Thread: "All in favor of gun control, raise your right hand!"

Prohibition of anything just plain doesn't work in the US, whether it be drugs, alcohol, guns, or politically sensitive texts. Banning something only makes it more appealing to Americans.

And don't get started on the democrat=gun control debate. It doesn't. In the backwards redneck county I live in, everybody voted for Bush MkIII because of this.

Originally Posted by Odd_Nonposter

Prohibition of anything just plain doesn't work in the US, whether it be drugs, alcohol, guns, or politically sensitive texts.

I'm just throwing this our there, but I feel that one of the reasons it would be so much more difficult to eliminate gun ownership in the US as well as control the prevalence of drugs is because we have two very wide borders. With the UK, you are surrounded by water. Transportation to and from your country is limited and is more easily monitored. There's less space for people to hide.
Area of UK: 244,820 SQ KM

Area of US: 9,161,923 SQ KM

The US is 37.4 times the size of the UK. There's an awful lot of places for someone to hide and distribute goods and making it more difficult for law enforcement to execute these proposed gun control laws. People complain that law enforcement is wasting money looking for and persecuting pot-heads, but it will cost even more to look for and prosecute those with hunting rifles in their homes.

As far as automatic weapons or sub-machine guns and the like, I don't think the public needs to possess those. They are not used for hunting and are *pardon the expression* overkill when it comes to self-defense, so yes, I could see restrictions on those kinds of weapons. At the same time, I'd hate to deprive a peace-loving collector from possessing a firearm, but even those should be registered and the owner should inform authorities of any theft. They should do that anyway, but now I'm rambling.

Disjointed thoughts, go.

On an somewhat unrelated note, in Oregon our state congress is talking about making public the names of those people who have concealed weapons permits. If that passed, there'd be a nice database for criminals to go through so they can see who has a gun they can steal.

I think you guys are missing the entire point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Shift

I think you guys are missing the entire point of this thread.

Oh right, Ehem...

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

I'm just throwing this our there, but I feel that one of the reasons it would be so much more difficult to eliminate gun ownership in the US as well as control the prevalence of drugs is because we have two very wide borders. With the UK, you are surrounded by water. Transportation to and from your country is limited and is more easily monitored. There's less space for people to hide.
Area of UK: 244,820 SQ KM


As far as automatic weapons or sub-machine guns and the like, I don't think the public needs to possess those. They are not used for hunting and are *pardon the expression* overkill when it comes to self-defense, so yes, I could see restrictions on those kinds of weapons. At the same time, I'd hate to deprive a peace-loving collector from possessing a firearm, but even those should be registered and the owner should inform authorities of any theft. They should do that anyway, but now I'm rambling.

This may seem far fetched, but in these times especially it is something to be considered: Have you ever thought of the possibility of an invasion? Martial Law? Malicious uprisings? Gang Wars? For all of these events, any hunting rifle or shotgun is not going to be sufficient for the citizen willing to defend his country, Constitution, family, and himself.

Not to mention the lack of authority that the government posesses to ban these weapons, they are precisely what the founders of our country would have wished to have in their hands if only technological progress would have permitted it. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it shall not be violated by any entity private or governmental, and in the Constitution it is directly stated that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Everyone should have the right to a gun(within reason), I myself do not have a gun.. My sword is plenty sharp enough.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Everyone should have the right to a gun(within reason), I myself do not have a gun.. My sword is plenty sharp enough.

I totally agree, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Im sure someone has probably already stated this in this thread but I figured I'll reinerate.

I honestly feel that legalization and regulation of various drugs would reduce the rate of violent crimes in the US.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

I'm just throwing this our there, but I feel that one of the reasons it would be so much more difficult to eliminate gun ownership in the US as well as control the prevalence of drugs is because we have two very wide borders. With the UK, you are surrounded by water. Transportation to and from your country is limited and is more easily monitored. There's less space for people to hide.
Area of UK: 244,820 SQ KM

Area of US: 9,161,923 SQ KM

The US is 37.4 times the size of the UK. There's an awful lot of places for someone to hide and distribute goods and making it more difficult for law enforcement to execute these proposed gun control laws. People complain that law enforcement is wasting money looking for and persecuting pot-heads, but it will cost even more to look for and prosecute those with hunting rifles in their homes.

As far as automatic weapons or sub-machine guns and the like, I don't think the public needs to possess those. They are not used for hunting and are *pardon the expression* overkill when it comes to self-defense, so yes, I could see restrictions on those kinds of weapons. At the same time, I'd hate to deprive a peace-loving collector from possessing a firearm, but even those should be registered and the owner should inform authorities of any theft. They should do that anyway, but now I'm rambling.

Before I saw this post, I was just about to say that geography definitely plays a part in all this. America's size and close proximity to third-world nations switch up the playing rules.

America actually does control guns quite a bit, but it doesn't take them away from people. You have to have a background check and such done before you can get a gun, and if I'm not mistaken, in some states you can own an automatic weapon but only after quite a long process. I am satisfied with this form of gun control laws.

On an somewhat unrelated note, in Oregon our state congress is talking about making public the names of those people who have concealed weapons permits. If that passed, there'd be a nice database for criminals to go through so they can see who has a gun they can steal.

Do you think they realize that basically defeats the purpose of having a concealed weapon permit?