Printable View
I know. The "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" sentiment is ridiculous. Maybe it is the person killing the person, but having an AK-47 makes the job much easier. I personally think no one except law enforcement should be allowed to own a gun for actual use (i.e. for historical purposes or a collection, with no ammo is fine).Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
I saw a bumper sticker once that said "Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming spoons for making Rosie O'Donnell Fat."
Can't say I agree with it, but it did give me a laugh...
If we didn't have guns then we'd go around kicking each other's heads in instead. That and I guess once you invent something you can't "univent" it - i.e. we've made guns so might as well give them out than make (impossible) attempts to take them away.
So basicly people are not allowed to defend themself them? If a criminal has a gun the only way you have a chance of living is if you have a gun. Its as simple as that. 99% of the time a police officer won't be around to help you. So you either defend yourself or die.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinLord13
The entire idea of taking guns away from normal people to stop criminals from getting guns is stupid anyway. They are going to get them, theres nothing you can do about that. If they have to they will smuggle guns into the country through mexico, and we all know how easy that is.
Have you seen Lord of War? One of my favorite quotes from the movie is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Yuri Orlov: There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?
Criminals are going to get guns. In the US and most nations that aren't in Western Europe, almost all criminals - from the petty stick-up guy to the organized crime boss - have guns (and the small number that don't wish that they did). You can buy one for less than $50 if you don't care about a body count on the weapon, and even most legitimate gun shows don't require a background check. It's easier for an 16-year-old kid to buy a handgun than to buy a case of beer. When such a smooth supply chain exists within a country, supported by corporate profits and a hold-over romantic ideal, you're not going to be able to rid the land of firearms.
If you outlaw guns in such places, then only the criminals will have them, and honest citizens will be at their mercy. I'm not really a big fan of guns. I don't go out to the firing range for fun, don't collect them in a safe, don't sleep with one under my pillow, don't live in a compound in Montana. But, having endured one very frightening and very memorable night alone in the middle of nowhere - no cops, no phone, no other people within screaming distance - I will not live alone without a gun again. It is simply foolish to not take the steps necessary to protect yourself and the people and things you cherish. You have to match the weaponry and skills of those who would take such things from you - and to do that in most parts of the world, the good people need guns. I wish it weren't so, truly I do. There are so many terrible consequences to a culture of guns. But it's better to deal with an unpleasant truth than hold to ideals which can leave you helpless in the presence of those who intend you nothing but harm.
As I said I am against anyone owning a gun, even for self-defence, but since if no innocent citizens owned guns then criminals would have way to much power, getting rid of guns is impossible. What I would like to see is people having to pass much stronger checks before owning a gun. Also what we really need is a useful law enforcement system. I have a relative in California who was held at gunpoint by some criminals, who were robbing the furniture store she works at. These two people went on a robbery spree lasting over one year, and resulting in well over 100 robberies before being caught. Is that pathetic or what? If the law enforcement spent less time stopping people on speeding, and more time actually stopping criminals we'd have much less of a problem. I mean over 11,000 gun related deaths in America is pathetic, and inexcusable considering the amount of criminals who actually get caught.
I agree with all of you, guns are nasty, but they can't be uninvented. And as long as criminals have it, we have to be able to defend ourselves.
...but I really, really hated that "Lord of War" movie. It was like, I hate my job, everybody else hates me for my job, my family hates my job, it killed my brother and lost me my wife and son, it just spreads killing to whoever pays me the most, but I'm going to keep doing it just because. Ugh. But that quote is a pretty good one, I have to admit.
At one hand I do think guns are retarded
On the other hand criminals will have guns whether they're legal or not, so they shouldn't be illegal
But I prefer swords that shoot lightning, if I could choose.
Actually not. If trade and manufacturing of firearms is legally restricted, then the price will become prohibitive to all but the wealthiest of criminals who will have to resort Cottage Manufacturers (which exist in great numbers in Pakistan and Afghanistan... where Government does not have the reach or the will to interdict their activities).Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomedOne
Look at Japan, where firearms are restricted. There is very little armed crime. I would suppose that more people are killed with swords and knives in Japan then who are murdered with firearms, where in America the proportion is more than a hundred to one that victims will be shot.. even in the Hispanic Communities where switch blades used to be the de rigueur of utility weapons.
