How did we go 24 pages w/o a gun control debate?

[Gun Manufacturers]

People say "criminals will always have guns." Well murders will always happen, should we make them legal as well?

People say "gun control laws don't work." I've lived my entire life in Europe, most of which has gun control laws, and you know what? They work.

People say "People have the right to defend themselves." Think of how many people a madman/criminal could kill before he's taken out in a country where you are allowed guns vs. a country where you're not allowed guns. There's a reason why the school shooting in Germany was so shocking. It hardly ever happens over here.

People say "We need to have the right to overthrow the government" There is no country on earth in which the civilian population could defeat the army. No matter how much you give them arms. And if the army doesn't back the government, well then it's not like the civilians need weapons, is it?

Nice strawman.

Europe ≠ the US.

Your third statement makes no sense to me. If people are allowed firearms, then there's at least a chance that a legal firearms owner could stop a madman. Notice how most of those shootings take place in areas where firearms AREN'T allowed (such as school grounds).

As to your last statement, please check out Vietnam, Afghanistan (when the Russians invaded), and the current insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Khithali]

Nice strawman.

Europe ≠ the US.

So gun control laws work in Europe but due to some unnamed difference they would be completely impossible in America? I'm not saying thing wouldn't be different, but they could work.

Your third statement makes no sense to me. If people are allowed firearms, then there's at least a chance that a legal firearms owner could stop a madman. Notice how most of those shootings take place in areas where firearms AREN'T allowed (such as school grounds).

Imagine a situation in which everyone is allowed guns. Madman/criminal takes out gun and starts shooting. How many people can he take out before anyone even manages to draw a weapon? Assuming they have one. Assuming they can defeat him with it.
Now imagine if noone has a gun. Let's say he has a knife. He stabs one person. Most people run away, maybe some tough guys who know how to handle themselves take him out, maybe not. If not, most people have a large chance to get away. he can't chase everyboydy. Someone calls the police. situation done. Admittedly if he's a professional martial artist or whatever, people are probably screwed. But there's no way in hell you could ban that.
As for shooting taking place in places where guns aren't allowed, if guns aren't allowed anywhere, then you can't take sneak a gun into those places, can you?

As to your last statement, please check out Vietnam, Afghanistan (when the Russians invaded), and the current insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All of those places involve a foreign army invading. In all cases, the actual military was involved in the fighting as well. In all cases, these foreign armies did not know the terrain and were fighting in areas they knew nothing to little about. There would be no such advantages if they were fighting their own army.

edited for mismanaged quotes

[Brogavia]

Now imagine if noone has a gun. Let's say he has a knife. He stabs one person. Most people run away, maybe some tough guys who know how to handle themselves take him out, maybe not. If not, most people have a large chance to get away. he can't chase everyboydy. Someone calls the police. situation done. Admittedly if he's a professional martial artist or whatever, people are probably screwed. But there's no way in hell you could ban that.

And if he starts attacking people with a knife, someone with a gun could shoot him.

As for shooting taking place in places where guns aren't allowed, if guns aren't allowed anywhere, then you can't take sneak a gun into those places, can you?

And by that logic its physicly impossible to drive faster than the posted speed limit on a road.
Or that because something is illegal, that means it never happens.

[Galloism]

People say "criminals will always have guns." Well murders will always happen, should we make them legal as well?

Murders cause harm to people (edit: well, death actually... i'm such a pedant). Gun ownership does not.

People say "gun control laws don't work." I've lived my entire life in Europe, most of which has gun control laws, and you know what? They work.

Yet they failed epically in both Washington D.C. and New York City. Why is that? Because, as I've said before, they won't work over here.

People say "People have the right to defend themselves." Think of how many people a madman/criminal could kill before he's taken out in a country where you are allowed guns vs. a country where you're not allowed guns. There's a reason why the school shooting in Germany was so shocking. It hardly ever happens over here.

One or two before everyone else that is also armed shoots him. The reason why school shootings happen and are so horrific is that they are "no gun" zones, so when someone *does* bring a gun illegally onto campus, there is no one who can match his firepower.

People say "We need to have the right to overthrow the government" There is no country on earth in which the civilian population could defeat the army. No matter how much you give them arms. And if the army doesn't back the government, well then it's not like the civilians need weapons, is it?

