Shooting Death in UK

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nCred

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nCred

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nCred

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.

This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?

Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.

Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.

It's ignorant because it's contrary to all historical precedent. Rifles are a sufficient deterrent to keep a military from murdering its own citizens (nice straw man with the rocket launchers though). While OTOH, some 120 million people were genocided by their own governments last century AFTER their governments had disarmed them.

The legality or non-legality of guns has ZERO effect on crime rates, just like the Drug War does nothing to stop drug use. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You can't just half-assed pass some sweeping draconian law out of laziness and then fool yourself into believing that you've solved all the world's problems.

Of course rifles where could be enough a hundred years ago, just like swords and pitchforks worked a few hundred years earlier. Show me a guerrila that primarily use pistols. Just look at Iraq, the insurgents are useing AK-47s and explosives. Using glocks and shotguns against a modern military is like using pitchforks and swords against rifles, sure you can do some damage but it will probably end in a slaughter.

Your argument is that the people should have nothing then? :roll:

I said: "Rifles are a sufficient deterrent to keep a military from murdering its own citizens."

What I mean is it´s somewhat strange to say that owning a gun is a basic right but owning a machinegun is not, especially if you justify the ownership of the gun with that you want to protect yourself against the government.

You have an odd penchant for straw man.

The constitutional protection is "arms." Arms are defined as that weaponry which a soldier can carry into battle all by himself (i.e., in his arms) for one-on-one combat.

And nowhere did I argue that the citizenry needed sufficient weaponry in order to win against its military. Just enough to deter the military from murdering its own citizens.
Historic cases in point: do you think that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao could have each murdered roughly 10% of their respective countries' populations had those populations been armed? Of course not. Just the fact that the people would have had pistols would have forced the military to fight door-to-door instead of just being able to sweep up whole neighborhoods in the middle of the night.

Do they still teach history and liberal thought in the schools? Or do the teachers just pontificate on pseudo-religious political BS about why you should have an absolute belief in authority? God and King?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

umm.. just compare the level of gun crime in the US compared to the UK. I believe the overalll crime rate is about the same. Why do you think guns are much more used by criminals in the US?

Economic conditions plain and simple. There are a great deal more gun crimes in the US due to the fact that our wealth distribution is way more skewed than the UK. If you look at the Gini index by country, you'll find the countries with the highest gun violence also seem to have the highest Gini index. When people are tired of getting beat down by "the man," there's no better way to solve it than with a gun. GUNS ARE NOT THE FREAKING PROBLEM!

Gini Index Bar Chart

Gun Crime per Capita Bar Chart

you cant compare the need for drugs with the need for guns.

I'm not comparing a need, rather the illegality.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Do they still teach history and liberal thought in the schools? Or do the teachers just pontificate on pseudo-religious political BS about why you should have an absolute belief in authority? God and King?

The government controlled schools teach exactly what the government dictates they teach. There's a reason why they don't discourage you from making fun of the kid who doesn't think the same as you. Tow the line "Comrade."

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: nCred

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.

This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?

Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.

Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.

I did not say anything about a link between gun legality and overall crime rate, I said:

In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol
So it IS better if criminals are armed with knifes instead of guns.

Rocket launchers, surface to air missiles, artillery, RPGs and explosives aren't illegal to own in the US. I've seen plenty of them in private hands.

er....I don't think the BATF would share that viewpoint

They're all destructive devices or AOWs. :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the mere fact that a gun death in a country a continent away is newsworthy means something. Do you think they hear about it when some kid is shot in Detroit?

Russia and Mexico are poor examples to use as they are in completely different social, economic, and political worlds from the US. The UK and Western Europe are far more similar, and they have a far better track record with it.

Regardless, I wouldn't presume to say that these sorts of things can carry across cultures, and I wouldn't even advocate a ban on firearms in the US, but to try and use third world countries with ineffective and corrupt police and governments as evidence to certain types of laws not working is poor reasoning.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

The 3/5's compromise kinda blows that thinking out of the water. It actually was put forth at the Constitutional Convention that slavery be abolished under the new government, the mere proposal almost fractured everything that had been done and was shelved. Personally I agree with the framers who favored abolition. The aims set forth in the Declaration of Independence stood in direct conflict with continued legalized slavery.

Though I guess the first ten amendments aren't really that important so why bother...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

The 3/5's compromise kinda blows that thinking out of the water. It actually was put forth at the Constitutional Convention that slavery be abolished under the new government, the mere proposal almost fractured everything that had been done and was shelved. Personally I agree with the framers who favored abolition. The aims set forth in the Declaration of Independence stood in direct conflict with continued legalized slavery.

Though I guess the first ten amendments aren't really that important so why bother...