And then there is another problem with the wide distribution of firearms. when Civilization breaks down then whatever remains of any local police force will not be able to cope with all of the Privateering and Banditry that will certainly be committed by the wellarmed Militias. Everybody will be at the mercy of Warlord Militia Groups.
In Societies that had restricted firearms, then perhaps local Representative Governments might still be able to maintain an effective Police -- a few guys with sidearms would be enough, where no other guns existed. But in communities where every Minority Teenager has an AK-47 for his Gang Work, and where every Beer Gutted Blue Collar Red Neck has a collection and a closet full of surplus ammo. Well, Civilization is gunned down almost the very instant there is the least trouble. I am reminded of New Orleans after Katrina, where people who were trying to cross a public bridge in order to summon help for their families were machine-gunned down because militias on the other side of the bridge suspected these refugees of being looters.
Actually, the Government and the Police would only have to get very serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomedOne
Make OWNING a firearm a capital offense.
Gangs would stop using firearm weapons, and would go back to chains, knives and bats that worked fine back in the 50's. And Militia Groups and Gun Enthusiasts would not be content to own guns they could never shoot... not a very fun hobby.
Also, people would be reluctant to hide guns. One could be betrayed by ex-wives, or disgrunteled friends.
One could never be sure when the police could search one's house. Anybody with a Teenage Son could have their house searched because of Drug Involvement, and then one's own stack of guns could be turned up.
And look in Bagdad, where apparently the Americans have been successful with their policy of kicking down doors and seizing weapons piles.
So, no, it is not impossible to disarm a population.
But even in Bagdad, where we bust down doors to find weapon piles, with thousands of armed men patrolling the streets, there are still AK-47s available for every Joe that wants one. And to do the same in the US would be heavily protested--comparable to military rule. It wouldn't survive in a democratic society--plus, when such measures are taken, the demand for firearms will rise. Currently, in the US, you're much more likely to be gunned down by a moderately expensive 9mm than a dirt-cheap AK-47. But when people's doors are getting busted down and their guns taken, you'd better bet that somebody, somewhere will jump on in to fill the void, and they'll bring the heavy stuff--no more semi automatics or pistols, we're talking assault rifles and RPGs. There's always somebody willing to arm the populace, and if you give the populace a reason to desire arms, they'll find a way in.
You can't effectively ban guns--at least not with the current state of the world. Russia's police force is still in shambles--and they're one of the world's leaders in producing cheap military equipment. Hell, they've had problems in the past where TANKS have dissappeared from their military, onto the black market. They reported more than 500 KNOWN incidents where radioactive material was smuggled across the border in 2004. Smuggling guns out of the same place would be a cakewalk, and the US border is still weak. People coming up from Mexico are screened for illegal immigrants and smuggled drugs, not military weapons.
Understandably, there won't be an enormous demand in the US most likely, but the criminals are always interested--especially the organized variety. The Yakuza still has guns, does it not? They operate out of Japan, where a ban on firearms is in place.
Don't be such a pessimist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsen
We have seen that Government, if it has the will, can find a way to disarm the Public. I hate to use Nazi Germany as an example, but remember when Hitler purged the Brown Shirts? The Brown Shirts were a well armed Militia. So they made their arrests in the very small hours of the morning. Chou En Lai of the Chinese Revolution used to use the same tactics -- hit in the middle of the night... and if he was worried about armed resistance, then he would just blow up the whole darn house.
But if Government comes down hard enough, then guns could be eliminated. Capital punishment for possession of a gun. "Shoot on Sight" orders giving the police a positive command to shoot anybody seen with a gun. Offering sizable rewards to any informants for squeeling. Employing a great many Undercover Agents so that nobody can any longer trust the black market for guns.
Again, look at Red China and Vietnam as examples. During the Wars and Revolutions EVERYONE was armed to the teeth. But the Governments, with a decided and tenacious will, managed to completely disarm the public. Knowing just how troublesome Revolutions can be, they assured that there would be no more of them. Government would have a monopoly on the Fire Power. As it should be.
