Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Moth_Monk:
snip

a few people have already said it, but I'm a be some what less subtle about it

"your not an American, you wouldn't understand"

we are despite similar languages, TOTALLY different groups of people. its kinda hard wired into every thing.

that's one reason anyway

another is, it won't change anything. you can take away guns, and as one would expect, gun crime will dip, but the crime rate it self won't change, they will just find other ways to kill people.

sides, dosen't the UK have an over all higher crime rate then the US? fix your own country before you bitch at mine

Blablahb:
Because they're, you know, illegal. That means you can't buy them without the right underworld connections and a shitload of money.

Drugs are also illegal, but very easy to obtain. Illegal ≠ difficult to obtain, or even expensive. If there's a demand for something, somebody will fill it. Like with drugs, guns aren't something you're just going to ban away in the US. There's enough of a demand that people who want guns will always have them, because they will always have a means of getting them. The question isn't whether or not they're going to get them, it's how.

Moth_Monk:

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

What a lot of non-U.S. posters don't understand is that we cannot make firearms illegal. It is almost impossible for us to do so. We have a federal amendment in the bill of rights (2nd Amendment:Right to bear arms) and for those of you who don't know what the bill of rights is, its essentially the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created because anti-federalists (Those who opposed the drafting of the Constitution because they felt it gave the Federal Government too much power) pretty much demanded it before they would vote and pass the whole constitution (Which included the Branches of government and how the process would work.) We cannot repeal amendments. We can only add in another Amendment that repeals the previous one (For example, the 21st Amendment repealed 18th Amendment) and it requires a CRAZY AMOUNT of support to pass. It would be impossible to get all the support needed to stop the 2nd Amendment, let alone one attached to such an early document of the US. So for those of you preaching for making gun ownership in the US illegal, just stop. Its not gonna happen with the way the US government works right now and if it does happen, its gonna be because we decided to stop using the Constitution, and given how many people cling to that thing likes its their mother's tit, its not gonna happen for several generations.

So can we stop beating the dead horse?

While we usually like to completely ruin and over regulate things because of a miniscule number of people who break the rules, the NRA has so many politicians in their pockets that it's simply not going to happen with guns.

Handguns can, and often are, used to not hunt, but protect one's self from dangerous animals in the US, we are a HUGE landmass that has large areas of wilderness. Bears, cougars, mountain lions, Bigfoot are ALL completely real dangers in states like Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, so on. However there are no packs of wild wolfs in Atlanta or New York, so im stressed to find a reason why someone in an urban setting would need a handgun.

Automatic weapons are another thing entirely, who NEEDS them?? You cant use them to hunt, (i know, i hunt) there entire purpose for being is to kill people. That is unless you have a real squirrel problem on your property and want to take them all out with one go.

I think the important difference is that in Britain ordinary cops don't carry guns. This is very important, because that means ordinary criminals don't carry guns either.

Why? Well, you only really need guns if your opposition is also packing guns, and if that's not the case then guns just cause problems.

-Being caught with a gun is going to get you in more trouble.
-The Police will call in the heavier stuff, it's more likely you'll get caught or even killed.
-Guns are expensive and difficult to get hold of.

So since most cops don't have guns, most criminals don't use guns either.

However, I don't think taking away cops guns in the States would solve this, you're too far gone. Not sure what would solve your gun troubles US, sorry 'bout that.

Oh look, it's this thread again with the old 'I live in the UK and blah, blah, blah, we're safer here without guns!' argument that keeps getting trotted out. Or, the 'I live in (insert European country here) and we're safer without guns!'.

I always love these arguments that get trotted out, where they talk about how people are safer in countries without guns, saying that places like the UK is safer (it's not) and that European countries have lower crime rates...

Let's ignore how these countries approach policing, let's ignore how these countries approach crime and punishment, let's ignore how these countries differ culturally, let's ignore how these countries function as societies and what historical precedents they have, let's ignore population and income, let's ignore social structure and how people live, and let's just focus on firearms (but ignore the cultural context when speaking of them, just the presence of guns and not how people in the country have interacted with guns)

That's like a real-estate agent deciding that nobody want's to see an advertised house because of the peeling paint on the window sill and ignoring the Ebola outbreak next door and the volcano erupting down the street.

