Banning guns will do literally nothing in a country which produces a big chunk of the world's damn supply of the things. We've also got a neighboring country with a very large border which covers mostly remote mountains and desert, which also happens to be tearing itself apart with gang violence. I don't really have a problem requiring permits, background checks, and not being a batshit crazy fucker to buy or own a gun. I have a problem with people committing crimes because the safety net isn't sufficient to prevent it.
But making violent crime less desirable when you are poor and have no future is a lot harder than saying 'I'll lower crime by banning guns!'. It worked for England because they have a smaller country, a smaller population, and went through other efforts beyond a simple ban to end gun violence.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38404541]public schools were popping up as soon as the 1820s. Before 1789 there was no government to speak of in the United States.[/QUOTE]
America is an industrialized country with hundreds of millions of residents, not a motley collection of tiny states that scrape up barely a million residents. They had no standing army, no police, no national education system, criminology was in its infancy. Guns are less important today.
Since we're on the topic of police response, I thought I would bring this up. In the USA, the police has no responsibility to protect the public.
[QUOTE=DuCT;38404609]Since we're on the topic of police response, I thought I would bring this up. In the USA, the police has no responsibility to protect the public.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like an awful police force.
I mean no wonder crime rates are high, when the police are run badly and everybody gets a firearm out of fear.
[QUOTE=analogue;38404489]there is one LEGAL gunshop.
how do you think the cartels get their firearms?[/QUOTE]
From LEGAL gunshops in the US :v:
([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/atf-68000-guns-in-mexico-traced-to-us/2012/04/26/gIQAtSz9kT_story.html"]source 1[/URL])
([URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/"]source 2[/URL])
The US is a huge source of money and arms for the cartels, and many guns found in mexico have been traced back to here.
I personally feel that there is a right to own guns (especially as it is enumerated in the bill of rights), but you have to accept that there are consequences to making arms widely and easily available.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404633] everybody gets a firearm out of fear.[/QUOTE]
Oh, [I]fuck off[/I] with this stupid idea of firearm ownership. Some people use it as a hobby, some people use it to hunt.
Would you protest the woman who lives in downtown Detroit who keeps a revolver in her purse?
[QUOTE=junker|154;38404550]But I am still believing that guns increase the amounts of death in a country.[/QUOTE]
As I said. This has been beaten to death. Generally, there is relatively little to show that this statement is entirely accurate.
This is not even considering the logistical impossibility of getting rid of guns in America. Ask any serious enthusiast who collects. I guarantee you that the majority of them will have had the opportunity at one point or another to acquire illegal guns in one way or another. Banning weapons that are already common is just pissing in the wind.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38404552]no, but guns are bad. violence is only bad when people are killed by guns.[/QUOTE]
I think you are being sarcastic here, but it's a sad reality that some people actually believe what you are saying here, so I cannot actually tell for certain.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38404653]Oh, [I]fuck off[/I] with this stupid idea of firearm ownership. Some people use it as a hobby, some people use it to hunt.
Would you protest the woman who lives in downtown Detroit who keeps a revolver in her purse?[/QUOTE]
That still does not excuse the fact that some people do actually buy guns out of fear.
If the governement would do a better job at decreasing crime and such, there would be no use for guns at all. They are a cheap and direct way of comforting citizens and dealing on this subject in a direct way.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404633]Sounds like an awful police force.
I mean no wonder crime rates are high, when the police are run badly and everybody gets a firearm out of fear.[/QUOTE]
Lets think this one out. If the police were legally responsible to protect the public, then people could sue the force when they fail to appear on time and help. Such as when it actually happened, and why it went to the Supreme Court to begin with.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404673]That still does not excuse the fact that some people do actually buy guns out of fear.[/QUOTE]
So what, some people bought them out of fear.
Name me 30 people that bought guns specifically out of fear and used them to kill someone.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404673]That still does not excuse the fact that some people do actually buy guns out of fear.[/QUOTE]
So then get rid of the source of fear and not a primary method of combating it.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38404653]Oh, [I]fuck off[/I] with this stupid idea of firearm ownership. Some people use it as a hobby, some people use it to hunt.
Would you protest the woman who lives in downtown Detroit who keeps a revolver in her purse?[/QUOTE]
It is really hard to get guns in my homecountry, but people are still able to hunt or practice shooting at a shooting range. They can still go after their hobbies.
Why can't you guys just compromise? You're a lot like politicians this way, not compromising.
People should have the right to defend themselves, they should be allowed at least semi-auto handgun class weapons. You should not rely on the government for everything, but you shouldn't be completely left alone either. 50/50, not A, not B, but both. You shouldn't be helpless, but the government should not negate all responsibility. Nor can it feasibly.
Arguably, letting people carry handguns and than keeping shooting ranges, with perhaps a novel idea, is on-range gun buying. Think about it, you buy let's say, an "AA-12" Shotgun. You "own" it, you can fuck it up however you want (within safety) but you can't leave with it.
See? You get reasonable self-defense weapons, and the right to bear arms, in both sport and defense, but at the same time people don't have to worry about guys with AK47s.
Of course, this ignore the reality that a criminal will get guns, no matter what. Just because you make it illegal or harder to get? Doesn't mean a criminal will stop, you just make civilians defenseless.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38404668]As I said. This has been beaten to death. Generally, there is relatively little to show that this statement is entirely accurate.
