GUN Should guns be banned?

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Rache, Sep 22, 2003.

  1. Rache

    Rache Guest

    Ok, I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I'm curious what you think. I live in an exceptionally liberal region...if not the most. Coincidentally, we also have a very large urban city that is plagued by murder. Some people have are, and will purport that banning firearms will mitigate the problem, as nearly all of the murders are handgun related. This excludes cases of justifiable homicide, L/E homicide.

    This was inspired by a post about banning ammunition sales in LA by footratfunkface.
     
  2. avenger

    avenger grammar and cereal nazi

    Joined:
    May 6, 2001
    Messages:
    42,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    :oakland:
     
  3. Platinum_Thunder

    Platinum_Thunder Reliability for life and liberty

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    108,869
    Likes Received:
    197
  4. TwoGuns

    TwoGuns Medical Crew

    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Messages:
    8,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA/Northern AZ
    All guns should be banned because they're bad.
     
  5. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,352
    Likes Received:
    572
    Guns aren't your problem. Crime is. If people weren't murderers, there wouldn't be murders. It doesn't matter if they have guns or not - Guns do not make people into criminals, so taking away guns from law-abiding citizens doesn't help, because they wouldn't have done anything anyway. And taking guns away from criminals won't help either, because a) they won't obey the law (see definition, 'criminal'), and b) you still haven't taken away their criminal tendencies.

    Murder was invented long before the gun.
     
  6. mrbill

    mrbill New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cibolo,Tx
    even though it's cliche, i'll say it...........if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. guess what, it's already illegal to use a gun during a crime, it's also illegal for felons to own/buy guns. they do it anyway...why..because they don't care about the law. creating a law that bans guns will only affect those who obey the law to begin with. it's like banning cars because some drunkard killed somebody while driving drunk. it's the minority that is the problem, don't punish the majority.
     
  7. GlocksRock

    GlocksRock Glock > You

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Carolina
    If guns are banned, gun related crimes will skyrocket.
     
  8. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    i heartily support the banning of all firearms for non-military/non-law enforcement ownership under the following plan, to be implimented in phases:


    1) Ban bad people.

    If there are still gun crimes,

    2) Ban stupid people.

    If there are still gun crimes,

    3) Ban guns.

    *This plan is, of course, worded and implimented with the understanding that the word "ban" means "to cease to exist" and not simply outlawed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2003
  9. taco

    taco Guest

    It hasn't worked anywhere else why would it work here?

    Honestly you would think people would learn from others mistakes.
     
  10. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,352
    Likes Received:
    572
    The problem is that the gov't isn't trying to reduce crime by banning guns. They're trying to eliminate competition. This is a power move, not a crime or safety move. They don't like power in the hands of the masses.
     
  11. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    there are a lot of things that lead to high murder rates. the fact that drugs are illegal is one of them. when you have a business that can show 70,000% profit (depending on the drug and area), you're likely to kill to make or keep that money. the crime pays in that case. why is there that much profit? because it's illegal. look at the way crime increased with prohibition.

    now, that's not going to cover all your murders. you've also got the "gansta" culture, which leads people to believe that being a "thug" is cool, and that you can kill people over something as stupid as "turf", or the color of the clothes they wear.

    then you've got the lack of the citizens in the area standing up for themselves and saying, "we're going to tolerate this shit." granted, it's hard for unarmed citizens to stand up for themselves against armed cirminals. thank the government for that one.
     
  12. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    by the way, guns simply make murder quick. they don't make it any easier to commit. in fact, i'd rather be the victim of a shooting than a stabbing or a stangling or pretty much any other method of murder. the fact is, people who are going to commit murder will do so whether they are armed with sticks and stones or firearms. if you started outlawing things based on the number of murders they're used in, then you would one-by-one outlaw every object in america. at some point after outlawing firearms, A) firearms would still be used illegally in illegal murders, or B) murderers would find another object to use in murders. then you'd have to ban that object.

    hell, if they started all using their hands to kill, would you outlaw hands?
     
  13. Platinum_Thunder

    Platinum_Thunder Reliability for life and liberty

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    108,869
    Likes Received:
    197
    ban you for making a thread in the arsenal like this
     
  14. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    that's not true. germans can own most anything they want, but it's all registered and crazy nazi-watched. there are some small european states that REQUIRE suppressors be on firearms, for noise reasons. mostly with hunting, where, because of the size of the country, residential areas might be close by.
     
  15. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,352
    Likes Received:
    572
    Out for ban. This is the best place, since this is where the gun-knowledgeable people hang out. It's sure a better place than the main forum.
     
  16. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think of it not as "preaching to the choir" but "gathering ammunition". :big grin:
     
  17. Rache

    Rache Guest

    I know, posting this is like trying to rob a gun store. But...

    I have my reasons. I'm passionately against banning weapons. I'd like to see if anyone has some knowledge to drop that I'm not already privy to.
     
  18. Platinum_Thunder

    Platinum_Thunder Reliability for life and liberty

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    108,869
    Likes Received:
    197
    let's hear them
     
  19. KW

    KW Guest

    People have already posted some good reasons for not banning guns, but this is the one that I hold dearest to my heart.