Good point, also I would like to add that countries like Switzerland have a very low gun crime rate per 100,000 people compared to the U.S. and both have gun laws that allow citizen to carry firearms, and if you look at Switzerland's laws the actually require able bodied men between the age of 18 and 28 to own a gun (part of their citizen militia program). And then there is Mexico which actually has a more restrictive gun law for citizens and it's rate of homicidal incidents that involve guns is almost double the U.S.! There is such a fluctuation between the different statistics that you cannot possibly say that the only factor between these rates is the availability of weapons!

FFHAuthor:
Oh look, it's this thread again with the old 'I live in the UK and blah, blah, blah, we're safer here without guns!' argument that keeps getting trotted out. Or, the 'I live in (insert European country here) and we're safer without guns!'.

I always love these arguments that get trotted out, where they talk about how people are safer in countries without guns, saying that places like the UK is safer (it's not) and that European countries have lower crime rates...

Let's ignore how these countries approach policing, let's ignore how these countries approach crime and punishment, let's ignore how these countries differ culturally, let's ignore how these countries function as societies and what historical precedents they have, let's ignore population and income, let's ignore social structure and how people live, and let's just focus on firearms (but ignore the cultural context when speaking of them, just the presence of guns and not how people in the country have interacted with guns)

That's like a real-estate agent deciding that nobody want's to see an advertised house because of the peeling paint on the window sill and ignoring the Ebola outbreak next door and the volcano erupting down the street.

Good point, also I would like to add that countries like Switzerland have a very low gun crime rate per 100,000 people compared to the U.S. and both have gun laws that allow citizen to carry firearms, and if you look at Switzerland's laws the actually require able bodied men between the age of 18 and 28 to own a gun (part of their citizen militia program). And then there is Mexico which actually has a more restrictive gun law for citizens and it's rate of homicidal incidents that involve guns is almost double the U.S.! There is such a fluctuation between the different statistics that you cannot possibly say that the only factor between these rates is the availability of weapons!

lol, I posted twice I am such a noob...

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.)

Oh for the love of-

Switzerland has private gun ownership and a very high rate of gun ownership, but they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland

The reason for this and for countries like the UK being so low is because the gang presence is basically non-existent there.

In the US, there is horrible, horrible crime in the cities, where criminals ILLEGALLY own their guns. The only protection from these gangs are personal firearms.

People who buy their guns legally in fact, are five times less likely to commit a felony than the average citizen.

Now, as far as your personal statement that only killers would want to buy a gun, I want to buy a gun for protection from killers or robbers, who, as said above, almost definitely got their guns illegally to begin with.

If Britain had anywhere near the gang presence that the US has, Britain would be in shambles right now, or would be a much worse military-controlled police state in order to fight back against these thugs.

Edit: While I'm freaking typing out this stuff about Switzerland, I end up getting ninja'd. Damn.

chadachada123:

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.)

Oh for the love of-

Switzerland has private gun ownership and a very high rate of gun ownership, but they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland

The reason for this and for countries like the UK being so low is because the gang presence is basically non-existent there.

In the US, there is horrible, horrible crime in the cities, where criminals ILLEGALLY own their guns. The only protection from these gangs are personal firearms.

People who buy their guns legally in fact, are five times less likely to commit a felony than the average citizen.

Now, as far as your personal statement that only killers would want to buy a gun, I want to buy a gun for protection from killers or robbers, who, as said above, almost definitely got their guns illegally to begin with.

If Britain had anywhere near the gang presence that the US has, Britain would be in shambles right now, or would be a much worse military-controlled police state in order to fight back against these thugs.

Edit: While I'm freaking typing out this stuff about Switzerland, I end up getting ninja'd. Damn.