This is not even considering the logistical impossibility of getting rid of guns in America. Ask any serious enthusiast who collects. I guarantee you that the majority of them will have had the opportunity at one point or another to acquire illegal guns in one way or another. Banning weapons that are already common is just pissing in the wind.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I understand that being robbed of your expensive guns is not the ideal way, I fully agree with you. But they could try to restrict it during a longer period where the guns are harder to purchase and come by. It should be a longer process than simply taking them away from you.
One could compromise by simply putting a tax on bullets.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404633]Sounds like an awful police force.
I mean no wonder crime rates are high, when the police are run badly and everybody gets a firearm out of fear.[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik, clearly you don't know the slightest thing about American culture, and you're only going to make a fool out of yourself.
Most Americans, such as myself, see ownership of firearms as a basic right, something right up there with freedom of speech. I hate to say it like this, but it's something you will never understand.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404673]That still does not excuse the fact that some people do actually buy guns out of fear.[/QUOTE]
If they buy them out of fear and learn how to handle them safely and don't hurt people with them, what of it? If fear is a legitimate reason, why question it or disallow purchases based on it? Say, for instance, that I bought a .44 magnum revolver because I was afraid of being attacked by a bear while I was in the woods. I would've bought the gun out of fear, but my reasoning would be legitimate.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;38404737]Sobotnik, clearly you don't know the slightest thing about American culture, and you're only going to make a fool out of yourself.
Most Americans, such as myself, see ownership firearms as a basic right, something right up there with freedom of speech. I hate to say it like this, but it's something you will never understand.[/QUOTE]
You may be right, but it does not change the fact that guns are ultimatively damaging the nation and it's citizens more than helping it out.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;38404737]Most Americans, such as myself, see ownership firearms as a basic right, something right up there with freedom of speech. I hate to say it like this, but it's something you will never understand.[/QUOTE]
Americans may consider it a right, but in reality it's nowhere important enough to be a right (like free speech).
[QUOTE=doommarine23;38404696]See? You get reasonable self-defense weapons, and the right to bear arms, in both sport and defense, but at the same time people don't have to worry about guys with AK47s.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me how you are going to go about removing all of the billions of AKs in circulation, let alone all the other guns. They are practically as common as water.
Compromise is fine. However I'm going to need an actual reason to compromise. Until then, I'll stick to my guns, if you'll pardon the pun.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404673]That still does not excuse the fact that some people do actually buy guns out of fear.[/QUOTE]
what's wrong with that?
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;38404749]If they buy them out of fear and learn how to handle them safely and don't hurt people with them, what of it? If fear is a legitimate reason, why question it or disallow purchases based on it? Say, for instance, that I bought a .44 magnum revolver because I was afraid of being attacked by a bear while I was in the woods. I would've bought the gun out of fear, but my reasoning would be legitimate.[/QUOTE]
When a really stessful situation emerges and everything is a chaos, you will probably pull the trigger. You can do a lot of actions when you with your back against the wall. This thinking is what makes this even worse. You might think that you can handle it, but at times situations get chaotic. Making you do stuff that you might regret. I sure do.
Except you are professionaly trained in this matter.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38404760]You may be right, but it does not change the fact that guns are ultimatively damaging the nation and it's citizens more than helping it out.[/QUOTE]
[citation required]
So far you've shown nothing but anecdotes and opinions.
I don't know why everyone's making a big deal about it? It's not like you go hunting deer with a fuckin' AK-47, and it's not like a pistol wouldn't deter [I]most[/I] thieves as much as an AK would. I don't really see a reason for anyone but active military troops (you know, people who get paid to kill other people) to have a gun that's designed to kill several people quickly like an AK. That's probably because I don't know what the AWB extends to, though.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38404796][citation required]
So far you've shown nothing but anecdotes and opinions.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I do not have all the sources that I once read in books and magazines in my pc, ready to citate when somebody on the internet requires it. I could ask the same of you.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38404778]Please tell me how you are going to go about removing all of the billions of AKs in circulation, let alone all the other guns. They are practically as common as water.
Compromise is fine. However I'm going to need an actual reason to compromise. Until then, I'll stick to my guns, if you'll pardon the pun.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, and that's the thing. My argument was from a very ideal world where things actually work. I even noted that it's not possible simply due to criminals.
Removing guns from people gives power to the criminal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404767]Americans may consider it a right, but in reality it's nowhere important enough to be a right (like free speech).[/QUOTE]
"in reality"
What reality.
Your special little fedora wearing happy land reality?
Well, tough shit, that's not reality. Some countries have rights that others don't, and some countries have privileges that others don't, and you're going to have to man up and deal with it.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38404793]When a really stessful situation emerges and everything is a chaos, you will probably pull the trigger. You can do a lot of actions when you with your back against the wall. This thinking is what makes this even worse. You might think that you can handle it, but at times situations get chaotic. Making you do stuff that you might regret. I sure do.
Except you are professionaly trained in this matter.[/QUOTE]
Oh great it's [b]this[/b] circle jerk fest again.
My advice. Lurk SH for a few months. Then talk.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;38404807]I don't know why everyone's making a big deal about it? It's not like you go hunting deer with a fuckin' AK-47, and it's not like a pistol wouldn't deter [I]most[/I] thieves as much as an AK would. I don't really see a reason for anyone but active military troops (you know, people who get paid to kill other people) to have a gun that's designed to kill several people quickly like an AK. That's probably because I don't know what the AWB extends to, though.[/QUOTE]
I've gone hunting with my AK. 7.62x39 is a very effective round for deer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