The point is: The Constitution is not set in stone. It was certainly designed to be difficult to change, but that doesn't mean it has to always be the final word. It was made in such a way that More could be added and also for some parts to be removed as Need arises.

The Need for Gun Ownership declined significantly just 40 years after the Constitution was written. That Need continued to decline since that time. Now the "Need" is mostly relegated to its' mere inclusion in the Document and not a Real Life need.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

Surely a bigger load of bullshit has not been entered in a gun thread in quite some time. I really don't know what to say. I could try to logically rebutt your argument, but it just wouldn't feel right. It would be kind of like arguing with a child.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

There is no "Right to own Slaves" in the US Constitution. Oops! :roll:

And the Constitution can be changed by amendment as outlined in Article V. Be my guest. It's already been done 27 times since it was originally ratified.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

There is no "Right to own Slaves" in the US Constitution. Oops! :roll:

And the Constitution can be changed by amendment as outlined in Article V. Be my guest. It's already been done 27 times since it was originally ratified.

Thanks for agreeing, but why the rolleyes for something we both agree with?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

Yes, the right to defend ones home and oneself from oppression. That is a tired old obsolete idea. What are we thinking?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

Yes, the right to defend ones home and oneself from oppression. That is a tired old obsolete idea. What are we thinking?

I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

Yes, the right to defend ones home and oneself from oppression. That is a tired old obsolete idea. What are we thinking?

I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

Didnt I lay it out clear enough for you?

Violence happened well before the gun was invented. And you know what? After the gun becomes obsolete violence will continue.

I think Vic made a perfectly valid point regarding the idea you are safe in a gunless society. The citizens of the Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany would disagree. How many people have died to legal guns in society vs how many have died to state genocide because they lacked an efficient means to defend themselves?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

Yes, the right to defend ones home and oneself from oppression. That is a tired old obsolete idea. What are we thinking?

I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

Didnt I lay it out clear enough for you?

Violence happened well before the gun was invented. And you know what? After the gun becomes obsolete violence will continue.

I think Vic made a perfectly valid point regarding the idea you are safe in a gunless society. The citizens of the Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany would disagree. How many people have died to legal guns in society vs how many have died to state genocide because they lacked an efficient means to defend themselves?

You don't live in the Soviet Union, China, or Nazi Germany. Not because of Guns, but because of Democracy and the rule of Just Laws.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.

It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!

Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?

"Need" has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm on the passive side of the issue here. I don't even "need" to own a gun in order to argue my position. OTOH, you're among the ones actively seeking to remove a right from the people.

The "Right to bear Arms" is a Right for all the wrong and obsolete reasons. Just like the Right to own Slaves. Certainly the Right to own Slaves was not enshrined in the US Constitution, but that's only a small distinction unless one considers the Constitution to be an infallible document.

Yes, the right to defend ones home and oneself from oppression. That is a tired old obsolete idea. What are we thinking?

I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

Didnt I lay it out clear enough for you?

Violence happened well before the gun was invented. And you know what? After the gun becomes obsolete violence will continue.

I think Vic made a perfectly valid point regarding the idea you are safe in a gunless society. The citizens of the Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany would disagree. How many people have died to legal guns in society vs how many have died to state genocide because they lacked an efficient means to defend themselves?

You don't live in the Soviet Union, China, or Nazi Germany. Not because of Guns, but because of Democracy and the rule of Just Laws.

Not yet. Take guns away and we'll get a lot closer.

Black-market sellers would love a gun ban. That'll give them yet another product to sell. Tax free. And no need to do a background check, or ask for an ID to verify age, either.

You know, I thought if anything good came out of the current administration, i.e., the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security, it was the Left's new understanding of why citizens should have the right to bear arms. You're proving me wrong, unfortunately.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bamacre


Not yet. Take guns away and we'll get a lot closer.

Black-market sellers would love a gun ban. That'll give them yet another product to sell. Tax free. And no need to do a background check, or ask for an ID to verify age, either.

You know, I thought if anything good came out of the current administration, i.e., the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security, it was the Left's new understanding of why citizens should have the right to bear arms. You're proving me wrong, unfortunately.

Guns have done anything to rectify the current situation? It appears that Votes and Elections will be the only thing to reverse anything. The Gun Owners are content to just post on Forums.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre


Not yet. Take guns away and we'll get a lot closer.

Black-market sellers would love a gun ban. That'll give them yet another product to sell. Tax free. And no need to do a background check, or ask for an ID to verify age, either.

You know, I thought if anything good came out of the current administration, i.e., the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security, it was the Left's new understanding of why citizens should have the right to bear arms. You're proving me wrong, unfortunately.

Guns have done anything to rectify the current situation? It appears that Votes and Elections will be the only thing to reverse anything. The Gun Owners are content to just post on Forums.

