Obama; New Type of Hope, Same Type of Stupid (Gun Control)

Quote:

---

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

---

ABC News reports that the Obama administration is going to pursue the same legislation that
1) Had no effect on crime
2) Is seen as a step to greater gun control by gun control groups
3) Took the rights of Americans for no gain
4) Is unconstitutional
5) Cost Clinton control of Congress in 1994

So much for 'respecting the second amendment'. I guess you just can't fix stupid. This time, the reasoning isn't even that people are misusing them in our country, but in Mexico. We have to suffer because of foreign criminals. Who thinks the cartels couldn't get weapons easily from corrupt police and military?

CR

Hopefully this passes. We need more and more government regulation; it's the quickest way to jade the populace and disenchant people of the virtue of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Hopefully this passes. We need more and more government regulation; it's the quickest way to jade the populace and disenchant people of the virtue of government.

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."

---

Let's see. Automatic weapons, illegal. Grenades, illegal. So this is basically another attempt to lose the Southern and Midwestern voters. ~:rolleyes:

I guess I'd better get a few spare mags for my pistol now, before the price shoots up to $150 again....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

:laugh4:


Let's see. Automatic weapons, illegal. Grenades, illegal. So this is basically another attempt to lose the Southern and Midwestern voters. ~:rolleyes:

I guess I'd better get a few spare mags for my pistol now, before the price shoots up to $150 again....

---

Because OBVIOUSLY they're buying their guns in the US, right?

And certainly banning them in the US will stop sale of said weapons in Mexico, right?

I mean, a US company SURELY wouldn't buy assault weapons from, say, India, and ship them to Mexico, right? I mean, it's obvious that companies have our best interests in mind, right?

...Right? :annoyedg:

EDIT:
On a side note, flamethrowers are legal. I heard it on the internet. :D

Maybe I should get one of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I mean, a US company SURELY wouldn't buy assault weapons from, say, India, and ship them to Mexico, right? I mean, it's obvious that companies have our best interests in mind, right?

---

Do have any evidence of large scale arms dealing by US companies or are you simply making stuff up?

Even if there were, this bill would do nothing - not a single thing - to hamper or stop the scenario you described.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Because OBVIOUSLY they're buying their guns in the US, right?

And certainly banning them in the US will stop sale of said weapons in Mexico, right?

I mean, a US company SURELY wouldn't buy assault weapons from, say, India, and ship them to Mexico, right? I mean, it's obvious that companies have our best interests in mind, right?

...Right? :annoyedg:

EDIT:
On a side note, flamethrowers are legal. I heard it on the internet. :D

Maybe I should get one of those.

---

:inquisitive:I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, so here goes again.

Grenades and automatic weapons are ALREADY illegal for the most part. This reinstatement will not stop these weapons from reaching Mexican drug-runners. Proper enforcement of existing laws will. But it's always easier to pass a meaningless law than actually do something about the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I guess I'd better get a few spare mags for my pistol now, before the price shoots up to $150 again....

---

Maybe this should've been part of the stimulus package. If people think a new AWB is going to pass, gun sales will skyrocket. :idea2:

This reminds me of the Obama campaign ads that were running at least a couple times an hour around here. They trotted out some hunter who proclaimed that Obama supports the Second Amendment and personal ownership of guns and therefore, he supports Obama. What a load. ~:handball:

Knowing this won't pass I'm not going to feign outrage.

However I will plug my Charity: SOS, Save Our Strike is a grass roots organization lobbying the Org government to provide longtime and most loved member SFTS a stimulus to help him buy various things, like guns and ostrich skin boots. As of right now all of his funds are being drained buy groceries gas and other purchases which he is forced to pay because his parents, after 18 years of love and care booted him 400 miles away. This is an undoubtedly because they don't care about poor people.

His funds are only growing by 1.8% He is in a recession.

Paypal is accepted. So is envelops with money.

:drama2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

:drama2:

---

Pretty much.

This is a non issue for me. I doubt I'll ever feel the need to own one of these weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

But it's always easier to pass a meaningless law than actually do something about the problem.

---

We're in recession - this will save money!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Do have any evidence of large scale arms dealing by US companies or are you simply making stuff up?