Personally, I find your view much more pessimistic.
Disarming the public shouldn't be a goal--NEVER should be a goal.
Disarming criminals is desirable, but why disarm the people?
And doing so in such a violent manner as you have proposed is NOT ethical behavior. Nor is it effective--it makes for unstable governments. Unhappy civilians in large numbers isn't a good thing for those in power. Chinese politicians fear their own citizens openly revolting more than they fear military attack--because they've oppressed them for so long, stepping on the peasants all the way to their political success, they cannot rest easy if the entire public moves against them.
Besides, in the US, such an action would be politically infeasible--the National Rifle Association is a serious lobbying power, and they have the support of the majority of the Republican party. If you move to disarm the public, it will be against the wishes of one of the two parties in American government.
The idea of disarming the public is great, but shoot on sight, and capital offence for having a gun is totally unreasonable, and unethical. Gangmembers wouldn't disarm, but instead would buy more guns to protect themselves from the police officers, who are supposed to shoot them. Penalties like a minimum fine of $100,000 and/or 5-10 years (plus an extra year for every $10,000 dollars you can't pay) in federal prison would do the trick just as well in scaring many people people away from a gun. Also, a real law enforcement would be nice. The image of the police needs to be changed from the doughnut eating fatass picking on minorities and teenagers, and stopping them on ridiculous offenses that he would never stop a fully grown white man on, to an image of highly trained people taking out criminals, finding weapons, and helping the community. Think about how useful the police could be if they spent less time stopping people 'cause they're going 72 in a 65 mph zone, and spent more time protecting the public and solving the real crimes. Especially stop crime in the "hood". People who live in high-crime neighborhoods will often buy a gun to defend themselves against the gangmenbers with guns, making more people have guns, making more people buy guns, creating a loop. Lastly, something that would help, is giving double the gun's value to anyone who turns in a gun. This may be expensive for the government, but I know if I owned a gun, i would happily trade it in for some money.
Notice that most gun related crimes are NOT remotely associated with assault weapons. Most encounters are less than five rounds. Yet a huge stick is the high capacity magazines. This looks like good reasoning and because of that, anti gun activist go around preaching that this level of weaponry is not necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinLord13
I have seen a generation grow up with no interaction with guns. No recreational usage. Sporting clays, the heritage of hunting, target practice. And I do not blame these people for their views. But I do strongly believe their views are inaccurate and one sided as you would expect it to be under their upbringing.
Because these traditions are being lost, it is unfortunate that at some point most innocent gun owners will loose many of their second amendment rights.
Edit:
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the restrictions on getting a gun. If you are an innocent gun owner a little inconvenience should not be something you are not willing to appease.
What does have to be kept under a tight eye is bias. This could get very complicated do to all the variable that it could entail though. :?
Whether it's possible depends on whether people are willing to learn from history. But really, whether it's possible is not as important a question as whether it's preferable. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to trade the occasional fear of one's neighbor for the constant fear of tyranny and a corrupt, militaristic, government regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo
So basicly you want a fascist form of government? Luckly for me your in the vast minority when you say that. Most people who want to get rid of guns are atleast well intentioned, and don't promote putting fear back into the population to get them under control. Its nice that you used nazi germany as the example. I doubt you want that form of government but thats exactly what you would get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus
This brings to mind along with some of what Leo is stating in regards to the second amendment.
It is rather short.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let us be realistic in the fact that times have changed and there is no chance of the people regulating the government anymore with the use of a regulated militia.
Random members of the community with their 22 caliber rifle against uuuh let's see----Tanks, WMD on and on I could go up until nuclear capabilities. I bit out of reason there, but it makes the point pretty clear.
Of course thats why most people will never do anything, because they don't stand a chance. That doesn't mean you should give up your rights though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howetzer
My avatar suggests my opinion.
:shock: That is the farthest thing that I meant. I was not trying to imply that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I have an air pistol that uses small yellow plastic pellets. It's very accurate and a stress reliever at times. I can use it indoors with a little gel target. I have a real one as well but I don't really go to the range.