The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Ifreann]

Again, because criminals and insane people are really stopped by laws on paper.

No dear, by the enforcement of those laws. You've heard of "the police", right? Not just an awesome band

People are going to do what they are going to do no matter what you do; and having an unarmed populous when a disaster strikes really isn't going to help you.

Hey there fellows, I've found a strawman! Seems this chap thinks that gun control leads to an unarmed populace. What a silly bugger!

[JJ Place]

Cars are a bit different; they're a bit more complex then 'Pull trigger here, don't kill any one'.

Guns are more complicated than "Don't kill anyone".

Yes, everything is more complicated than that; it's just a summary.

Also, cars are a bit more of an investment for the owner, being that an inexpensive $10,000.00 cars costs just a tad more than an expensive $200.00 gun. Not to mention that the car is an everyday use item, while a gun is a last resort item for defense.

Yes, cars cost more. But cars improve people's lives and they are regulated by the government.

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive. Personally, I don't believe cars need to be regulated by the government; but that's another issue for another day.

Further, guns aren't "buy and forget" items. Guns must be maintained, as must one's marksmanship. I've heard tell on NSG that hobby shooters are more accurate the the police because police have less time to spend on training, given their occupation with solving crimes.

So must cars; no one gets away without having at least a little car maintenance, and even fewer people don't need to keep driving and brushing up they're skills of driving at the same time. If a person doesn't drive at all for 10 years, they might need a little refresher before they recall exactly how to operate said vehicle.

Second, using that logic, why don't we also register knives? Knives can kill just as easily as guns, and they're easier to conceal, as well as quieter than guns; they can be just as much of a threat as guns can. Also, what about muscular people? You've seen some of these huge, muscular people; they look like they could do some serious damage; must they register to be so strong? The answer is no.

Logic? I have not put forth logic, I have simply refuted your point that guns should be like other products by pointing out that other products are also regulated and controlled.

Products like what? The only other products we have talked about here are cars, and cars are a bit different in many respects than guns, and also noting the flaws with regulation and controls.

Also, prescription medicines are different; and, if you can pay for them, I say that you should be able to buy them whether or not you need them.

How are they different?

Everything is different; for this, one is a medical device that helps you out in life or that you use to get high, and one is a device that you can use for either offensive or defensive purposes. Either way, I still believe regulation and control is completely and utterly useless, and extremely counter productive.

[Yootopia]

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive.

If you need guns to stay alive in any given place, It's Not For Civvies.

[Jocabia]

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive.

No, no, they don't. In fact, I proved rather clearly through statistics that are far, far more likely to do the opposite, even if you are only counting people you care about.

Murder is very uncommon among people who do not know one another except in the case of criminals killing other criminals. As I demonstrated earlier, the vast majority of murders are criminal on criminal.

For a non-criminal, most murders will involve people who are related to you or who you are dating. There is not a lot of support for people protecting themselves from loved ones by using guns. There is however a lot of support for people killing loved ones with guns, both accidentally and on purpose. Even if every single murder that did not involve a criminal killing a criminal was prevented by gun ownership (and of course, they aren't) you'd still have about the same amount of murders, suicides and accidents killing your loved ones.

[Jocabia]

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive.

If you need guns to stay alive in any given place, It's Not For Civvies.

Actually, that is the one rare case where what he said is true. If you're a trained soldier and you are actively involved in combat, then it will increase your chances of survival. Other that that, there is simply no support for his claim.

[Fartsniffage]

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive.

If you need guns to stay alive in any given place, It's Not For Civvies.

[Yootopia]

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive.

If you need guns to stay alive in any given place, It's Not For Civvies.

http://www.fototime.com/9F341F5CE3EA2D2/orig.jpg

What a bar.

[Ifreann]

Cars are a bit different; they're a bit more complex then 'Pull trigger here, don't kill any one'.

Guns are more complicated than "Don't kill anyone".

Yes, everything is more complicated than that; it's just a summary.

