Banning guns

[Munitions Man]

banning guns will not solve anything, the same person who will attack you with a gun will attack you with a knife, a rock, even their own bear hands. By banning guns the only thing you would do is take away normal peoples abality to defend themselves. Plus if you were a robber and you knew the person you were robbing had a gun, I think you'd be alot more inclined to leave them alone.

 

 

The real way we stop gun violence is to get better backround checks. If we check who is buying firearms we can get the innocent armed, and keep the criminals away from the guns.

[Sale]

If we check who is buying firearms we can get the innocent armed, and keep the criminals away from the guns.

I agree that background checks are necessary, but criminals still won't buy guns legally.

 

-Sale

[Stealthbomber]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single crime committed by someone legally owning a full-automatic weapon here in the states.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm...

 

Depends if you consider it a crime to sell the guns to people without proper documentation, lose them or (if you're a manufacturer) lose crates full of them.

 

The idea behind banning a category of weapon is that demand for it reduces.

If there are 100 assault rifles in a town then maybe 2 will fall into criminal hands. If there are no assault rifles in a town then, obviously, none of them can fall into criminal hands.

Equally, if assault rifles are banned in the USA then H&K and co should never be importing to the USA so it's much less likely for those firearms to vanish from a factory at any point.

 

It IS definately a very clumsy, heavy-handed, way to legislate and, unfortunately, the available statistics can rarely be believed.

When guns are legal, anti-gun groups produce figures which show how nasty guns are and pro-gun groups counter with anecdotal evidence of cases where guns save lives.

When guns become illegal the government will produce statistics showing that crime has reduced after the ban and the pro-gun groups will pick and choose specific statistics which might back their case.

 

I honestly doubt that there is an unbiased set of firearm related statistics anywhere in existance.

[Sale]

The idea behind banning a category of weapon is that demand for it reduces.

If there are 100 assault rifles in a town then maybe 2 will fall into criminal hands. If there are no assault rifles in a town then, obviously, none of them can fall into criminal hands.

Your post was otherwise sensible and constructive, but I have to hang onto this one. It's a fact that criminals don't get their guns only by stealing them from citizens who own them. Otherwise there wouldn't be armed criminals in countries where guns are banned.

 

Further, banning certain weapon types only increases the (criminal) demand for them, because they become status symbols.

 

-Sale

[snowman]

Couldn't be bothered to read this all, but it was interesting that many 'pro-gun'ers took much pride in branding anyone with a different opinion a 'liberal' or a 'pansie'.

 

I don't see a problem with letting rational human beings having firearms for justifiable purposes, but I'm far from sure I'd count anyone who hurls abuse so freely at anyone with differing views as a rational human being...

 

I wonder how many of you 'conservatives', so keen on your rights, also think Bush is right to lock people (anyone at all) up without trial or just disappear them into secret torture camps in Eastern Europe?

 

Rights are for everyone, not just the right wing extremists with the biggest armouries...

 

Cheers.

[Jagdraben]

Hmm...

 

Depends if you consider it a crime to sell the guns to people without proper documentation, lose them or (if you're a manufacturer) lose crates full of them.

 

The first one is a crime. The second one, if any Class-3 weapons are lost, the owner is supposed to report it immediately to the Federal government. If they don't and those guns are used in a crime (or the cops decide to pull a random search of the owner's estates), then they're going to look guilty.

 

But having something stolen from you is not your fault, it's the fault of the person who stole it. Even if it is an entire crate of Class-3 weapons.

 

The idea behind banning a category of weapon is that demand for it reduces.

 

But it doesn't. Remember when abortion was banned? Probably not. There were still plenty of abortions. It's just that they didn't have many happy endings.

 

If there are 100 assault rifles in a town then maybe 2 will fall into criminal hands. If there are no assault rifles in a town then, obviously, none of them can fall into criminal hands.

 

Possible. But only if the cops don't have any guns, the military doesn't have any guns, and none of your continental neighbors have guns, and no criminal groups abroad decide to import their crime and their guns to your country.

 

Equally, if assault rifles are banned in the USA then H&K and co should never be importing to the USA so it's much less likely for those firearms to vanish from a factory at any point.

 

It's H&K policy not to sell a single rifle to civilians. Every single rifle H&K imports to the United States is destined for a government agency or licensed PMC. Most 'assault' rifles on the US market, sold after a certain date, have to contain a certain number of parts manufactured in America. This has reduced (legal) imports of rifles from abroad even further.

 

It IS definately a very clumsy, heavy-handed, way to legislate and, unfortunately, the available statistics can rarely be believed.