False dichotomy. Some of the military can support the government, and some can not. It doesn't have to be an either/or. If the populace is armed, they are better able to support the side that is in the right (or the side that they choose - even if not right).

[Khithali]

Now imagine if noone has a gun. Let's say he has a knife. He stabs one person. Most people run away, maybe some tough guys who know how to handle themselves take him out, maybe not. If not, most people have a large chance to get away. he can't chase everyboydy. Someone calls the police. situation done. Admittedly if he's a professional martial artist or whatever, people are probably screwed. But there's no way in hell you could ban that.

And if he starts attacking people with a knife, someone with a gun could shoot him.

Either everyone is alowed guns, or no one is. if everyone else could have a gun, then so could he.

As for shooting taking place in places where guns aren't allowed, if guns aren't allowed anywhere, then you can't take sneak a gun into those places, can you?

And by that logic its physicly impossible to drive faster than the posted speed limit on a road.
Or that because something is illegal, that means it never happens.

no, but you must admit it makes it a hell of a lot harder bring a gun to school, as an example, if guns aren't allowed anywhere in the country than if they are allowed everywhere except the school. Laws aren't about making things impossible, they're about making things as hard as possible for the criminals.

[Galloism]

As for shooting taking place in places where guns aren't allowed, if guns aren't allowed anywhere, then you can't take sneak a gun into those places, can you?

And by that logic its physicly impossible to drive faster than the posted speed limit on a road.
Or that because something is illegal, that means it never happens.

no, but you must admit it makes it a hell of a lot harder bring a gun to school, as an example, if guns aren't allowed anywhere in the country than if they are allowed everywhere except the school. Laws aren't about making things impossible, they're about making things as hard as possible for the criminals.

So, do you believe that cocaine, heroin, meth, and marijuana are hard to get in the grand ol' US of A?

[Khithali]

People say "criminals will always have guns." Well murders will always happen, should we make them legal as well?

Murders cause harm to people (edit: well, death actually... i'm such a pedant). Gun ownership does not.
That is the point. Gun ownership does harm people as it facilitates murder. I don't say guns should be banned completely, as people need them for things like hunting or whatever, but most people have them to defend themselves, which i have already pointed out to be illogical.

People say "gun control laws don't work." I've lived my entire life in Europe, most of which has gun control laws, and you know what? They work.

Yet they failed epically in both Washington D.C. and New York City. Why is that? Because, as I've said before, they won't work over here.
Why? Is the US somehow special in that certain laws cannot be applied? I agree that large resentment against them might make them much harder to enforce, but if we're arguing about what is the right thing to do, then surely we should do what is right rather than what is practical?

People say "People have the right to defend themselves." Think of how many people a madman/criminal could kill before he's taken out in a country where you are allowed guns vs. a country where you're not allowed guns. There's a reason why the school shooting in Germany was so shocking. It hardly ever happens over here.

One or two before everyone else that is also armed shoots him. The reason why school shootings happen and are so horrific is that they are "no gun" zones, so when someone *does* bring a gun illegally onto campus, there is no one who can match his firepower.
But that requires that everyone just happens to have a gun with them. And that people who are completely off guard are capable of taking down someone who has planned to take out as many people as possible. Possible, yes, but not a risk I would take.

People say "We need to have the right to overthrow the government" There is no country on earth in which the civilian population could defeat the army. No matter how much you give them arms. And if the army doesn't back the government, well then it's not like the civilians need weapons, is it?

False dichotomy. Some of the military can support the government, and some can not. It doesn't have to be an either/or. If the populace is armed, they are better able to support the side that is in the right (or the side that they choose - even if not right).
Hmm... a very good point this one. but surely in a democracy, you should always have who the majority of the people support in power? And if it is a case of the majority oppressing the minority then the minority have even less chance if it comes to a show of force. i'm not saying a democracy is perfect and that it could never happen, but i would say this is a case of the cons outweighing the pros.

quote removed because the computer kept going funny with them and wouldn't let me post. sorry for any confusion

[Khithali]

So, do you believe that cocaine, heroin, meth, and marijuana are hard to get in the grand ol' US of A?

No, but they're harder to get hold of than if they were legal. Just because a law is not being effectively inforced does not mean that the law is automatically wrong or that it cannot be effectively inforced.