Then in summary, cars are no more complex than "Press accelerator, don't kill anyone".

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive. Personally, I don't believe cars need to be regulated by the government; but that's another issue for another day.

Guns don't keep people alive. Guns kill people. Sometimes the people they kill are threatening the lives of others. Some times they are not.

So must cars; no one gets away without having at least a little car maintenance, and even fewer people don't need to keep driving and brushing up they're skills of driving at the same time. If a person doesn't drive at all for 10 years, they might need a little refresher before they recall exactly how to operate said vehicle.

Exactly my point.

Products like what? The only other products we have talked about here are cars, and cars are a bit different in many respects than guns, and also noting the flaws with regulation and controls.

And alcohol, cigarettes, and prescriptions medicines. But you've ignored most of them.

Everything is different; for this, one is a medical device that helps you out in life or that you use to get high, and one is a device that you can use for either offensive or defensive purposes. Either way, I still believe regulation and control is completely and utterly useless, and extremely counter productive.

So you can't show them to be different, in this context. They can be life saving or life taking. Just like guns.

[Zombie PotatoHeads]

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive. Personally, I don't believe cars need to be regulated by the government; but that's another issue for another day.

soooo...you're against the recall the US govt forced on Toyota?
interesting.

[Redwulf]

You can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!

Haha, sorry. In all seriousness, that was a stupid pic by the OP. Guns should be allowed, but they should be controlled.

Why?

Given that the whole point of civilian ownership of weapons is to enable the people to mount a successful revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, any state control or restriction of civilian ownership of weapons whatsoever is patently absurd.

So, the last person I asked never replied. Are you saying citizens should be allowed anti-tank weapons? Bombs? Anti-aircraft? If not how do you expect them to fight off their own government if need be?

[New Amerik]

Everything is different; for this, one is a medical device that helps you out in life or that you use to get high, and one is a device that you can use for either offensive or defensive purposes. Either way, I still believe regulation and control is completely and utterly useless, and extremely counter productive.

Yeah, no regulation certainly works! Like that one time in U.S. History, what was it called? Oh yes, the Gilded Age! Boy, that was fun, no regulation of anything whatsoever! Full of monopolies, snake oil medicine, no guarentee of product or consumer safety, worker's suffering in horrible factory conditions, and let whoever had the most money screw the rules! Yep, god, I wish we had those times back too!

[Redwulf]

1) Wait until gun owner leaves house
2)Break in
3)Steal gun
4) Rob other guy too.
5) Sell gun after wiping prints, those things are worth a fair bit and you don't want the police to catch you with it.

Fixed.

[New Amerik]

Everything is different; for this, one is a medical device that helps you out in life or that you use to get high, and one is a device that you can use for either offensive or defensive purposes. Either way, I still believe regulation and control is completely and utterly useless, and extremely counter productive.

So you can't show them to be different, in this context. They can be life saving or life taking. Just like guns.

One thing that is different: getting high probably won't kill, as opposed to shooting somebody.

[JJ Place]

JJ, you're adequately demonstrating the problem and I thank you for it. If you really cared about people being safe, you'd support a level of gun control that keeps them out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

You know my Favorite part of GTA? When you take all your firearms and register them; don't you love that part of the game? No; why not? Because, Criminals don't follow the law. How do you think a criminal gets his guns? He breaks the law! And that's just what your going to get, gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen; criminals will always get weapons even with the strictest of gun controls; look at England if you want more proof.

I have. First of all, you should actually examine how criminals get guns. Now, you might not have an issue with them either stealing them from gun owners or acquiring through legal dealers, but I view that as a bad thing. I generally don't want to find out that people are intentionally putting guns in the hands of criminals and I'm not doing something about it. It's interesting how you claim you want to own guns to protect yourself but you'd rather make it easier for criminals to acquire guns (the majority of guns criminals get were originally properly registered) just so it doesn't inconvenience you.

