile away from a human sized target, try to fire and hit it in the head.
Hell try and hit it at 50 yards.
I didn't think so.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;16600013]Go buy a rifle with effective range, and in the dark, in a bush a mile away from a human sized target, try to fire and hit it in the head.
Hell try and hit it at 50 yards.
I didn't think so.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Most people get the impression that guns are instant kill sticks that you just point at people and they die.
They are actually quite hard to use. You need years of practice to become a decent shot.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;16603136]Yeah. Most people get the impression that guns are instant kill sticks that you just point at people and they die.
They are actually quite hard to use. You need years of practice to become a decent shot.[/QUOTE]
Not really, you can't be any champion target shooter in a short time, but I'd say that you can train just about anybody to shoot a human-sized target at 10 yards with a handgun in few weeks of tight practice.
Killing people rarely needs that you are 400 yards away, that's why point-blank ranges with handguns are often preferred by the criminals. It's harder to fuck up than some sniping attempt.
Responding to some of the stuff in the first page because I'm not sifting through 8 pages of bickering post by post.
[QUOTE=Godwin;16556209]I wish america would take a more forced approach to things, rather than acting like the peoples slave.
I mean, if they came out and said "We're banning guns" then sent out heavy law enforcement and military to stomp out any one who disagrees or tries to bring guns into the country any way, it'd be done in a year.[/QUOTE]
The American government is the peoples slave. They work for us, not for their own interests. At least that is how it's meant to be.
[QUOTE=Bengley;16556288]There's hardly any gun crime in the UK.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the crime rates are higher across the board and this rate only reports crimes for which people are convicted rather than all crimes that are reported. The real crime rate is even higher still.
[QUOTE=Unreliable;16556109]I wish cops would just pick up all people that [i]look[/i] like they're gang members in L.A. Most people who dress like gang members usually are... :C[/QUOTE]
That is a status offense. It doesn't constitutionally hold up in court. You can't arrest a person for being something. They have to do something and you have to be able to prove that they did it.
[QUOTE=evilking1;16603261]Not really, you can't be any champion target shooter in a short time, but I'd say that you can train just about anybody to shoot a human-sized target at 10 yards with a handgun in few weeks of tight practice.
Killing people rarely needs that you are 400 yards away, that's why point-blank ranges with handguns are often preferred by the criminals. It's harder to fuck up than some sniping attempt.[/QUOTE]
About anyone can shoot center of mass at 10 yards just by pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.
You realize how close that is, right? Now being able to group it, is another story.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;16603475]About anyone can shoot center of mass at 10 yards just by pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.
You realize how close that is, right? Now being able to group it, is another story.[/QUOTE]
There really is very few scenarios where you couldn't get as near as 10 yards to kill someone.
Guns are easy way to kill people, easier tool of murder than a knife.
It's hard to shoot from a distance, especially with handguns, but I think that it's unrealistic to say that killing with a gun takes lot of skill.
Whenever gun control is brought up, I like to post this video:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM[/media]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16580138]Not sure what annoys me more.
People who have blind faith in the government, and give up rights their ancestors died for
or people who seem to think that the government is a super-organized oppression system, when it clearly isn't.[/quote]
Ehh
[quote]Also, where does this idea that in Britain you can't get your hands on a gun come from.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. But I know this for a fact that the amount of bureaucratic bullshit you have to go through to obtain one is BLOODY INSANE. First you have to register your firearm, police come along check paperwork with you and make sure the gun is locked away in a safe place, check the ammunition and all that and then give you a date when they're next going to come back and make sure you haven't done anything naughty with your gun and paperwork.
And it gets even worst if you try to get a hunting rifle or something as dangerous as a .22 rifle. They [b]CONFISCATE[/b] the firearm for a year make you pay a tax, then give you even more paper work and do the same as above.
Now the laws regarding shotguns may have changed in recent times but it's still hyper anal retentive and absurd in England.
[QUOTE=evilking1;16603789]There really is very few scenarios where you couldn't get as near as 10 yards to kill someone.
Guns are easy way to kill people, easier tool of murder than a knife.
It's hard to shoot from a distance, especially with handguns, but I think that it's unrealistic to say that killing with a gun takes lot of skill.[/QUOTE]
If an illiterate 8-year old african can use an AK I highly doubt there's that much to killing someone with a firearm.
[QUOTE=evilking1;16603789]There really is very few scenarios where you couldn't get as near as 10 yards to kill someone.
Guns are easy way to kill people, easier tool of murder than a knife.
It's hard to shoot from a distance, especially with handguns, but I think that it's unrealistic to say that killing with a gun takes lot of skill.[/QUOTE]
If you're shooting over 10 yards it's probably not in self defense.
Therefor you have no reason to be doing it. Keep that in mind when you consider how things will go in court afterwards.
[QUOTE=evilking1;16603789]There really is very few scenarios where you couldn't get as near as 10 yards to kill someone.
Guns are easy way to kill people, easier tool of murder than a knife.
