Gun Control: Why it is Idiotic - General

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709772]Could you point out where in the OP that is written? [editline]14th December 2011[/editline] A criminal is less likely to want/need a gun if a normal citizens don't have them, thus decreasing gun crime.[/QUOTE] Could be worse, A criminal runs into your store and demands at gunpoint that he hands over whats in the cashier, Nobody has firearms to protect themselves. And he is long gone by the time the cops come. Besides, Some people might not have to balls to go into that store knowing somebody in there may have a concealed gun licence. Plus if they rely on the black market the guns are untrackable too. That is one possible lead and another step a criminal may screw up at.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;33709834][url=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1611/hosb1611?view=Binary]Source is the Home Office[/url] So I'd say the UK is dealing with violent crime fairly well.[/QUOTE] [Quote]Levels of BCS violent crime showed no statistically significant change compared with the previous year while violence against the person offences recorded by the police fell by eight per cent.[/quote] No significant change in violent crime and an 8% drop in violence against the person, if overall violent crime isn't falling, how are they dealing with violent crime well? [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709897]According to a discovery channel documentary I saw just yesterday, you can get a AK47 within a day in DC (or just outside of DC), legally. All you need is a clean record and cash.[/QUOTE] They make semi-automatic AK-47s, which are less regulated as they cannot fire as fast, requiring the trigger to be pulled for each shot the gun takes. So yes, you can, but it's not automatic.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709772]A criminal is less likely to want/need a gun if a normal citizens don't have them, thus decreasing gun crime.[/QUOTE] Do you have a source to back that up? That doesn't make any sense. At all.

mobrockers2 seems to like to demand sources then just throw crap out with no backing on his part

[QUOTE=zarthalan;33709916]Could be worse, A criminal runs into your store and demands at gunpoint that he hands over whats in the cashier, Nobody has firearms to protect themselves. And he is long gone by the time the cops come. Besides, Some people might not have to balls to go into that store knowing somebody in there may have a concealed gun licence. Plus if they rely on the black market the guns are untrackable too. That is one possible lead and another step a criminal may screw up at.[/QUOTE] Could be worse, A criminal runs into your store and demands at gunpoint that he hands over whats in the cashier, you have a firearm to protect yourself and try to get it, the criminal notices this and shoots. The criminal grabs the cashier and is long gone by the time the cops come. Besides, criminals might not use guns to rob stores as there is not need. The stores owner won't have a gun to shoot back.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709772] A criminal is less likely to want/need a gun if a normal citizens don't have them, thus decreasing gun crime.[/QUOTE] But not deceasing violent crime, as they'd then choose instead to use the cheaper knives to rob people, and it's entirely likely violent crime on a whole will increase. That, and they're not likely to stop using guns just because there's less people with them, if anything they're more likely because they know they won't be met with a gun when using theirs, and it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun, as they have to get closer to use it.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33709958]Do you have a source to back that up? That doesn't make any sense. At all.[/QUOTE] Gun crime as far as robbing goes is virtually nonexistent here. And how does that not make sense?

[QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572] 1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.[/QUOTE] revolutions will serve zero purpose if it is built on the same violent institutions as before [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.[/QUOTE] the only thing i dislike more than police officers are vigilantes. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]3. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.[/QUOTE] it is idiotic to suggest that political awareness and intelligence can be replaced with guns. no-one shot civil rights into existence, and plenty of people tried. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]4. If guns are outlawed can we use swords?[/QUOTE] gun control isn't about outlawing guns [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]5. If guns cause crime than pencils cause misspelled words.[/QUOTE] actually lack of education causes both those and ineffective analogies. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]6. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.[/QUOTE] then what's the problem? [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]7. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.[/QUOTE] not true. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]8. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION[/QUOTE] which states the right to bare arms for a militia. doesn't say jack shit about gun control [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.[/QUOTE] there's no liberty in a world that supposedly requires guns for political freedom. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]10. The second amendment is in place in case politicians ignore the others.[/QUOTE] violence begets violence. any movement that starts with violence will end with violence and thus we continue the cycle. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]11. 65,000,000 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.[/QUOTE] can't say that for certain. we just don't know if they killed anyone. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]12. Guns only have two enemies- Rust and Politicians.[/QUOTE] what a convincing argument against gun control [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]13. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.[/QUOTE] doesn't work when you are drowning [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]14. Assault is a behavior, not a device.[/QUOTE] no it's an action. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]15. Criminals love gun control, it makes their jobs safer.[/QUOTE] only if we're talking about gun control watered down by gun company lobbyists. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]16. If guns cause crime than matches cause arson.[/QUOTE] uh [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]17. Only a government who is afraid of it's citizens tries to control them.[/QUOTE] this is the same shitty argument repeated. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]18. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.[/QUOTE] that's not even an argument [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]19. Enforce the gun laws WE ALREADY HAVE, don't make more.[/QUOTE] they're too shit to enforce because of dumb spam like this [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]20. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.[/QUOTE] that directly contradicts: [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]22. Outlawing guns will create an illegal firearm market, just like drugs and alchohol during the Prohibition.[/QUOTE] if getting guns are that easy on the illegal firearm market then logically you should be able to have a violent revolution just fine. [QUOTE=ThatIrishSOB;33706572]21. When you remove the right to bear arms you create slaves[/QUOTE] right, obviously europe consists of slaves. let's ignore everything else like living standards, poverty, or social programs and just focus on one thing. yeah thanks for the "debate" via spam mail.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33709929]No significant change in violent crime and an 8% drop in violence against the person, if overall violent crime isn't falling, how are they dealing with violent crime well? [/QUOTE] The no difference and 8% drop are both for violent crime. The first figure is taken from the British Crime Survey, the second figure is based on actual police reports of violent crime. [quote=Wikipedia]The British Crime Survey or BCS is a systematic victim study, currently carried out by BMRB Limited on behalf of the Home Office. The BCS seeks to measure the amount of crime in England and Wales by asking around 50,000 people aged 16 and over (as of January 2009), living in private households, about the crimes they have experienced in the last year.[/quote]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709997]Could be worse, A criminal runs into your store and demands at gunpoint that he hands over whats in the cashier, you have a firearm to protect yourself and try to get it, the criminal notices this and shoots. The criminal grabs the cashier and is long gone by the time the cops come. Besides, criminals might not use guns to rob stores as there is not need. The stores owner won't have a gun to shoot back.[/QUOTE] Then that means they'll use MORE guns MORE OFTEN as they know they'll be met with no opposition. Just because they don't NEED to doesn't mean they won't, and it's easier to overpower someone with a knife or bat than gun. That, and they likely will need to have one, as the distance over the cash counter is a bit far to be stabbing over. If less people have guns, that doesn't mean less criminals will too, it just means less people will be able to defend themselves from that criminal with a gun.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709997]Could be worse, A criminal runs into your store and demands at gunpoint that he hands over whats in the cashier, you have a firearm to protect yourself and try to get it, the criminal notices this and shoots. The criminal grabs the cashier and is long gone by the time the cops come. Besides, criminals might not use guns to rob stores as there is not need. The stores owner won't have a gun to shoot back.[/QUOTE]A criminal can't have eyes everywhere. And there is the fear factor that may turn him/her away. And I have heard of plenty of cashiers keeping a gun below. Saw it in several videos of robberies. Yes they don't end up using them sometimes even when being robbed.

I'm all for gun control as long as NO ONE has guns. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;33706720]I think it would be much better were gun production and distribution entirely in the hands of state, and the minimum amount required to be produced for the armed forces.[/QUOTE] Oh god. [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] That has to be the worst idea I've ever heard.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33710041]Then that means they'll use MORE guns MORE OFTEN as they know they'll be met with no opposition. Just because they don't NEED to doesn't mean they won't, and it's easier to overpower someone with a knife or bat than gun. That, and they likely will need to have one, as the distance over the cash counter is a bit far to be stabbing over. If less people have guns, that doesn't mean less criminals will too, it just means less people will be able to defend themselves from that criminal with a gun.[/QUOTE] Thieves don't shoot people just for fun, they shoot people when the people they are robbing fight back. If a store owner does not have a gun he is less likely to react violently and thus less likely to get himself killed. And if that were true, wouldn't that mean that every single country that has very strict gun control laws would be flooded by gun crimes? You yourself argued that knife crime went up in England since the banning of guns, that directly contradicts what you're claiming here.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709897]According to a discovery channel documentary I saw just yesterday, you can get a AK47 within a day in DC (or just outside of DC), legally. All you need is a clean record and cash.[/QUOTE] A semi auto AK, not a fully automatic one. The background check is for full autos and destructive devices (IE: tank guns and grenade launchers). And yeah, Im aware that a semi auto AK is literally no less dangerous than a full auto one (Just goes to show how little politicians who vote on this stuff know).