Yet, this is strained by the fact that the majority of people are good; even if a lack of gun control makes acquiring a gun a little easier for a criminal and a bit less expensive, the majority of people, all who follow the laws, are going to be able to purchase something to protect themselves if there is no gun control at all. Also, your example just shows how easily gun control can be broken, and why registering guns is pointless.

You're not going to protect yourself in a home invasion. And certainly not one that would be deadly if not for your gun. It just doesn't happen with a frequency that makes owning a gun worth it, as I showed with statistics.

So you'll never be able to defend your house if you have a gun? You don't even a chance, right? And crime is just as pervasive in areas with a lot of guns as those that do not have a lot of guns?

Who said never? I didn't. What I said is that it's much more likely your gun will harm someone who is not a criminal or arm a criminal than it will ever help you avoid deadly force being used against you. You have a chance, but that chance is much less than the chance your daughter will be harmed by your gun.

Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal; yet that statistic doesn't take into account the crimes that guns prevent all together. Not to mention the comparisons of crime and murder rates per 10,000 in areas with different degrees of gun control.

As for that last bit, no. Sometimes it's more pervasive. Sometimes less pervasive. And because we don't actually have state and city border patrols, it's impossible to attribute local gun control to the cause of the problem one way or the other. What can be said is that criminals are acquiring their guns from legal owners. I'd like to stop that. So you should you.

However; it can be shown that in areas with more guns in the hands of private owners, there is a significant decline in crime. In fact, here's a fun statistic:

In a particular city of a few thousand residence (I believe it was in the mid-west) gun ownership was made compulsory. Within a few months, there was so little crime, that criminals actually had to drop they're old routines and get real jobs. The only real crime at this point was from outside sources; a hilarious little incident occurred when a few criminals attempted to hold up a 7-11 in said town. The criminals where each armed with hand-guns... the 7 customers in the store where armed with hand-guns as well, and the 2 employees where armed with shotguns. The criminals where quickly apprehended.

Now, I don't want the government telling me to own a gun; however, it is interesting to see what a heavily armed society would look and function like.

You might also note that the majority of criminals (of the time that commit armed robberies) are also poor. By your own argument, gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns (since the black market is quite a bit more expensive than the regular market due to risk).

Yet, when your a criminal, you have a few less expenses to pay then if your a law abiding citizens, and you can usually find the funds to pay for something that helps you steal more things. It's like an investment for a criminal.

Ah, yes, that's totally how it works. Seriously, you're just pulling this out of your pants as you think of it, aren't you? You've had at least one economics course, right? If say, you have a limited amount you can produce of a product. Let's call that product, stolen goods. And I increase the cost of the core items you need in order to produce stolen goods, how does that affect your profits? HINT: They go down. If you profit less from some type of work what does that do to the likelihood someone will enter that type of work. HINT: It goes down.

Because all criminals: Pay income taxes, pay taxes for whatever place they live in, pay they're bills, pay parking fines, pay extra fees, ect. So yes, being a criminal is a bit cheaper than living as a law-abiding citizen. Also, I'm in economics and majoring in it, so I think I'm aware of economics. Now, those economic models do work; except for one basic economic force: The Black Market. A black market might be a place to sell illegally high priced good; yet it's also a market set up to sell contraband. Now, while a law abiding citizen will not purchase items that are contraband unless absolutely necessary for survival or such, a criminal has no problem purchasing said goods. Also, as I've stated before, a criminal also has no problem producing said guns that criminals will use in a criminal act. Also, noting that breaking any law that stands in they're way is no problem for a criminal, gun control still doesn't apply to anyone who's supposed to be affected by gun control.

I love how you want to trumpet how people will be deterred from the expense of gun ownership except the super amazing don't have to follow the rules of economics and don't have bills criminals. Those magical beings that aren't subject to the same financial forces as everyone else.

Yes, that's entirly correct, and quite a few economic models are behind me on this one.

[Libertarian JC States]

I gave this lesson to my youth group on the last day of March. Let's see what ya'll think

http://lord-reigner.webs.com/prodefenselesson.htm

[Redwulf]

I say we rebel against government tyranny. And why stop at guns.