I'm not a gun owner. But that may change if there is significant talk of banning them.

What is your solution anyway? Do you honestly think they can get rid of guns by passing a law? You know, just like they did with drugs? And booze during prohibition? In a lot of neighborhoods, it is easier for kids to get drugs than something like pornography.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre


Not yet. Take guns away and we'll get a lot closer.

Black-market sellers would love a gun ban. That'll give them yet another product to sell. Tax free. And no need to do a background check, or ask for an ID to verify age, either.

You know, I thought if anything good came out of the current administration, i.e., the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security, it was the Left's new understanding of why citizens should have the right to bear arms. You're proving me wrong, unfortunately.

Guns have done anything to rectify the current situation? It appears that Votes and Elections will be the only thing to reverse anything. The Gun Owners are content to just post on Forums.

I'm not a gun owner. But that may change if there is significant talk of banning them.

What is your solution anyway? Do you honestly think they can get rid of guns by passing a law? You know, just like they did with drugs? And booze during prohibition? In a lot of neighborhoods, it is easier for kids to get drugs than something like pornography.

The best solution is for people to just choose not to have guns. Making and preserving them as a Right is a mistake though.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You don't live in the Soviet Union, China, or Nazi Germany. Not because of Guns, but because of Democracy and the rule of Just Laws.

You're right, because it can't happen here! Get your head out of the sand and read some history. What you fail to understand is that the 2nd Amendment is what KEEPS that from happening here. Just by being in place.

I'm deeply frightened by anyone who would be so cavalier as to throw away this right, deemed so important by those who created this country to place it right after speech, religion, and press. Your correlation to the "right" to slavery is so incredibly flawed, I don't know where to begin.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: nCred
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol

So it IS better if criminals are armed with knifes instead of guns.

I'm not so sure that Switzerland is on board with you on that.

It is the culture, not the object, that makes the object dangerous (or life-saving).

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre


Not yet. Take guns away and we'll get a lot closer.

Black-market sellers would love a gun ban. That'll give them yet another product to sell. Tax free. And no need to do a background check, or ask for an ID to verify age, either.

You know, I thought if anything good came out of the current administration, i.e., the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security, it was the Left's new understanding of why citizens should have the right to bear arms. You're proving me wrong, unfortunately.

Guns have done anything to rectify the current situation? It appears that Votes and Elections will be the only thing to reverse anything. The Gun Owners are content to just post on Forums.

I'm not a gun owner. But that may change if there is significant talk of banning them.

What is your solution anyway? Do you honestly think they can get rid of guns by passing a law? You know, just like they did with drugs? And booze during prohibition? In a lot of neighborhoods, it is easier for kids to get drugs than something like pornography.

The best solution is for people to just choose not to have guns. Making and preserving them as a Right is a mistake though.

That "best" solution isn't reality.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

There is ZERO scientific correlation between the legality of firearms and the crime rate. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in any country on earth. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Guns are completely outlawed in Cuba, its murder rate is higher than that of the US.
No gun larger than a .22 is permitted to the Mexican populace, its murder rate is 3 times that of the US.
Private gun ownership is completely outlawed in Russia, its murder rates is 5 times that of the US.

OTOH, guns are a way of life in Switzerland, and murder and crime are practically non-existent.

Even the other posters arguing the anti-gun side can admit this, they just caved in that where guns are outlawed, outlaws use knives. Violence, however, remains "perpetuated."

We're not "satans." You're not "saving" anyone from anything.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

There is ZERO scientific correlation between the legality of firearms and the crime rate. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in any country on earth. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Guns are completely outlawed in Cuba, its murder rate is higher than that of the US.
No gun larger than a .22 is permitted to the Mexican populace, its murder rate is 3 times that of the US.
Private gun ownership is completely outlawed in Russia, its murder rates is 5 times that of the US.

OTOH, guns are a way of life in Switzerland, and murder and crime are practically non-existent.

Even the other posters arguing the anti-gun side can admit this, they just caved in that where guns are outlawed, outlaws use knives. Violence, however, remains "perpetuated."

We're not "satans." You're not "saving" anyone from anything.

You mean that people willing to murder are also willing to break gun laws?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski
You don't live in the Soviet Union, China, or Nazi Germany. Not because of Guns, but because of Democracy and the rule of Just Laws.

You're right, because it can't happen here! Get your head out of the sand and read some history. What you fail to understand is that the 2nd Amendment is what KEEPS that from happening here. Just by being in place.

I'm deeply frightened by anyone who would be so cavalier as to throw away this right, deemed so important by those who created this country to place it right after speech, religion, and press. Your correlation to the "right" to slavery is so incredibly flawed, I don't know where to begin.

What History are you talking about? This is a common point raised by your side of the issue, yet it seems more based on assumption than anything.