It's hard to shoot from a distance, especially with handguns, but I think that it's unrealistic to say that killing with a gun takes lot of skill.[/QUOTE]
Several third world nations train toddlers to use fully automatic assault rifles. It is not an artform, shooting a gun. It's like driving a car, it takes a bit of practice here and there.
Using a gun takes no skill. Using a gun well takes a lot of skill. :iiaca: There can be normal drivers and then there can be Indy-Car drivers.
[QUOTE=Cheezy;16603849]If an illiterate 8-year old african can use an AK I highly doubt there's that much to killing someone with a firearm.[/QUOTE]
With an automatic you can hold down the trigger while pointing in a general direction, and still be a threat.
Not really the same with a semi-automatic. Exactly why people need to stop being so anal about civilians having them.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;16603860]If you're shooting over 10 yards it's probably not in self defense.
Therefor you have no reason to be doing it. Keep that in mind when you consider how things will go in court afterwards.[/QUOTE]
No. You are wrong. Distance plays no role in immediate self defense cases. The difference between ten, twenty and thirty yards does not matter if someone else is trying to kill you with something, particularly another gun.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16603924]No. You are wrong.[/QUOTE]
How many self defense shootings occur over 10 yards on average as opposed to those that happen within it?
[editline]01:00PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;16603924] Distance plays no role in immediate self defense cases. The difference between ten, twenty and thirty yards does not matter if someone else is trying to kill you with something, particularly another gun.[/QUOTE]
That would entirely depend on state laws.
In most states you're obligated to escape if at all possible. If we're talking about that kind of range, if it's not out in a field or something, you're probably going to get in trouble.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;16603860]If you're shooting over 10 yards it's probably not in self defense.
Therefor you have no reason to be doing it. Keep that in mind when you consider how things will go in court afterwards.[/QUOTE]
I call self-defence with guns self-defence with guns, not as a homicide with tools of murder.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;16603955]How many self defense shootings occur over 10 yards on average as opposed to those that happen within it?[/quote]
How many defense shootings occur at all?
Rate of occurrence does not change anything. If someone is reasonably threatened the distance at which they react does not matter.
[quote]That would entirely depend on state laws.
In most states you're obligated to escape if at all possible. If we're talking about that kind of range, if it's not out in a field or something, you're probably going to get in trouble.[/QUOTE]
Those do not apply to gunpoint situations, situations involving potential arson/bomb-threats and situations involving more than one person being threatened. I can name many more but I won't because it starts getting stupidly technical.
In Britain, guns are only permitted to be handled by those who have shown their responsibility and trustworthiness during a career in the police force, which is regulated by the government.
In America almost anyone can get a gun.
This strikes me as a problem.
[QUOTE=Sh33p;16604347]In Britain, guns are only permitted to be handled by those who have shown their responsibility and trustworthiness during a career in the police force, which is regulated by the government.
In America almost anyone can get a gun.
This strikes me as a problem.[/QUOTE]
That's funny because it strikes me as happiness insurance.
Happiness insurance? We get nationally provided happiness through the NHS.
[QUOTE=Sh33p;16604721]Happiness insurance? We get nationally provided happiness through the NHS.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you quite understand the concept I am referring to.
When you have a generally armed populace capable of fucking shit up at a moment's notice, the government is going to do their damnedest to ensure that populace is content with the nation and its administration.
It acts not only as a measure of waging war against a tyrannical government but also a method of preventing such a government from ever coming to exist in the first place in that such an enormous threat hanging over the heads of the administration tends to bypass the party line and political sponsors for the sake of, I don't know, not causing mass chaos.
[editline]01:46PM[/editline]
Most of our modern politicians only listen to the people who agree with them, their own party, up until they start pissing off the angry and dangerous masses in which they quietly concede.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;16603919]With an automatic you can hold down the trigger while pointing in a general direction, and still be a threat.
Not really the same with a semi-automatic. Exactly why people need to stop being so anal about civilians having them.[/QUOTE]
I'm just glad as long as your laws continue to be your laws and not ours.
My dad manages a gun wharehouse, They ship out about 6,000 guns a day varying from pistols to rifles to shotguns to ammunition to holsters to sights to scopes, anything basically. Right now there are at least 40,000 guns in his wharehouse. They are constantly being sold, SINCE OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT SALES HAVE INCREASED 200%, thank Mr. president for my dads big bonus. Anyway, The state of califonia destroys 6000 guns a year recovered at crime scenes or found ect. Basically everyone in the U.S. has somesort of gun for selfdefense, hunting relaxing, for looks, Th Barret .50 cal cost around 9,000 wholesale and retail is just too much, each bullet costs 3-4$ each, expensive. aybasically my point is that there are so many guns in the U.S that it would be retarded to try and take them all back or set restrictions on them, I think that if obama takes away our guns that he will be killed, hate to be so bold about it but, it's not in his best interest if he puts a ban on guns or a restriction on them.
Sorry for such a long post
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