I'm tired of school zone speed limits restricting my freedom. I have the right, nay, the obligation to speed through those zones to show them I should be allowed to do as I please, when I please, no matter who it endangers.

It was your taxes payed for that school-yard. You should be allowed to take a short-cut through there. It's public land, right?

Damn right! Not just school yards. Military installations, court buildings, the White House, Nixon's grave.

Eww, who wants to take a shortcut through a public urinal?

[New Amerik]

In a particular city of a few thousand residence (I believe it was in the mid-west) gun ownership was made compulsory. Within a few months, there was so little crime, that criminals actually had to drop they're old routines and get real jobs. The only real crime at this point was from outside sources; a hilarious little incident occurred when a few criminals attempted to hold up a 7-11 in said town. The criminals where each armed with hand-guns... the 7 customers in the store where armed with hand-guns as well, and the 2 employees where armed with shotguns. The criminals where quickly apprehended.

Now, I don't want the government telling me to own a gun; however, it is interesting to see what a heavily armed society would look and function like.

I can safely say I wouldn't use a gun in such a society. I would start making explosives and bomb people's houses, or public buildings, or whatever if I wanted to rob them. Or, make chemical weaponry, buy a gasmask, and use that. Or simply masquerade as a state worker or insurance salesman and slit their throats in their own house.

If you make everyone know how to use a gun, criminals will just get more creative about how they do their crimes. And they'll eventually be more better at committing crimes, since the most successful will survive and learn from their experiences.

Plus when the Soviets Chinese invade instead of parachuting down and facing us they'll just decide to bomb us instead.

EDIT: And no, I would not really do this in any case. I am not a criminal, just demonstrating what criminals could do.

[The Future Kingdom]

ya the owner of the house for one could be a dick OR two is a really good friend of the neighbors and is just joking around but ya i'm all for guns

[JJ Place]

Everything is different; for this, one is a medical device that helps you out in life or that you use to get high, and one is a device that you can use for either offensive or defensive purposes. Either way, I still believe regulation and control is completely and utterly useless, and extremely counter productive.

So you can't show them to be different, in this context. They can be life saving or life taking. Just like guns.

One thing that is different: getting high probably won't kill, as opposed to shooting somebody.

Very true; yet, just putting this out, if your irresponsible with yourself, you can kill someone while high. It's about being responsible, and most people are, and more would be if just a few things where to change.

Everything is different; for this, one is a medical device that helps you out in life or that you use to get high, and one is a device that you can use for either offensive or defensive purposes. Either way, I still believe regulation and control is completely and utterly useless, and extremely counter productive.

Yeah, no regulation certainly works! Like that one time in U.S. History, what was it called? Oh yes, the Gilded Age! Boy, that was fun, no regulation of anything whatsoever! Full of monopolies, snake oil medicine, no guarentee of product or consumer safety, worker's suffering in horrible factory conditions, and let whoever had the most money screw the rules! Yep, god, I wish we had those times back too!

Yes, you can certainly have a false sense of security with the regulation. Also, your examples have more holes in them than swiss cheese; but hey, if you want a false sense of security, then keep taking the blue pill. Also, just to point this out to you, the government had quite a nice bit of influence over the economy at that time; there where certainly quite a few controls back then.

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive. Personally, I don't believe cars need to be regulated by the government; but that's another issue for another day.

soooo...you're against the recall the US govt forced on Toyota?
interesting.

Am I against the government getting involved? Yes. Is there a lot more to this story than just what's on the surface? Yes. It's not that I want a crazed society that's unsafe, unsecured, and such; it's that the government doesn't work, and that the government simply is counter productive in many cases; it's rather long and rather complicated, so let's get back to our discussion on gun control.

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive.

If you need guns to stay alive in any given place, It's Not For Civvies.

Actually, that is the one rare case where what he said is true. If you're a trained soldier and you are actively involved in combat, then it will increase your chances of survival. Other that that, there is simply no support for his claim.

