Ban on Gun Ownership?

[negator]

live, motherflower!

 

[dave_rhino]

Sadly, scumbags never attack alone, they attack in group. You wining against 10 other people, impossible. That is why a gun or any large blade knife can save your life. Scumbags attack like cowards and always in group.

Fair enough, but what if one of those scumbags have a knife or gun? You'll get killed before you have a chance to use the weapon.

 

[Facetious]

You know when I say shooting I am refering to people being shot not shoots fired at the range.
:rofl2:



Well if that is your view then doesn't that kind of say there is not a real valid arguement that guns are needed reasonably to provide self defense?
Since the odds are so low that you will be shot.:dunno:

Post 191 Saw it coming

 

[bodie54]

Your firearm is perhaps the weakest weapon you have against the United States government.

They seem to be working pretty well for the Iraqi insurgents :dunno:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

As a fence-sitter on his topic, I just wanted to address some holes.



I don't. We all know he lost the war, but how did his registration work out before then?

Emphasis added.

The first outlined sentence there seems to be a favorite of the pro-gun camp, but to be quite honest, it sucks. As Nomad said, Your firearm is perhaps the weakest weapon you have against the United States government. You're better off taking the time getting educated, educating others to make your vote and time count. Stop an oppressive government from ever taking place. Because once they're in place with intent to do what they will to you, they're going to do what they will with you regardless of how much of a Rambo armory you've built up.

As to the second point, I'm a little skeptical that the US Government (if they are malicious as opposed to, say, inept or simple misguided) would try to disarm its citizens physically to give themselves more power when they have a far better and successful strategy already in place: poor education and media saturation. Even if the US Government cracked down big time, suspending all sorts of rights, many would sit complacently at home eating whatever rubbish the news was feeding them. The few that don't (such as the gun-toting Rambos) are going to get picked off in no time.

When he was rising to power, he rallied the people, so to speak, and convinced them Germany would need them in her effort to be restored to her former glory, in doing so, he told his countrymen that they might be called upon to fight for the country, and they should let the government know if they have guns, so they can be called up when needed, then went and took them from the people.

If the people are armed, the Government will think twice before fucking with them. A huge arsenal isn't the point, but them knowing the people can keep them in check, along with what you said is important.

Their trying, and unfortunately succeeding in little bits, the Patriot Act was a major ass fucking to many of our Constitutional rights.

You are correct, educating, informing, and voting are all very important, but all of that won't stop the physical attacks.

 

[bombardier52]

Governments should be afraid of a populace with guns. WOLVERINES!!!

 

[sputnikgirl]

^^Right on Nomad. Couldn't agree more.

 

[marquis2]

Governments should be afraid of a populace with guns. WOLVERINES!!!

Is the Swiss government afraid of its populace then?

 

[Facetious]

The practice involves asking a series of questions surrounding a central issue, and answering questions of the others involved. Generally, this involves the defense of one point of view against another and is oppositional. The best way to 'win' is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer's own point.

Boring !

 

[bombardier52]

Is the Swiss government afraid of its populace then?

I am going to guess you don't get the pop culture reference.

But, to answer your question, I don't know. I do know that they are a heavily armed society.

 

[Facetious]

From a technical standpoint, I realize that this thread has d r i f t e d away from it's original theme with respect to the"SCOTUS" . . . That said, many here use a comparative analysis to support their claim against legal, private ownership of firearms, therefore -


Let's ban aircraft ! Seriously ! They are inherently dangerous and kill the unexpecting !

The above nomenclature lists only those accidents which took place between 1970 - 1998, specifically in the region of Southern California.

 

[freshfreshy]

A mix of annoyance and amusement, actually. I could use a few choice words about your contribution to the debate so far as well, alas, I fear it would be poor form.



You used the concept. The constitution says this, the people writing the constitution were great etc. (and smart people agree with it), therefore the constitution is correct. That is an appeal to authority, which is an fallacy based on the character of the one making it. Hence, I used the word.



Well that's lovely, but, like I've said more times than I care to count, that is not an argument. Your OPINION is not interesting in the slightest, nor is theirs. The whole point is that it doesn't matter. If their ideas are so great, I expect they had some solid reasoning behind them, which I'm sure you would have no trouble repeating. That is what matters. Even if they did molest cabin boys etc.



Then let's hope that they are capable of being at least somewhat more objective than you. They, however, are supposedly experts on law, and I believe their decision will determine what the constitution was supposed to say (a matter of interpretive law), not whether gun control is right or not. It is not exactly an appeal to authority if said person actually has superior knowledge of the matter at hand, provided that they have a valid reasoning based on that knowledge. You, however, are not an expert on modern gun control, and I dare say that neither were people who died 200 years ago (and it still wouldn't actually replace the need for an argument, it merely lends some credibility to their conclusions).

Either way, I don't really care. What I care about is the way people use the constitution (which is either an appeal to tradition or authority depending on how it is phrased) as an argument against change, any change, and actually think it's a valid argument. If there is no reasoning behind it, the constitution is not even worth the paper it is printed on. If there is, then use that instead of referring to aforementioned piece of paper.