[Galloism]

I hate you for the massive quote failure here.
*grumbles as he painstakingly pulls out what you're saying*

That is the point. Gun ownership does harm people as it facilitates murder. I don't say guns should be banned completely, as people need them for things like hunting or whatever, but most people have them to defend themselves, which i have already pointed out to be illogical.

So, given there are 80 million legal gun owners in the US, how many of those do you think go out and kill people with them? Hint: Last year, there were 16,137 homicides in the US, of which approximately 9,369 were with firearms. Even if you assumed they were all legal firearms (which, we both know to be massively false, but I will accept as true just to prove a point) that makes a gun owner 0.01171125% likely of killing a person in a given year. That's better than doctors.

Why? Is the US somehow special in that certain laws cannot be applied? I agree that large resentment against them might make them much harder to enforce, but if we're arguing about what is the right thing to do, then surely we should do what is right rather than what is practical?

Yes, and given that guns are used over 2 million times a year in defense against violent crime in the US alone, I'd say the right thing to do is allow people to defend themselves. Otherwise, we're going to see the crime rate go through the roof, and more people will suffer and die for having banned them. I'm not willing to sacrifice that for an "ideal."

But that requires that everyone just happens to have a gun with them. And that people who are completely off guard are capable of taking down someone who has planned to take out as many people as possible. Possible, yes, but not a risk I would take.

Actually it's quite likely. With good conceal and carry laws, the shooter can't even be assured who is carrying a gun. The suppressing shot could come from anyone at any angle. If anything, widespread gun ownership is a deterrent against such crimes.

Hmm... a very good point this one. but surely in a democracy, you should always have who the majority of the people support in power? And if it is a case of the majority oppressing the minority then the minority have even less chance if it comes to a show of force. i'm not saying a democracy is perfect and that it could never happen, but i would say this is a case of the cons outweighing the pros.

quote removed because the computer kept going funny with them and wouldn't let me post. sorry for any confusion

The pros definitely outweigh the cons in the US. Given the massive amount of times guns are used in defense, versus the very small (relatively) number of times they are used in crime, the pros definitely outweigh the cons. The fact that it can be used as a tool of change against an oppressive government is more the icing on the cake.

[Galloism]

So, do you believe that cocaine, heroin, meth, and marijuana are hard to get in the grand ol' US of A?

No, but they're harder to get hold of than if they were legal. Just because a law is not being effectively inforced does not mean that the law is automatically wrong or that it cannot be effectively inforced.

I live in Orlando. I can get you almost any drug you want inside of 2 hours if you have the cash.

[Silista]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

I doubt anyone person in the world could out step the US military.

In the Chinese Federal Empire, Inc., you can own and/or make as much awesome cool weaponry as you can afford, and if it outstrips the US military, too darn bad for the American military. However, the Empire tries to keep ahead of the curve on awesome cool weaponry. And since the Empire designs all the awesome cool weaponry it sells, it gives its corporate insiders first grab on the new designs. The Imperial Federal Government is small (only about 3000 people), so it would be fairly easy for a group or faction to outstrip the Imperial Federal Government, which maintains no armed forces besides the Imperial Marines (7000 Muslim soldiers). Now, competing with the Imperial Marines would be harder to do, but not impossible. The Emperor maintains a monopoly on nuclear arms, but with plasma z-pinch technology advancing as fast as it is, silver-to-plutonium conversion will soon be within the financial range of most large businesses in the Empire. On a totally unrelated note, the Government of the CFE, Inc. has recently released neodymium-crystal solid state lasers and t-ray detection devices (traydars) in its commerically available milware, which will allow you to choose the anti-nuke option.

[Brogavia]

So, do you believe that cocaine, heroin, meth, and marijuana are hard to get in the grand ol' US of A?

No, but they're harder to get hold of than if they were legal. Just because a law is not being effectively inforced does not mean that the law is automatically wrong or that it cannot be effectively inforced.

I live in Orlando. I can get you almost any drug you want inside of 2 hours if you have the cash.

Probably easier than getting legal presciption drugs...

[Galloism]

Probably easier than getting legal presciption drugs...

Not really. You can get those on the street too, if they have some sort of narcotic effect of some kind.

[Isle de Beaulieu]

The only kind of gun any civilian should use is a hunting rifle.

The reason the 2nd amendment exists is so that states could form militia if the government got out of control. Since the government now has nuclear bombs and other more advanced weaponry (and civilians do not) than in 1776, this amendment is obsolete.