 

Why is that? The statistics are kept by the US government (or at least the one's I assume you're referring to). They aren't even random surveys, but the actual hard data, at least at it applies to crime in the US. Unless you're saying that the US government has been trying to make guns look good, or make it look like crime has been dropping the past ten years, then I'm afraid that the only thing you're saying is, "Don't trust your senses." Which is functionally (practically) useless.

 

When guns are legal, anti-gun groups produce figures which show how nasty guns are and pro-gun groups counter with anecdotal evidence of cases where guns save lives.

 

Last time I checked, the anti-gun groups had yet to produce any numbers showing that what they want to do would achieve a practical end-result. What's commonly known as a symbolic, rather than practical, weapons ban.

 

When guns become illegal the government will produce statistics showing that crime has reduced after the ban and the pro-gun groups will pick and choose specific statistics which might back their case.

 

Illogical. You're dealing with counter-factuals. The government might produce statistics show that crime is dropping, if it really does. If it doesn't, the government won't produce statistics showing that it does and anti-choicers won't be able to say that reducing legal gun ownership reduces crime.

 

I honestly doubt that there is an unbiased set of firearm related statistics anywhere in existance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While we're on the subject, I doubt you exist.

 

®

 

<snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hello, random tangent!

 

So you couldn't be bothered to read all of this, so you decided just to completely randomly post something. You should open foot, insert mouth. Now.

 

As far as I know, neither myself nor Sale have said anything along the lines of 'liberials are pansies lol'. Furthermore, CIA prisons in Eastern Europe have precisely nothing to do with this arguement, so take it somewhere else. Open foot, insert mouth. Big time.

 

Now if you're quite done, the grown-ups are having a debate here.

[dirtyazzmutha]

The first one is a crime. The second one, if any Class-3 weapons are lost, the owner is supposed to report it immediately to the Federal government. If they don't and those guns are used in a crime (or the cops decide to pull a random search of the owner's estates), then they're going to look guilty.

 

But having something stolen from you is not your fault, it's the fault of the person who stole it. Even if it is an entire crate of Class-3 weapons.

But it doesn't. Remember when abortion was banned? Probably not. There were still plenty of abortions. It's just that they didn't have many happy endings.

Possible. But only if the cops don't have any guns, the military doesn't have any guns, and none of your continental neighbors have guns, and no criminal groups abroad decide to import their crime and their guns to your country.

It's H&K policy not to sell a single rifle to civilians. Every single rifle H&K imports to the United States is destined for a government agency or licensed PMC. Most 'assault' rifles on the US market, sold after a certain date, have to contain a certain number of parts manufactured in America. This has reduced (legal) imports of rifles from abroad even further.

Why is that? The statistics are kept by the US government (or at least the one's I assume you're referring to). They aren't even random surveys, but the actual hard data, at least at it applies to crime in the US. Unless you're saying that the US government has been trying to make guns look good, or make it look like crime has been dropping the past ten years, then I'm afraid that the only thing you're saying is, "Don't trust your senses." Which is functionally (practically) useless.

Last time I checked, the anti-gun groups had yet to produce any numbers showing that what they want to do would achieve a practical end-result. What's commonly known as a symbolic, rather than practical, weapons ban.

Illogical. You're dealing with counter-factuals. The government might produce statistics show that crime is dropping, if it really does. If it doesn't, the government won't produce statistics showing that it does and anti-choicers won't be able to say that reducing legal gun ownership reduces crime.

While we're on the subject, I doubt you exist.

 

®

Hello, random tangent!

 

So you couldn't be bothered to read all of this, so you decided just to completely randomly post something. You should open foot, insert mouth. Now.

 

As far as I know, neither myself nor Sale have said anything along the lines of 'liberials are pansies lol'. Furthermore, CIA prisons in Eastern Europe have precisely nothing to do with this arguement, so take it somewhere else. Open foot, insert mouth. Big time.

 

Now if you're quite done, the grown-ups are having a debate here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

UMmmmmmm yeah what he said

[Chimpy]

Hello, random tangent!

 

So you couldn't be bothered to read all of this, so you decided just to completely randomly post something. You should open foot, insert mouth. Now.

 

As far as I know, neither myself nor Sale have said anything along the lines of 'liberials are pansies lol'. Furthermore, CIA prisons in Eastern Europe have precisely nothing to do with this arguement, so take it somewhere else. Open foot, insert mouth. Big time.

 

Now if you're quite done, the grown-ups are having a debate here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Real grown up ending by insulting him.

 

I don't think he even mentioned you or Sale by name either?