No support, eh? You sure about that?

[The Future Kingdom]

just think u take away guns ur taking away something the Hunters Use and also this is a free country any law that will support gun control is unconstitutional

[Assassinistan]

Cars are a bit different; they're a bit more complex then 'Pull trigger here, don't kill any one'.

Guns are more complicated than "Don't kill anyone".

Yes, everything is more complicated than that; it's just a summary.

Then in summary, cars are no more complex than "Press accelerator, don't kill anyone".
Yeah, guns are more complex. http://guncleaningguide.com/ That's no argument, ifreann.
How do you walk? Just answer the question. Whatever summary you give is inadequate.

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive. Personally, I don't believe cars need to be regulated by the government; but that's another issue for another day.

Guns don't keep people alive. Guns kill people. Sometimes the people they kill are threatening the lives of others. Some times they are not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk. But seriously, guns let you kill people trying to hurt you before they can.

[Assassinistan]

just think u take away guns ur taking away something the Hunters Use and also this is a free country any law that will support gun control is unconstitutional

Not really, just people have to have access to weapons. And proper weapons, not swords.

[JuNii]

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive. Personally, I don't believe cars need to be regulated by the government; but that's another issue for another day.

soooo...you're against the recall the US govt forced on Toyota?
interesting.

the Govt "FORCED" the Toyota recall? can you prove this claim?

[JuNii]

just think u take away guns ur taking away something the Hunters Use and also this is a free country any law that will support gun control is unconstitutional

Not really, just people have to have access to weapons. And proper weapons, not swords.

So... a sword is not a proper weapon? nice to know that since, I believe, a ban on knives was being looked at in the UK a couple of years ago...

[Jocabia]

JJ, you're adequately demonstrating the problem and I thank you for it. If you really cared about people being safe, you'd support a level of gun control that keeps them out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

You know my Favorite part of GTA? When you take all your firearms and register them; don't you love that part of the game? No; why not? Because, Criminals don't follow the law. How do you think a criminal gets his guns? He breaks the law! And that's just what your going to get, gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen; criminals will always get weapons even with the strictest of gun controls; look at England if you want more proof.

I have. First of all, you should actually examine how criminals get guns. Now, you might not have an issue with them either stealing them from gun owners or acquiring through legal dealers, but I view that as a bad thing. I generally don't want to find out that people are intentionally putting guns in the hands of criminals and I'm not doing something about it. It's interesting how you claim you want to own guns to protect yourself but you'd rather make it easier for criminals to acquire guns (the majority of guns criminals get were originally properly registered) just so it doesn't inconvenience you.

Yet, this is strained by the fact that the majority of people are good; even if a lack of gun control makes acquiring a gun a little easier for a criminal and a bit less expensive, the majority of people, all who follow the laws, are going to be able to purchase something to protect themselves if there is no gun control at all. Also, your example just shows how easily gun control can be broken, and why registering guns is pointless.

It's only pointless because we don't go far enough. England does not have a problem with guns mostly being coming from legal sources. There is thing called police work. It's much easier for the police to deal with guns when the sources are only illegal sources since they're already trying to stop those sources. It would also drive the cost of illegal guns something you already admitted was a deterrent.

You're not going to protect yourself in a home invasion. And certainly not one that would be deadly if not for your gun. It just doesn't happen with a frequency that makes owning a gun worth it, as I showed with statistics.

So you'll never be able to defend your house if you have a gun? You don't even a chance, right? And crime is just as pervasive in areas with a lot of guns as those that do not have a lot of guns?

Who said never? I didn't. What I said is that it's much more likely your gun will harm someone who is not a criminal or arm a criminal than it will ever help you avoid deadly force being used against you. You have a chance, but that chance is much less than the chance your daughter will be harmed by your gun.

Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal; yet that statistic doesn't take into account the crimes that guns prevent all together. Not to mention the comparisons of crime and murder rates per 10,000 in areas with different degrees of gun control.