Do you think the founding fathers were contemplating the homicide and suicide rates when they wrote it? Of course not! But that's how it applies to the United States in 2009.

[Kadagai]

The only kind of gun any civilian should use is a hunting rifle.

The reason the 2nd amendment exists is so that states could form militia if the government got out of control. Since the government now has nuclear bombs and other more advanced weaponry (and civilians do not) than in 1776, this amendment is obsolete.

Do you think the founding fathers were contemplating the homicide and suicide rates when they wrote it? Of course not! But that's how it applies to the United States in 2009.

I highly doubt that the U.S. would dare use nukes against its own citizens, even if they were revolting. It wouldn't be sound economically to put out of commission all that land and people that could be paying taxes.

Uh huh. Because I'm sure there wasn't any suicide or homicide with guns back then, so of course the founding fathers totally didn't think about it.

What if I don't hunt? Will I be barred from having a rifle?

[Brogavia]

The only kind of gun any civilian should use is a hunting rifle.

The reason the 2nd amendment exists is so that states could form militia if the government got out of control. Since the government now has nuclear bombs and other more advanced weaponry (and civilians do not) than in 1776, this amendment is obsolete.

Do you think the founding fathers were contemplating the homicide and suicide rates when they wrote it? Of course not! But that's how it applies to the United States in 2009.

Or you can legalize ownership of some of the more advanced weaponry tocomply with the second amendment.


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

From one of the Federalist papers I think.

[Vicious Storms]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

Who said it has to be the US? If it starts to out step Canada, Russia, South Korea, then same, there are problems.

[Rhodmhire]

People say "criminals will always have guns." Well murders will always happen, should we make them legal as well?

Class, today we'll be learning a new word. This word is "s-t-r-a-w-m-a-n," look at the above quote as a pristine example of one.

People say "gun control laws don't work." I've lived my entire life in Europe, most of which has gun control laws, and you know what? They work.

I love the facts you presented to back your argument! My favorite is "They work." Let's see what I have to back up my argument:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mai ... enu-35/717 (not everyone in England agrees to your statement)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi ... annel_page (just the video from the above link)
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~shooter2_indy/ ... arvey.html
http://www.conciseconservatism.com/2009 ... facts.html
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/gu ... 33364.html

Try those to start. I really do think you need to educate yourself more before you try and debate.

People say "People have the right to defend themselves." Think of how many people a madman/criminal could kill before he's taken out in a country where you are allowed guns vs. a country where you're not allowed guns. There's a reason why the school shooting in Germany was so shocking. It hardly ever happens over here.

Again, view some of those links I provided, you really need to be educated more. That madman/criminal might take out a few people in country where you're allowed guns, but the people have a good chance of protecting more people if at least someone has a gun vs. if nobody has a gun. And you can't always count on the police--often times they don't show up in time, and often times the police are even outmatched by the madmen/criminals--especially in America.

People say "We need to have the right to overthrow the government" There is no country on earth in which the civilian population could defeat the army. No matter how much you give them arms. And if the army doesn't back the government, well then it's not like the civilians need weapons, is it?

The army is composed of civilians, if the American government pushed the people over the edge--something I think they are very close to doing now--I doubt many members of the Military would attack the people. If the people started a revolt, in America, I'd assume a good sum of the Military would actually join them. Obviously the government isn't so stupid as to nuke a large number of revolting American people--that's a bad move economically and politically.

Plus, I always say it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. I want a fighting chance for my life, and my country. I don't want to be defenseless against criminals or an oppressive government. I have the right to own a gun to defend my life against criminals and an oppressive government, and the government is supposed to protect that right, not dismantle it.

[Brogavia]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

Who said it has to be the US? If it starts to out step Canada, Russia, South Korea, then same, there are problems.

Not really, it gives th people a valuable right. The right of revolution.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Nice strawman.

Europe ≠ the US.

So gun control laws work in Europe but due to some unnamed difference they would be completely impossible in America? I'm not saying thing wouldn't be different, but they could work.

Your third statement makes no sense to me. If people are allowed firearms, then there's at least a chance that a legal firearms owner could stop a madman. Notice how most of those shootings take place in areas where firearms AREN'T allowed (such as school grounds).