 

You have also spectacularly missed rather a good point. Whilst lots of people support 2nd amendment rights how many are bothered about the degredation of other rights? For one I think all rights are of equal importance and would not give up one to bolster another. Some of the things happening in the US and UK in the name of the War on Terror are somewhat concerning.

 

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,

habe ich geschwiegen;

ich war ja kein Kommunist.

 

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,

habe ich geschwiegen;

ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

 

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,

habe ich nicht protestiert;

ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

 

Als sie mich holten,

gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

 

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

Just for the record I'm not suggesting your view is different to the above. (in case you take it personally like snowmans post)

[dirtyazzmutha]

Real grown up ending by insulting him. 

 

I don't think he even mentioned you or Sale by name either?

 

You have also spectacularly missed rather a good point. Whilst lots of people support  2nd amendment rights how many are bothered about the degredation of other rights? For one I think all rights are of equal importance and would not give up one to bolster another. Some of the things happening in the US and UK in the name of the War on Terror are somewhat concerning.

Just for the record I'm not suggesting your view is different to the above. (in case you take it personally like snowmans post)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This thread is not about the degredation of other rights its about banning guns.

Sorry chimpy but that is just a little out of place.

Also you cant compare the US and UK in this topic because you dont have the 2nd ammendment.

[Chimpy]

I wasn't comparing the US and UK.

 

Banning guns in the US is about 2nd amendment rights. There are others too, you don't see people vigerously debating their need for them on internet forums as those rights are eroded.

 

Thus the points are relevant and comparable and also add an interesting (in my opinion) slant on the tired old debate.

[Jagdraben]

Real grown up ending by insulting him. 

 

Never said I was.

 

I don't think he even mentioned you or Sale by name either?

 

No. But we're the only two debating pro-gun.

 

You have also spectacularly missed rather a good point. Whilst lots of people support  2nd amendment rights how many are bothered about the degredation of other rights? For one I think all rights are of equal importance and would not give up one to bolster another. Some of the things happening in the US and UK in the name of the War on Terror are somewhat concerning.

 

I'm concerned, but this is not the place for me to express concern about the violations of human rights that my nation's administration is responsible for.

 

This thread is for debating whether or not guns should be banned. Which has precisely ###### to do with what my nation's government does in other countries. Maybe you feel that there's some sort of relevence, but I disagree, and would ask that you show that relevence ASAP.

 

Just for the record I'm not suggesting your view is different to the above. (in case you take it personally like snowmans post)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't take snowman's post personally. You obviously and quite clearly misunderstand. The man raised a random tangent (one which you're continuing) that had nothing to do with anything.

 

And your poem has nothing to do with anything, either, Herr Fuhrer Tangent Most Random. Unless you're saying that somehow a poem about putting Jews in concentration camps has something to do with gun owners or something. "I didn't own a gun so I didn't care when they took the gun owners" or something along those lines. But I doubt you intended it that way, but rather as a way to comtinue the tangent that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

If you want to argue about people being taken into other countries and being tortured, make your own goddamn thread for it. This thread is not for that discussion, so take it elsewhere.

[dirtyazzmutha]

I wasn't comparing the US and UK.

 

Banning guns in the US is about 2nd amendment rights. There are others too, you don't see people vigerously debating their need for them on internet forums as those rights are eroded.

 

Thus the points are relevant and comparable and also add an interesting (in my opinion) slant on the tired old debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can see that. This debate does get old. There is NO protection for internet rights just so you know. Last I heard it has been made illegal in the US to visit offshore gambling sites. Your right there are some errosions and people will gladly hand over their right to privacy in order to feel safe. Yet scream from the tallest builing if it is even suggested taking away guns. I do agree but this just isnt the spot for it.

[Jagdraben]

Banning guns in the US is about 2nd amendment rights. There are others too, you don't see people vigerously debating their need for them on internet forums as those rights are eroded.

 

Thus the points are relevant and comparable and also add an interesting (in my opinion) slant on the tired old debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or it would be if Sale weren't Finnish or if someone were arguing that we should be able to keep firearms on the basis of the Second Amendment. Something which I haven't been doing. Something which hasn't happened for pages in this thread.

[Chimpy]

Never said I was.

 

Your last sentence in the previous post has that implication, it also further implies that snowman himself is not grown up. Thus the reader can summise you are trying to assert your opinion as more valid that snowmans as you are more old/mature/arrogant*.

 

No. But we're the only two debating pro-gun.

 

I think I did earlier on in this thread as well.

 

I'm concerned, but this is not the place for me to express concern about the violations of human rights that my nation's administration is responsible for.