[QUOTE=thisispain;33710031] gun control isn't about outlawing guns which states the right to bare arms for a militia. doesn't say jack shit about gun control [/QUOTE] To respond to these specifically, outlawing guns if often what gun control leads to, and often what proponents thereof condone, gun control lobbyists are petitioning up here to get all firearms that are semi-automatic or related to the military banned, I'd call that prohibition. As for the second point, it's about the interpretation of a comma in a legal document, whether it starts a new point under the same topic or continuation of the previous, and supreme court ruling in the US have supported that that comma in the middle of the statement of the second amendment means it guarantees an individual's right to bear arms, not just a militia's.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33710009]Gun crime as far as robbing goes is virtually nonexistent here. And how does that not make sense?[/QUOTE] I still don't understand how you could possibly claim that criminals are more likely to get rid of their weapons when the general public don't have them.

gun control doesn't have anything to do with banning guns. you can keep your guns, but the point should be to make sure no-one will ever have to use them to shoot someone else. instead the american government focuses on stupid shit instead of realizing that effective gun control means fixing education, reducing poverty, and not bowing down to corporate interests which include gun companies that will make a decent living off of scaring people into buying more guns.

I seem to be unable to find a source on where blackmarket guns come from, sorry.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33710163]To respond to these specifically, outlawing guns if often what gun control leads to, and often what proponents thereof condone, gun control lobbyists are petitioning up here to get all firearms that are semi-automatic or related to the military banned, I'd call that prohibition. [/QUOTE] then they are stupid sure, but gun control doesn't mean the same thing as banning guns. we can't ban guns anyway it's a constitutional right.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33710164]I still don't understand how you could possibly claim that criminals are more likely to get rid of their weapons when the general public don't have them.[/QUOTE] Why do you think thieves carry guns? The same reason as you would carry one, for his own protection. If he doesn't have to protect himself from a gun, he doesn't need a gun. He is also far less likely to even think of getting a gun, as no one has one.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33710123]Thieves don't shoot people just for fun, they shoot people when the people they are robbing fight back. If a store owner does not have a gun he is less likely to react violently and thus less likely to get himself killed. And if that were true, wouldn't that mean that every single country that has very strict gun control laws would be flooded by gun crimes? You yourself argued that knife crime went up in England since the banning of guns, that directly contradicts what you're claiming here.[/QUOTE] They shoot if they're fighting back, but they have it for fear. People are more scared of guns than other weapons, mostly due to the news media, meaning criminals will use them for the fear factor, and for greater personal security from counterattack. As for Britain, it's an isolated island, it's much easier for them to eliminate the guns in the country and prevent smuggling than nations connected by land to each other. As the number of guns in Britain went down as it became difficult to smuggle them in, broke criminals took to knives, knowing they cost less, people still fear them, and that often UK laws and court justices don't tend to favour a person's ability to defend themselves, no matter the case unfortunately. The crooks there know a cheaper knife will work because if the person defends themselves, the gavel falls on the person as well. In the case of Canada, since we have a land border with the US, smuggling is easy and would likely become even more profitable and prominent in the event of an outright prohibition of guns.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33710227]Why do you think thieves carry guns? The same reason as you would carry one, for his own protection. If he doesn't have to protect himself from a gun, he doesn't need a gun. He is also far less likely to even think of getting a gun, as no one has one.[/QUOTE] I don't even follow that line of logic. Heyyyy no one had nuclear weapons prior to WWII so no one would feel the need to develop them, right??

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33709867]Where do you think the black market guns come from? They got stolen or bought from people that legally purchased the guns. Police are already taking huge amounts of illegal firearms off of the streets, but with the supply still being there (everyone being able to buy a gun), the black market will keep on existing.[/QUOTE] That explains why there is a black market for guns that are illegal for citizens to own.

[QUOTE=thisispain;33710211]then they are stupid sure, but gun control doesn't mean the same thing as banning guns. we can't ban guns anyway it's a constitutional right.[/QUOTE] Good to finally see someone else who agrees with me than gun control and gun ban are not synonymous, almost everyone here supports both if they support one or the other, not realizing that there's a difference.