Even if there were, this bill would do nothing - not a single thing - to hamper or stop the scenario you described.

CR

---

Exactly my point.

I was being hypothetical in this case, since this bill would only directly affect those manufacturing arms and/or selling arms in the US. Thus it would make little sense to include foreign manufacturers and dealers.

As to US companies dealing in Mexico, it's a safe bet at least a few are. It's a nice, big, market right next door. Very difficult to ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

:inquisitive:I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, so here goes again.

Grenades and automatic weapons are ALREADY illegal for the most part. This reinstatement will not stop these weapons from reaching Mexican drug-runners. Proper enforcement of existing laws will. But it's always easier to pass a meaningless law than actually do something about the problem.

---

I was, indeed, being sarcastic.

So Obama wants to prevent Mexicans from buying weapons that are already illegal? Have a good time trying to enforce that when we can't even close our own borders. If Americans want to sell Mexicans guns, we'll find a way.

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine they'll get right on this.

Hey maybe all those SKSs I bought for $100 a piece right after the ban expired in 2004 will be worth something now. They sat in a trailer for years, never fired, still covered in petroleum jelly. I've used one and modified it to hold a 30 round magazine,the others are still boxed. I'm gonna be a criminal!!! Maybe I'll sell to the cartel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine they'll get right on this.

---

if they enact that, im moving to china.
not really though....

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
cant they understand that gun control only takes away guns from law-abiding people.
the criminals will get them anyhow if they want them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine they'll get right on this.

---

How soon can we expect that do you think?

Quote:

---

So are we going to see formal reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, or passage of the Screw Rush Limbaugh Act of 2009? Almost certainly not. Is there a measure of none-too-subtle enthusiasm among those with the power to grant or revoke licenses for pressuring broadcasters to introduce more "democratic dialogue" and greater "diversity" of programming? Manifestly. But don't worry, they're not going to call it a Fairness Doctrine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Just as soon as Congress is done bringing back the Fairness Doctrine they'll get right on this.

---

Obama's administration supports this, unlike the fairness doctrine.

Quote:

---

This is a non issue for me. I doubt I'll ever feel the need to own one of these weapons.

---

Our defense of liberty in our country should not be limited to our personal interests. We should try to defend liberty everywhere, and band together to prevent government intrusion on any of our rights.

For example, I rail on against the weakening of the fourth amendment, excessive police force, and the drug war, though I've never smoked pot and never plan too.

Finally - do you ever plan to own a pistol? The 1994 bill banned magazines over 10 rounds for any gun. I've got a compact pistol with a 14 round magazine.

CR

Sounds good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Finally - do you ever plan to own a pistol? The 1994 bill banned magazines over 10 rounds for any gun. I've got a compact pistol with a 14 round magazine.

CR

---

You Americans are so dumb. Just take 4 rounds out!

Quote:

---

Sounds good to me

---

You Would

My AK and AR have alrady been "misplaced". Oh well...

I guess Obama is just doing what comes natural to him...

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State. – Heinrich Himmler

Only an armed society can be the real bulwark of popular liberty. – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The Communist party must control the guns. – Mao Tse-Tung

On the morrow of each conflict, I gave the … order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results. – Benito Mussolini

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? – Joseph Stalin

If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. – Joseph Stalin

Finally, he should ban bear arms completely if you ask me. Noone needs them and they're dangerous, like knives.

husar, i will quote my earlier post....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
cant they understand that gun control only takes away guns from law-abiding people.
the criminals will get them anyhow if they want them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Sounds good to me.

---

Only because you would like us all to be peasants under an omniscient government! You would trade the exciting life of liberty for the promise of government security! ~;p

Quote:

---

husar, i will quote my earlier post....

---

It's not about crime. It's about control; liberty offends them.

CR

personally i cant wait until im 21. i plan on getting a concealed firearms license.
i go to the shooting range at least once a month....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

if they enact that, im moving to china.
not really though....

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.
cant they understand that gun control only takes away guns from law-abiding people.
the criminals will get them anyhow if they want them.