 

This thread is for debating whether or not guns should be banned. Which has precisely ###### to do with what my nation's government does in other countries. Maybe you feel that there's some sort of relevence, but I disagree, and would ask that you show that relevence ASAP.

 

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism??? Not heard about that one then?

 

How anyone in another country has rights supported under your constitution would be somewhat hard to quantify.

 

And your poem has nothing to do with anything, either, Herr Fuhrer Tangent Most Random. Unless you're saying that somehow a poem about putting Jews in concentration camps has something to do with gun owners or something. "I didn't own a gun so I didn't care when they took the gun owners" or something along those lines. But I doubt you intended it that way, but rather as a way to comtinue the tangent that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

No I posted it due to it's relevance. Neglecting other rights in favour of keeping your own hegemony going is a quick way to find yourself without support when you need it most.

 

If you want to argue about people being taken into other countries and being tortured, make your own goddamn thread for it. This thread is not for that discussion, so take it elsewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I don't want to argue about that...

 

I'm bringing up the point that to avoid attacks on the 2nd amendment it might pay to stick up for the other rights that are being eroded via things like USA PATRIOT/PATRIOT 2. Plus that new bill that basically strengthens the executive branch and practically allows the president to oversee himself.

 

To further that point, I'm pointing out possible avenues for the banning of guns. Once someone has enough power they can do whatever is their whim. "We must ban guns because of their implications in the war against terror."

[Jagdraben]

Again, we're not arguing about the Second Amendment.

 

We're not talking about the USA PATRIOT act.

 

We're not talking about Constitutional Rights.

 

You're free to make an argument in favor of your viewpoint on firearms based on your interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, however.

 

What we're talking about is whether or not private citizens should be allowed to own firearms. Regardless of what, if any right, they have to those firearms. Regardless of what, if any, rights are being violated by their government. We're talking about something far more universal than what the United States government does.

 

This is not a thread about rights. This is not a thread about gun ownership in the United States. This is about being allowed or disallowed from owning a firearm in any nation.

 

Now can we please get back on topic?

[Chimpy]

Or it would be if Sale weren't Finnish or if someone were arguing that we should be able to keep firearms on the basis of the Second Amendment. Something which I haven't been doing. Something which hasn't happened for pages in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Guess it's been bought up again then.

[Chimpy]

Again, we're not arguing about the Second Amendment.

 

We're not talking about the USA PATRIOT act.

 

We're not talking about Constitutional Rights.

 

You're free to make an argument in favor of your viewpoint on firearms based on your interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, however.

 

Which is the point I'm making...

 

What we're talking about is whether or not private citizens should be allowed to own firearms. Regardless of what, if any right, they have to those firearms. Regardless of what, if any, rights are being violated by their government. We're talking about something far more universal than what the United States government does.

 

This is not a thread about rights. This is not a thread about gun ownership in the United States. This is about being allowed or disallowed from owning a firearm in any nation.

 

Now can we please get back on topic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Isn't that a yes or no question though? From participating and following this thread it's bought up the tired old arguments. Hence why I haven't posted for a few pages. Snowmans bought up a point I feel is quite interesting, both in regards to the US (my specific example) and to other countries where it would be possible for similar things to happen for example my own, the UK.

[Pablo]

Jagdraben+Oct 3 2006, 03:48 PM

This is not a thread about rights. This is not a thread about gun ownership in the United States. This is about being allowed or disallowed from owning a firearm in any nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is it?

 

That's an interpretation of what the OP said, not specifically what he said. Perhaps we should ask HIM what HIS thread is about, so we know whether we're keeping to the topic or wandering somewhat. At the moment it seems to be a debate about what we're debating.

[Jagdraben]

Then let's ask him.

 

®

[Pablo]

PM sent. Time for a beer.

[cross out the eyes]

^ pablo has inadvertantly found a solution to the argument, and i think i shall join him

[Pablo]

Waddaya mean, inadvertantly? Why I oughta...

[luap666]

Nahhh

[Sale]

While we wait to get on topic...

 

Jagdraben, while neither of us have resorted to calling anti-gun people liberals (as if it was a bad thing), or stating redneck opinions, you do know that it happens all the time? Just because we are clean doesn't mean that we can deny the whole point.

 

Snowman's point was a bit in the wrong place since we haven't had those secondary things in this thread for pages, but it still stands. I'm annoyed all the time by some of the strong opinions that I keep hearing from fellow gun owners. I don't want to hear someone speaking for guns but against gay rights or abortion at the same time. Like you said, they don't have anything to do with each other.

 

-Sale

[dirtyazzmutha]