-



Se above.



Relies on the assumption that a gun is the only means of self-defense (which at least to some extent is not true) and that more guns among the population will increase individual security (which isn't necessarily true either).
-A gun is the only reasonable form of self defense as it is the only one that can stop an intruder. A bat will not stop a gun toting rapist or murderer.


And you're certain this will help? If you were to compare, for example, Canada and the US, I believe that the rate of violent crime is lower in Canada than the US, despite the US having a far higher gun density (last time I checked at least, which admittedly was a while ago).

(I should probably note as well that this doesn't necessarily mean that guns increase the crime rate, merely that there are clearly other factors involved. See the stuff I said about correlation and causation earlier.)

-The fact that USA has more guns per capita than most countries and still a low crime rate shows guns deter crime. Why don't you talk about switzerland where every citizen male of age 18-40 has a machine gun is his house by law and how low there crime is in comparison to crime ridden france and britain who ban guns. Canada has low crimes because they only have 3 major cities by US standards, Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. Vancouver gun crime is just as bad as america and they just can't find the bodies from the montreal mob so it doesn't get counted. You also neglect to mention that violent crime is going up in canada while falling in usa. As well canada has 3 time the rate of non gun crime per capita as USA.


Criminals to project force, hardly to defend themselves. Police obviously to defend themselves, but they have a much greater need than the average civilian considering that it's their job to directly get involved in potentially dangerous situations. They also have extensive training in its use and are generally encouraged not to use them.
Not to mention that most policemen in the UK actually doesn't carry guns.

-Police do not have a greater need than civlians based on the basis of involvement of dangerous situations as you, the citizen is the first responder. The police do not get rapped, robbed, have their children abducted while on the job, more people get murdered by robbers than police get shot by criminals. The typical cop killer has killed or beat 10s or hundreds of regular people. You dont role out of bed and say I will cops, you start on normal people first. We are not in the UK and I don't want to be in a gunless country.


They may have a gun, for various reasons (in case of the former, tradition is a big part of it I'm sure). Whether they need one is the whole point of the debate.




Does guns deter them? Maybe it does, but quite possibly the threat could just make them more trigger happy. Pulling a trigger can be done much faster than drawing a gun, aiming and pulling the trigger, so the question is whether that gun will do you much good if the guy is determined to kill you anyway (and if not, do you really need to kill someone in self-defense?).

-Criminals do not say I will shoot someone if they pull a gun on me, usually they go in with a mindset, if he doesn't give me the money, I will shoot him, criminals. While pulling a trigger in theory can be done faster than drawing a gun this presupposes several things. 1 that the criminal will have his gun out before mine, 2 that I have no clue the criminal is coming. If I see a guy with a gun in my drive way walking to my house or bashing in my window I will have my gun faster than superman at an nra convention. 3 Even if my gun is holstered and the criminal is pointing a gun at me, he has to cock that gun and then squeeze, depending upon your skill level, I can shoot someone pointing a gun at me at point black ranger before they can squeeze a trigger, yes I am that fast and you can be too, just by going to a shooting ranger a few times a month. Its fact not fiction.

Gun control is about controling people. some people just dont want people to have guns and no statistics will satisfy them because it is not about crime it is about stoppin people from having guns so they can oppress them. No society can be free if its citizens are unarmed.

 

[bustybbwlover]

whose got big balls? seriously tho gun control is about just that, gun control nothing else. i know the us constitution includes gun ownership as a protection against the tyranny of government. some people think people having guns makes them safe, which is true if everyone has guns. if everyone has a gun people are less likely to bother other people but if one seeks to do crime with a weapon i'd guess they're assuming their target is unarmed. some people think people not having guns makes them safe, which is true if noone has guns.

 

[usmc071984]

not on my life!

 

[theskylinegtr]

Guns are heavily regulated in Australia and our gun crime is through the roof

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Guns are heavily regulated in Australia and our gun crime is through the roof

That's because, if you make it a crime for a person to have a gun, only criminals will have them. Laws only effect, the law abiding.

 

[Masterofplants]

ban

 

[theskylinegtr]

ban

Instead of banning it how about you just don't get one?

 

[smoknn]

2 funny//////////booze kills thousands a year.......wonder why they dont ban booze??....like them thugs with guns.....just gunna hand over stole guns and say heres mine...i quit:rofl::rofl2:

 

[Member2019]

2 funny//////////booze kills thousands a year.......wonder why they dont ban booze??....like them thugs with guns.....just gunna hand over stole guns and say heres mine...i quit:rofl::rofl2:

Not the first time someone else has tried to make that point.

Why I think drinking should be outlawed (tongue-in-cheek)
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=71794

I fear people who drink far more than law abiding citizens. Why? Because the former are far more commonly irresponsible. My wife and I have nearly been killed by drunk drivers no less than four (4) times now. And that's not including the number of people who I've had to deal with who were drunk and several times I was very fearful of what they'd do.

But I don't blame the booze. I blame the irresponsible idiot.