---

The same thing that runs through the head of the people that support keeping marijuana illegal; sheer emotion. No rationalisation or debate,just pure emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mooks

The same thing that runs through the head of the people that support keeping marijuana illegal; sheer emotion. No rationalisation or debate,just pure emotion.

---

i am rationalizing the situation.
heres the situation:
obama bans guns. lawful people turn thier guns in. crminals dont.
crime shoots way up.
if im not mistaken, after DC banned guns the crime rate shot way up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Only because you would like us all to be peasants under an omniscient government! You would trade the exciting life of liberty for the promise of government security! ~;p

---

Glad you put that smilie there :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i still cant figure out what goes on in the pro-gun control peoples heads.

---

The idea being that guns don't kill people - but they make it a hell of a lot easier to. That's the simplest way to explain our thought process. They don't just deny them to law-abiding citizens, they deny them to small-time criminals who may not have normally wanted to get serious enough to look for illegal weapons traders.

but what about the big time crimnals?
you cant just assume that the small guy dont want guns. oh, im sure they do. a crime done by a small crook is the same as a crime done by a big crook.
dont underestimate the small time crooks.
under estimating in general is a bad thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

but what about the big time crimnals?

---

What about them? They are going to get guns either way, but this way it is going to cost them more and be much harder to get - the black market can still be found-out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

you cant just assume that the small guy dont want guns.

---

If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

under estimating in general is a bad thing to do.

---

Like underestimating what the police force is capable of?

What about Texans who are being murdered by border gangs who are armed to the teeth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

What about them? They are going to get guns either way, but this way it is going to cost them more and be much harder to get - the black market can still be found-out.

---

thank you for just making my point.
doesnt matter how hard itll take. they will get them. and they will strike. and we lawful citizens wont have any means of self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.

---

what if the would be victim had a gun? then there wouldnt be a rape in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Like underestimating what the police force is capable of?

---

it is well known that the police cant be everywhere at all times. in fact, most cities in the US are reducing the numbers of policemen, such as Atlanta. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

What about Texans who are being murdered by border gangs who are armed to the teeth.

---

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mooks

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military? :dizzy2:

---

LOL. Im going to give you one guess. It starts with M and ends with exican

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mooks

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military? :dizzy2:

---

both the border patrol and National guard are woefully understaffed. well, at least the BP is. most of the guardsmen are overseas. idk why, but they are.
but still, they cant be everywhere at all times. weve got a huge southern border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

LOL. Im going to give you one guess. It starts with M and ends with exican

---

I know that they are mexican, I shouldve put "americans" in place of texans.

Quote:

---

both the border patrol and National guard are woefully understaffed. well, at least the BP is. most of the guardsmen are overseas. idk why, but they are.
but still, they cant be everywhere at all times. weve got a huge southern border.

---

Nobody really cares about illegal immigrants. But when they are literally raiding our border, why isnt the military (Not the weekend warriors) taking action?

Are the weekend warriors the reserves or the NG, I get them confused.

b/c it will start a war maybe? as far as i can tell from the situation, they are making quick strikes into the US, then getting the heck outta there. then they strike somewhere else.
now tell me how the army is supposed to protect us from that 24/7.

the weekend warriors are the NG, AFAIK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

thank you for just making my point.
doesnt matter how hard itll take. they will get them. and they will strike. and we lawful citizens wont have any means of self defense.

---

You don't have a lawful means of self-defence now... you even said as much yourself - you aren't able to shoot. So how would your situation change if guns were banned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

what if the would be victim had a gun? then there wouldnt be a rape in the first place.

---

What if said person is taken by surprise by someone who has a gun? They reach for their concealed firearm, but their sudden movement gets them shot...

I don't see any good coming from that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

it is well known that the police cant be everywhere at all times.

---

No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.

Anyway gun control debates get me wound up and I know that neither side is ever going to change their views. So I shall depart this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mooks

I know that they are mexican, I shouldve put "americans" in place of texans.



Nobody really cares about illegal immigrants. But when they are literally raiding our border, why isnt the military (Not the weekend warriors) taking action?

Are the weekend warriors the reserves or the NG, I get them confused.

---

No the Texans on the border are 85-90% Tejano.