Imagine a situation in which everyone is allowed guns. Madman/criminal takes out gun and starts shooting. How many people can he take out before anyone even manages to draw a weapon? Assuming they have one. Assuming they can defeat him with it.
Now imagine if noone has a gun. Let's say he has a knife. He stabs one person. Most people run away, maybe some tough guys who know how to handle themselves take him out, maybe not. If not, most people have a large chance to get away. he can't chase everyboydy. Someone calls the police. situation done. Admittedly if he's a professional martial artist or whatever, people are probably screwed. But there's no way in hell you could ban that.
As for shooting taking place in places where guns aren't allowed, if guns aren't allowed anywhere, then you can't take sneak a gun into those places, can you?

As to your last statement, please check out Vietnam, Afghanistan (when the Russians invaded), and the current insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All of those places involve a foreign army invading. In all cases, the actual military was involved in the fighting as well. In all cases, these foreign armies did not know the terrain and were fighting in areas they knew nothing to little about. There would be no such advantages if they were fighting their own army.

edited for mismanaged quotes

The culture regarding firearms is different between Europe and the US. So it's not an unnamed difference.

In your example, if someone starts shooting people, everyone in the area is going to hear it right from the first shot. If someone starts stabbing people, how many people can he/she stab quietly, before people start screaming? And banning firearms everywhere won't stop someone that's intent on killing people from sneaking one in. Firearms aren't real hard to make, or smuggle into the country.

Really? Soldiers from states other than Connecticut know the terrain as well as firearms owners (such as myself) that reside in CT? Soldiers from states other than Texas know the terrain as well as firearms owners that reside in Texas?

[Gun Manufacturers]

The only kind of gun any civilian should use is a hunting rifle.

The reason the 2nd amendment exists is so that states could form militia if the government got out of control. Since the government now has nuclear bombs and other more advanced weaponry (and civilians do not) than in 1776, this amendment is obsolete.

Do you think the founding fathers were contemplating the homicide and suicide rates when they wrote it? Of course not! But that's how it applies to the United States in 2009.

An AR-15 is considered a hunting rifle for certain game (varmints such as prairie dogs, and other small to medium game). But you're wrong on the purpose of the second amendment. As was recently demonstrated by the US Supreme Court, the second amendment is an individual right, not a state right.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

Who said it has to be the US? If it starts to out step Canada, Russia, South Korea, then same, there are problems.

The problem is, I outstrip the Canadian military, and I only have ONE rifle.

[Indri]

So you would agree with a law which attempts to disarm someone, for a proven record of using force to infringe the liberty of others?

I'd like an answer to that please. "Criminals will always have guns" is only a half of an answer. I ask whether any law should try to stop them having guns, if they have for instance used a gun in the past to murder someone.

That's bang on-topic, and has no "ideological epithets" in it. I think the first question, at least, is a decent attempt to clarify the point you made in direct reply to me.

You aren't obliged to answer, of course.

It's up to you. If you think it's sufficient to state a principle but shy away from answering any specifics about how it should be implemented in law, that's your choice.

To my eye, it makes your "point" look like the mindless chanting of a slogan ... but it's your choice.

This starts into a gray area for me. I don't think that someone should continue to be punished after paying their debt to society, either lock them up for life or let them go eventually but you shouldn't keep them half in/half out once their time is up.

[Allanea]

This starts into a gray area for me. I don't think that someone should continue to be punished after paying their debt to society, either lock them up for life or let them go eventually but you shouldn't keep them half in/half out once their time is up.

This is true. But more importantly, in modern America, there are penalties for all sort of lame shit. For example, "sex crimes" cause a permanent record even if you commit them as a juvenile. 15-year-old sends a nekkid picture of herself on a cellphone?

DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!

No gun rights, no voting, ever!

The guy who gets the picture?

POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!

No gun rights, no voting, ever!

[Cameroi]

just in case there's anyone too new to be already familiar with my opinion about such things from my response to every other of the zillion of such threads past:

my feelings about personal side arms, or any other kind of ordinance for that matter, being identical to those toward internal combustion propelled automobiles and recreationally consumed neurotropic substances.

i don't support telling anyone they can't have anything, but have no objection to being told not to buy, sell, mass produce or mass import, whatever a majority consensus wishes to.

i have no objection to hobbyists making their own cars and guns, growing a little herb, or what have you, just as long as they don't go into the business mass producing and marketing whatever it might happen to be.