[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;33710244]I don't even follow that line of logic. Heyyyy no one had nuclear weapons prior to WWII so no one would feel the need to develop them, right??[/QUOTE] As soon as the US had nukes russia and china and every other country in the world wanted nukes too.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33710227]Why do you think thieves carry guns? The same reason as you would carry one, for his own protection. If he doesn't have to protect himself from a gun, he doesn't need a gun. He is also far less likely to even think of getting a gun, as no one has one.[/QUOTE] You don't think they'd get a gun for fear? You don't think they'd get one for defence against retaliation from a bat or knife? A gun will kill faster and from farther than either a knife or bat, if they ban citizens owning guns, they'll try to use knives and bats for defence, and crooks will want to defend themselves from those, and they'll want something more effective than another knife or bat to do it, so they'll buy an illegal gun to defend themselves from retaliation by those they're robbing.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33710315]You don't think they'd get a gun for fear? You don't think they'd get one for defence against retaliation from a bat or knife? A gun will kill faster and from farther than either a knife or bat, if they ban citizens owning guns, they'll try to use knives and bats for defence, and crooks will want to defend themselves from those, and they'll want something more effective than another knife or bat to do it, so they'll buy an illegal gun.[/QUOTE] If that were true it would happen in country's where it isn't so easy to legally get a gun (while there most certainly is a black market for them), and yet it isn't so.

[QUOTE=thisispain;33710211]then they are stupid sure, but gun control doesn't mean the same thing as banning guns. we can't ban guns anyway it's a constitutional right.[/QUOTE] Some gun control advocates think that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias, not individuals. Other probably want an amendment.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33710227]Why do you think thieves carry guns? The same reason as you would carry one, for his own protection. If he doesn't have to protect himself from a gun, he doesn't need a gun. He is also far less likely to even think of getting a gun, as no one has one.[/QUOTE] Armed households only makes things harder for thieves. And I think it's much more important to crack down on the reasons someone has to commit a violent crime in the first place than it is to limit personal liberties for the entire country. I'm no criminal, but I have a strong desire to own a weapon. As far as I'm concerned, the problem lies on the individual, not the freedom.

[QUOTE=thisispain;33710211]we can't ban guns anyway it's a constitutional right.[/QUOTE] Not exactly. The bill of rights says the right to keep and bear arms however it does not specifically say guns. It is simply assumed they meant guns, which isn't really a problem. As for gun control, there has been plenty of gun control laws passed in the USA. [quote]1871 National Rifle Association Founded Union soldiers Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate found the NRA to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, serves as the organization's first president. 1934 National Firearms Act Brought about by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like machine guns from America's streets. Other firearms such as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as well as other "gadget-type" firearms hidden in canes and such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. approval. 1938 Federal Firearms Act Congress aimed this law at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. Anyone involved in the selling of firearms was required to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce ($1 annual fee). They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit. 1968 Gun Control Act The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assasinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage. License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers could not sell to grew to include those convicted of felonies (with some exceptions), those found mentally incompetent, drug users and more. The act also defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms. The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21 years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns, including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles sales. 1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created Enforcement of the Gun Control Act was given to the Dept. of the Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service. The organization replaced "tax" with "firearms," nearly doubled in size, and became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). 1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act Made it illegal for anyone to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing. Firearms Owners' Protection Act Eased restrictions on gun sellers and the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary convictions who are illegally shipping guns. 1990 Crime Control Act Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts. 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Imposed, on an interim basis, a five-day waiting period and background check before a licensed gun importer, manufacturer or dealer can sell or deliver a handgun to an unlicensed individual. Required a new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI, be ready to replace the waiting period by Nov. 30, 1998. The new background check system will apply to all firearms and will allow checks to be done over the phone or electronically with results returned immediately in most cases. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use. Criteria for semiautomatic assault weapons that fall under the ban are provided as well as a list of 19 specific firearms. Prohibits juveniles from possessing or selling handguns and directs the attorney general to evaluate proposed and existing state juvenile gun laws. 1998 Brady Handgun Act Goes Into Effect The Brady Act goes into effect which requires all gun dealers to run background checks on all potential buyers using the National Instant Criminal Background Check system. 1999 Gun Bill Requires Trigger Locks A bill is passed which requires all newly made hand guns to have a trigger lock. The bill also extends the waiting period and background checks of firearms being sold at gun shows. 2008 Washington D.C. Handgun Ban Dismissed In District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case, the Supreme Court dismisses the Washington, D.C. handgun ban. The court ruled that the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves, which the District of Columbia is considered.[/quote]