I see Count Arach has avoided my questions, therefore I win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You don't have a lawful means of self-defence now... you even said as much yourself - you aren't able to shoot. So how would your situation change if guns were banned?

---

when did i say we dont have lawful self-defense now? ok, so you have to be 21 to own a gun, so what? ill wait. ill take precautions. i dont really have to go out in the real world until im 21 anyhow. until then ill be in college, high school, so....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

What if said person is taken by surprise by someone who has a gun? They reach for their concealed firearm, but their sudden movement gets them shot...

I don't see any good coming from that....

---

but at least give them the chance. maybe if some woman in a vacant parking lot saw someone approaching her, she has time to pull out a gun. if she was taken by surprise then she is in deep trouble anyhoow, but give her the chance to defend herself in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.

---

you just said before that the bad people who really want guns will get them. and now you are saying we will need fewer cops? :inquisitive:
on the contrary. if we dont ban guns we will need fewer cops because there will be more people to protect others if the police isnt around.

EDIT: no one is replying, so ill assume victory...
horray!

This is the exact issue that caused me to not vote for George Bush in 2004.
(Note I didn't vote for Kerry either. I'm not a fool to think that he would have done any different.)

I repeat:

:drama2:

I see no reason people need an assault weapon to defend themselves, with the exception of the situation Strike mentioned- in cases of cross-border raids, regardless of political expediency, the police and/or military need to be on that job.

But if people feel more comfortable thinking that owning an assault weapon somehow makes them the torch-bearers of the founding fathers, I don't particularly care if assault weapons were legal either.

P.S.- No citizen group is overthrowing the US government with assault weapons anyways, FYI. You gonna be put down HARD. Y'all gonna need to be a bit less, ya know, obvious. Subterfuge and the like, in and out operations. Concealed weapons gonna be the best bet there.

oh good, were back to assault weapons.
but i agree with seireikhaan on the topic of assault weapons. they arent needed nowhere near as much. anyhow, pistols are better.

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.

---

Only there won't be fewer guns, or murders. It'll switch to knives. And then you'll have to ban knives. And then kitchen implements. And so on.

And, in spite of all this, even small-time criminals are still going to have means of getting guns. In Toronto, for example, where do small-time criminals get their handguns? From the bigger gangs.

:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

---

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

But I think the question itself doesn't make sense - why should anyone care about Third World poverty? Why should anyone care about the Palestine-Israel conflict? Why should anyone, anywhere, care about things that happen on the other side of the world? Think about why you care about these things and then you will have your answer.

*Goes back into exile... for real this time...*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

---

Someone with a chainsaw who's trying to cut you into little pieces deserves to be shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

But I think the question itself doesn't make sense - why should anyone care about Third World poverty? Why should anyone care about the Palestine-Israel conflict? Why should anyone, anywhere, care about things that happen on the other side of the world? Think about why you care about these things and then you will have your answer.

*Goes back into exile... for real this time...*

---

You are allowed to have these views because your country uses guns. Men killed so you could afford to have your lofty ideals.

I was joking in earlier posts but you realize what a pacifist is right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I was joking in earlier posts but you realize what a pacifist is right?

---

One who opposes and rejects the use of violence.

So Mexico not only refuses to help the US with illegal immigration but in fact encourages it, Mexico whines about the "fence" to the point that the great wall is being turned into a small levee easily climbed over for "flood protection," the problems with Mexico are due in large to the acts of Mexico itself.....but we are going to change laws here to help stop guns from going south. The guns the mexicans are complaining about are already illegal here.

Personally, I don't think this has a shot in hell of passing unless he does it by executive order. Too many of my fellow blue dogs dominate southern states, it's just not going to happen. I also think Americans tend to naively underestimate the selfishness of other Americans: the fact of the matter is that most of us could give to ***** about Mexico and it problems. Really. Who cares?

What Mexico needs right now is to get rid of this faux democratic capitalist society its pretending to be, admit its an international welfare state whose release-valve-of-problems is pointed right at the US, and just have some crazy communist fascist dictator come in and show people who is boss. Then we couldnt be their friends anymore because they were commie dictators, and they wouldn't be allowed to leave their country because they would all be conscripted to state jobs and duties, and they would build a fence to keep Americans out. That would be awesomeness!!!11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

---

Pacifism as a philosophy is pathetic.