You keep bringing up that red herring about different cities. No matter how many times I mention that stronger gun control doesn't prevent the moving of guns you ignore it. It's no wonder why. It totally invalidates your argument.

Also, even if one eighth of those murders are prevented which is approximately the precentage of Americans that own guns, that still doesn't outweigh the number of unnecessary deaths. Again, don't bother addressing the statistics. That would almost like you care about the facts rather than just wild claims.

As for that last bit, no. Sometimes it's more pervasive. Sometimes less pervasive. And because we don't actually have state and city border patrols, it's impossible to attribute local gun control to the cause of the problem one way or the other. What can be said is that criminals are acquiring their guns from legal owners. I'd like to stop that. So you should you.

However; it can be shown that in areas with more guns in the hands of private owners, there is a significant decline in crime. In fact, here's a fun statistic:

In a particular city of a few thousand residence (I believe it was in the mid-west) gun ownership was made compulsory. Within a few months, there was so little crime, that criminals actually had to drop they're old routines and get real jobs. The only real crime at this point was from outside sources; a hilarious little incident occurred when a few criminals attempted to hold up a 7-11 in said town. The criminals where each armed with hand-guns... the 7 customers in the store where armed with hand-guns as well, and the 2 employees where armed with shotguns. The criminals where quickly apprehended.

Now, I don't want the government telling me to own a gun; however, it is interesting to see what a heavily armed society would look and function like.

Ah, yes, the magical example with no source. You wanna actually give me REAL examples. In a particular city in the midwest I can't remeber the name, they outlawed guns. It was a few thousand people I believe. Crime completely disappeared, life expectancy went up and all the guys ended up with really hot girls. See I can make up evidence too.

You might also note that the majority of criminals (of the time that commit armed robberies) are also poor. By your own argument, gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns (since the black market is quite a bit more expensive than the regular market due to risk).

Yet, when your a criminal, you have a few less expenses to pay then if your a law abiding citizens, and you can usually find the funds to pay for something that helps you steal more things. It's like an investment for a criminal.

Ah, yes, that's totally how it works. Seriously, you're just pulling this out of your pants as you think of it, aren't you? You've had at least one economics course, right? If say, you have a limited amount you can produce of a product. Let's call that product, stolen goods. And I increase the cost of the core items you need in order to produce stolen goods, how does that affect your profits? HINT: They go down. If you profit less from some type of work what does that do to the likelihood someone will enter that type of work. HINT: It goes down.

Because all criminals: Pay income taxes, pay taxes for whatever place they live in, pay they're bills, pay parking fines, pay extra fees, ect. So yes, being a criminal is a bit cheaper than living as a law-abiding citizen. Also, I'm in economics and majoring in it, so I think I'm aware of economics. Now, those economic models do work; except for one basic economic force: The Black Market. A black market might be a place to sell illegally high priced good; yet it's also a market set up to sell contraband. Now, while a law abiding citizen will not purchase items that are contraband unless absolutely necessary for survival or such, a criminal has no problem purchasing said goods. Also, as I've stated before, a criminal also has no problem producing said guns that criminals will use in a criminal act. Also, noting that breaking any law that stands in they're way is no problem for a criminal, gun control still doesn't apply to anyone who's supposed to be affected by gun control.

Uh, again, more evidence that you're just completely making shit up. What is about criminals that you think makes their housing free? They're not magical invisible beings. They may not pay taxes but their income is still limited and they have the same economic pressures of any other means of making money. You're completely making shit up now. It's actually amusing but it's not really an argument.

Seriously, I want to meet these magical criminals that don't have to pay for guns even though all evidence suggest that most of the time they do. And they don't have to pay for anything because you know, you can steal an apartment building.

I love how you want to trumpet how people will be deterred from the expense of gun ownership except the super amazing don't have to follow the rules of economics and don't have bills criminals. Those magical beings that aren't subject to the same financial forces as everyone else.

Yes, that's entirly correct, and quite a few economic models are behind me on this one.

Would you like to provide just one? I really hope it's the one where criminals steal housing.