    Who is responsible for the safety of you and your family? Certainly not the police and the criminal justice system. They do their best and I appreciate it, but their primary job is to catch and punish people who commit crimes ... not deter them in the first place. And what happens if you get murdered? Can your family sue the police, or your local, state or federal government? No, they're not responsible for your death. So the government doesn't face any consequences if they fail to protect you.

    So you are the only one who is truly responsible for the lives of yourself and your family ... you are the one who has to suffer the consequences if something happens. So how is it reasonable or prudent for the government to take away your right and ability to defend yourself?
     
  20. Pure Energy

    Pure Energy Guest


    It's for the children.......
     
  21. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,352
    Likes Received:
    572
    True story.

    The Supreme Court ruled several times (Warren v. District of Columbia, Bowers v. Devito, South v. Maryland) that the state has no duty to protect an individual. You are responsible for your own safety.

    But there are whole classes of reasons why banning guns is bad. There are legal reasons, based on the Constitution. The foundation of this nation is personal liberty - The Constitution acknowledges the natural right to self-defense. The militia mentioned in the 2nd Ad. means all able-bodied citizens. When the militia was called up, you were required to provide your own weapon. All men were expected and required to keep their own rifles and act in defense of the nation. The founders feared a central government that was too strong. They had just left England and a monarch who had absolute authority, and had abused it. Just read over the Declaration of Independence:
    Thomas Jefferson wrote
    The men who built this country knew that it is vital to liberty to have the power of violence and revolt in the hands of the people. They knew the corruption of absolute power, and had experienced it first hand. And they took steps to prevent it from happening here.

    There are moral reasons. It is wrong to strip a man of his ability to defend himself. We are not rabbits. We are intelligent beings, with full capability and obligation to defend ourselves and our families. What is accomplished by telling people they are no longer allowed to defend themselves, removing the ability to do so, then refusing to defend them? You end up with a haven for the criminal element, because they are the ones who will utterly disregard and take advantage of the laws and those who obey them.

    And there are practical reasons. At best, gun control has zero effect on crime. At worst, it brings with it huge increases in violent crimes, because there is decreased chance of encountering an armed victim. As Robert Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." There are places like Vermont and New Hampshire, with some of the most liberal gun laws (in VT, you don't even need a permit to carry concealed), and some of the lowest crime rates in the nation. You have places like New York City and Albuquerque, NM with very different gun laws but similar crime rates, close to the national average. And then you have places like Washington, D.C. where there is a nearly total gun ban in effect since 1976. Washington is one of the most dangerous and crime-ridden places in the United States, and guns rampantly used in crimes anyway. England enacted a far-reaching gun ban recently, and their incidences of violent and face-to-face crime skyrocketed.

    But as I said before, the push for gun control is not about crime. The proof is in what kind of guns are banned. Semiautomatic rifles account for a miniscule fraction of all crimes committed with guns. So-called "cop-killer" bullets have not ever killed a single cop. Assault rifles hardly kill anyone, except in combat - They've been heavily regulated since 1932 - but every time a gun control debate pops up, everybody starts wringing their hands and whining about assault rifles. Thanks again to Uncle Sam: They took an entire class of rifles that differs from other rifles only cosmetically, and redefined it with a name that is intentionally and specifically chosen to be confused with the extra-scary military term 'Assault Rifle". They go after guns that aren't any more deadly than any other, and are used in such a small percentage of crimes that they barely even register. But they look and sound scary and get votes, so they wrap it up in 'anti-crime' rhetoric and go after the ban. They're baby-stepping on the way to a total ban on all firearms, as is happening in california.

    It's a power move. Crime is only the PR, so to speak. People are afraid of crime, so anything the government sells purporting to fix crime will get votes. So gun control is often (always?) repackaged as "anti-crime bills", because what senator would vote for crime?

    By the way, the militia mentioned in the Constitution was meant to supplement the regular army in times of war. They were to keep rifles of the same type and capability as rifles used by the armies of the world. Since the militia was intended to fight alongside (and against) governments, they were to be armed with equivalent weapons. For that reason (in addition to the personal liberty issue), I'm also totally against the National Firearms Act of 1932 and would like to see it struck down as unconstitutional.
     
  22. spyder007

    spyder007 Bаnned bу Ѕuреr Μоdеrаtоrs

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    68,054
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Deerfield Hills, FL
     
  23. Mitch'SS

    Mitch'SS New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    TX
  24. Pimp Cat

    Pimp Cat Guest

  25. nikkostarr5

    nikkostarr5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wonderland
    Guns don't kill people....dumb shits with guns kill people. I do agree with Rache on that. Banning guns won't stop crime. If you ban guns what will they ban next? Butcher knives? Baseball bats? Screwdrivers? Lighters? Sling shots? nail clippers? saftey scissors? Pencil sharpeners? Oh wait that sounds like the air port! Anyway, you can kill people with just about any object, even your bare hands..so banning these items won't help anything.
     

Share This Page