Quote:

---

If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.

---

What about government cameras everywhere - in all stores, in all houses. Would you be happy with that if it prevented a single murder?

You're excusing the relinquishing of liberty by arguing for an infinitesimal security increase. And assuming you wont go for the government cameras everywhere scheme, its because you are biased against guns.

Yes, guns are deadly. More deadly than any weapon before it. But that is why we need them.

With a gun, no longer is the physically more powerful person able to impose their will on others. No longer do people who train for years with a weapon have a great advantage over others.

It has given power to the people. It is the democratic weapon.

Now, people use guns to defend themselves. If you took that right, people would die. Why is preventing a rape-murder so much more important in your eyes than allowing someone to defend their life with a gun?

And I want to emphasize here that gun control is not effective. It doesn't lower crime or keep small time crooks from getting weapons.

CR

With a gun, no longer is the physically more powerful person able to impose their will on others.

Your right, its the person who can afford the better gun, who has taken time to train with the gun, and then physical traits such as your eyesight, ability to move quickly being a somewhat 4th place requirment....

Hmm i wonder who could afford the better gun and have more experience in using it....

This is only a smoke screen of an excuse to do what the Ds like to do…work on eroding the rights they don’t like…banning guns as a start.

Why would Mexicans buy expensive arms from the US that are only semi-automatic when they can get cheep automatic weapons from a hundred different countries.

Not to pick on the Ds for eroding rights…the Rs just erode different ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

husar, i will quote my earlier post....

---

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

---

Wait, wait, are you trying to be rational here? Because we all know the US are the awesome sauce, and that the lack of gun-control is the very epitome of liberty.

Now, I actually don't care about gun-control in the US. For some reason, it seems to be a big deal, unlike the patriot act or other similar things. I just think that if people feel the need to own guns to be safe, then they live in a failed state.

edit, that wasn't very smart

The point I take away from this is: Obama is (drum roll please) a somewhat-left-of-the-middle-of-the-road Democrat.

He re-re-reversed the ban on overseas abortion funding that Bush had re-reversed that Clinton had reversed that Reagan had instituted as a gesture towards his pro-abortion supporters.

Now there is an effort, unlikely to pass but public enough because of the nature of the weapons mentioned that serves as a gesture towards his pro-gun restriction supporters.

More than a few etc.'s to be added to those two if you scan the particulars of the recent spending/stimulus bills and executive orders.

Why am I supposed to be surprised by this? Its garden variety image politics and ALL of the last 5 occupants have played this game.

Now, it does seem to undercut Obama's claim to be a "new type" of political leader, but I'd suggest that nobody -- not even a majority of our far too ignorant voters -- really expected things to be different. Same Calimari, different spicing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

---

here

Quote:

---

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

---

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.

---

@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

---

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.

Quote:

---

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

---

Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

---

Possibly, however most of the gangs where I live developed out of a sense of street vengeance. You killed my peeps, so now I'm going after your peeps.

Drugs do exist as a way to make quick cash, without having to have either an education or a place of work, and I suppose that helps the gangs purchase a better arsenal and such, however the violence would likely still exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

---

He's just trying to enlighten us dumb old American hicks..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.

---

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.

On the flip side, criminals would still have guns and would be at a significant advantage in their quest to deprive others of rightful property -- and the rightful owners would have little chance of the authorities stepping in to prevent such a theft in time. As you suggest, the physically stronger would also be in a position to enforce their will on others more readily, again presuming that the police can't get there in time to prevent it. I would find this a gross infringement of my rights.

Be aware, however, that many gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same. In their opinion, you should incur an ongoing cost (insurance) so that your property may be replaced when taken by another.

I view them as having abrogated their right to life by directly threatening your property rights, but then again I am a Conservativus Rex who hasn't evolved to higher* levels.

*to be read properly, this word should DRIP sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Still wouldn't work - simple guns are not too hard to make at home, plus there would be corrupt police and army personnel selling arms.



Most of the violence in the US is due to gangs (says the FBI) and banning guns won't change that. Legalizing drugs likely would.

CR

---

My infuses.


Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

You may have heard stories, but that is all they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

[M]any gun control propronents truly believe that the life of a person who is seeking to take your property is worth more than your property -- even though you have sacrificed a portion of your life to acquire same.

---

Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

So basically the problem are not the guns and everybody here thinks that murder, rape and stealing are pretty normal in a free society and the only counter that should be there is telling your kids how to blow a guy's brain out?

Or does anyone have another suggestion for what should be changed? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So basically the problem are not the guns and everybody here thinks that murder, rape and stealing are pretty normal in a free society and the only counter that should be there is telling your kids how to blow a guy's brain out?

---

Violent crime is a reality in any society. It's not common and it never has been (thank God), but it does exist, and to pretend that it's particular to any nation is silly.

The police cannot be everywhere. The police should not be everywhere. The first person who should defend you is you. The first person who should defend your family is you.

In America we are and have been an armed society since inception (although we were a lot less armed before the mid-1800s, if you believe the historians). We believe in the individual's right to defend self, hearth and home.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I said that I thought the murder rate would go down -- but suspect that violence would increase. Murders would be lessened not because of the criminal element -- there'd be a slight increase from that direction as some of the nuttier ones felt less threatened. I was referring to the fairly large chunk of those murders that represent loved ones killing loved ones during a fight of some kind. Firearms make such killings easier. I'm well aware that you can kill someone with a knife and that cutting tools can do horrific things (John Wayne Bobbitt), but they are usually far less lethal in this advanced medical era we're in. Again, I'm talking a decrease in deaths, not a decrease in violence or injuries.

---

Hmm. What information are you using?

Looking at the 2007 FBI Crime stats, there are only six more husbands and wives of offenders (596 total) killed by all weapons during none felony events (arguments and brawls) than they are people beaten to death (590) during the same none felony events.

Overall, murders where the victim is a relative, and the murder doesn't occur during another felony crime, account for 9.5% of total murders.

It isn't known how many of those are actual 'loved ones' killing people they would normally love. (Wives as victims make up 3.3% of those none-felony relative murders.)

Quote:

---

People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

---

Playing devils advocate, he did first confront them. He did not shoot them from hiding. But I do think people are justified in confront robbers with all force necessary even if they don't invade your home.

Quote:

---

Sorry CR but that part just won’t fly. You have no idea what length the US military, particularly the US Army will go to in order to recover a missing weapon or even its parts.

---

We're talking world government here - I wasn't speaking necessarily about the US Army (I would worry first about the police here) but armies and soldiers in other countries. Such a worldwide ban would greatly increase the prize for black market guns and so greatly increase the incentive. Doesn't Thailand execute all drug dealers? Yet people still try to smuggle them in, because of the immense profit.

Quote:

---

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

---

:bow:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Violent crime is a reality in any society. It's not common and it never has been (thank God), but it does exist, and to pretend that it's particular to any nation is silly.

The police cannot be everywhere. The police should not be everywhere. The first person who should defend you is you. The first person who should defend your family is you.

In America we are and have been an armed society since inception (although we were a lot less armed before the mid-1800s, if you believe the historians). We believe in the individual's right to defend self, hearth and home.

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

---

Yes, I agree on most points, in fact, I wouldn't mind being allowed to have a gun but I doubt I would feel the need to spend a lot to get one or the need to get one at all. Apparently a lot of Americans however, do feel a strong need to get one and behave as if they will get swamped and overrun by criminals if they're not allowed to get one which makes me look at the USA as much more criminal than Germany where I feel pretty safe even without a gun.
I don't have any statistics in my head but IIRC the crime rates in the US(and possibly the UK) are a lot higher than in some other western societies, so why is that? Do you ever ask yourselves that outside of "we needz moar gunz!!!" or do you just accept it and shoot everybody who enters your minefield on the front lawn?

Concerning CCTV, I have never supported that, I accept cameras in the subway stations but I would certainly not want them on every public place, street, road, school, university etc.
I recently read some politician here wants that and said he expected people to vote for his party because of that so I decided to vote for the party he attacked for a lack of cameras...

And to come back to guns, I work at a fuel station and company policy is to give out all the money and let the thieves leave if there is a robbery. quite frankly with one or two guys pointing guns at me I would not appreciate if some customer drew his own gun and started shooting around. Generally I would only find a personal gun useful if I were always allowed to carry it around in a concealed holster, if I got robbed at gunpoint in a dark street I could hardly run home, get my gun and then start a firefight, even just drawing a gun would prolly make the other guy pull the trigger so the use of guns is somewhat limited to home defense if you ask me and even then how can you get your gun while you sleep?
Like I said, nothing against having one IMO, but the use of the things seems a bit blown out of proportion sometimes if you ask me. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hmm, surely some sort of proportionality has to be taken into account. If a bully in school demands your pen, shooting him is probably an overreaction. Even if you sacrificed a minute of your life to have that pen.

People who use deadly force to defend their families and homes have my sympathy. People who deliberately kill others to deter a property theft do not.

I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates who would argue for indiscriminate use of lethal force. Likewise, I don't think there are many gun-control advocates who don't believe you have a right to defend your home and your family. The differences are in matters of degree and context.

That said, I think gun control in the U.S.A. is abysmally stupid. If the Obama Administration wastes its time bringing back a ban on pistol magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds ... man, that would just be the height of foolishness.

---

Joe Horn did the right thing.

Someone being in your house, where all sorts of things can be done to you and you don't know their intent or numbers, is one thing. But simply using deadly force to stop, say, a theft of something in your front yard or a purse snatching is both barbaric and dangerous. Now, were you to attempt to make a lawful citizens arrest and restrain them, which escalated into your defending yourself because they used force on you or came at you, then yeah use force.

We don't hang people for stealing horses anymore. People who advocate deadly force for property crimes in general really are the scourge, and thankfully the minority, of gun-rights supporters.

LaPeirre calls out a reported on CNN, she blindly defends, she is wrong, he is right, exactly what we've been saying all along: automatic weapons are already banned. The CNN ban story showed a bunch of clips with autos being fired

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8

In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, they're installing CCTVs in pubs, and every town has its own surveillance cameras. I'd rather live with armed people than have the government watching every street corner and every bar.

Why is this being treated as an either USA stlye gun plicy or UK style CCTV theres plenty of good examples outside of our overuse of CCTV. It seems like an attempt to build an argument of having guns vs having CCTV, the truth is you don't need either for security...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

We don't hang people for stealing horses anymore. People who advocate deadly force for property crimes in general really are the scourge, and thankfully the minority, of gun-rights supporters.

---

Well, most of the threads popping up here by pro-gun people are about some ex-marine shooting people in a shop, then we have them defend a guy who runs outside to shoot the thieves who just robbed his neighbor despite a policeman telling him not to and then there was this thread about the really great patriot who managed to see some guys coming into his house and then did the following within the (roughly estimated) 5 seconds he had before they were inside:

- ran to his porperly locked weapons locker
- opened the lock with the key
- got his unloaded gun out
- loaded the gun
- shot at the criminals and made them flee

obviously this patriot was as fast as Superman because we all know the real responsible patriots always lock their guns up in a safe place and unload them before doing so because having them lie around loaded is very unsafe, kids or other people could grab them and do stupid things.
Well, that's just what I learned on this forum of course, so I fully understand how a properly locked up and unloaded gun can:

- keep your kids from doing stupid things with it

and:

- allow you to shoot any possible intruders

especially the ones that come during the night while you sleep.

Now seriously, I understand this works now and then, when someone seems to have really bad sleep or the criminals are absolute idiots, but if someone with a little bit of brain comes I'd think you don't really have a chance, alternatively your kids starts a school shooting because you didn't lock your gun away and everybody on every forum calls you an idiot because you didn't unload your gun and lock it away as every responsible gun owner should.

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

---

The zombies aint gonna kill themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

CR I have a question for you. Why do you need Assault Rifles?

---

Because I have a small penis of course...

It's not small, Dave, it's concentrated goodness. I thought we agreed that was how we would refer to it ...

Why does it have to be about need?