Haha sorry dude! =D
But not to mention the U.K. probably does not have problems with border control like we do. Lots of drugs, weapons and criminals are smuggled over here all the time. Not putting the blame on Mexico solely, however things have been getting worse in the southern states along the border.

Just have to say, my family has a long tradition of hunting. And even though we don't really do much (due to most of the hunters in the family getting too old), the guns we have are our link to heritage. I don't have a picture of my great grandfather, but I do have his rifle. With all this talk going, I think people are forgetting some of the other areas of the gun industry. And furthermore, even though I may never go hunting again (I am only 24, just wasn't real into it) I am still glad I know how to properly clean and handle a firearm. I want to teach my children the same, I just hope guns are demonized beyond belief by then.

marfin_:

Haha sorry dude! =D
But not to mention the U.K. probably does not have problems with border control like we do. Lots of drugs, weapons and criminals are smuggled over here all the time. Not putting the blame on Mexico solely, however things have been getting worse in the southern states along the border.

Oh most definitely. Though, my favorite point about this issue is actually this post:

orangeban:
I think the important difference is that in Britain ordinary cops don't carry guns. This is very important, because that means ordinary criminals don't carry guns either.

Why? Well, you only really need guns if your opposition is also packing guns, and if that's not the case then guns just cause problems.

-Being caught with a gun is going to get you in more trouble.
-The Police will call in the heavier stuff, it's more likely you'll get caught or even killed.
-Guns are expensive and difficult to get hold of.

So since most cops don't have guns, most criminals don't use guns either.

However, I don't think taking away cops guns in the States would solve this, you're too far gone. Not sure what would solve your gun troubles US, sorry 'bout that.

along with this:

moopig66:
Handguns can, and often are, used to not hunt, but protect one's self from dangerous animals in the US, we are a HUGE landmass that has large areas of wilderness. Bears, cougars, mountain lions, Bigfoot are ALL completely real dangers in states like Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, so on. However there are no packs of wild wolfs in Atlanta or New York, so im stressed to find a reason why someone in an urban setting would need a handgun.

I've thankfully mostly answered the last one with my own post and the quoted one.

yeti585:

Moth_Monk:
The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Guns are also used for sport. There are a lot of people who like hunting bucks with a rifle. The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

When was the last time gun ownership actually did anything for the general population's political power, out of interest? Because the place seems to be pretty messed up right now, and yet the politicians are in as secure a position as ever; there's absolutely zero chance of any violent uprising any time soon, and if there was it wouldn't help anything.

The argument of 'criminals can get them anyway' I can somewhat understand, but this one about guns acting as protection against the government is just completely outdated at this point.

Its always been as simple as this for me. There will always be crazy people. Taking the public's ability to defend itself away, presents a grave vunerability.

marfin_:

Good point, also I would like to add that countries like Switzerland have a very low gun crime rate per 100,000 people compared to the U.S. and both have gun laws that allow citizen to carry firearms, and if you look at Switzerland's laws the actually require able bodied men between the age of 18 and 28 to own a gun (part of their citizen militia program). And then there is Mexico which actually has a more restrictive gun law for citizens and it's rate of homicidal incidents that involve guns is almost double the U.S.! There is such a fluctuation between the different statistics that you cannot possibly say that the only factor between these rates is the availability of weapons!

lol, I posted twice I am such a noob...

chadachada123:

Oh for the love of-

Switzerland has private gun ownership and a very high rate of gun ownership, but they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland

The reason for this and for countries like the UK being so low is because the gang presence is basically non-existent there.

In the US, there is horrible, horrible crime in the cities, where criminals ILLEGALLY own their guns. The only protection from these gangs are personal firearms.

People who buy their guns legally in fact, are five times less likely to commit a felony than the average citizen.

Now, as far as your personal statement that only killers would want to buy a gun, I want to buy a gun for protection from killers or robbers, who, as said above, almost definitely got their guns illegally to begin with.

If Britain had anywhere near the gang presence that the US has, Britain would be in shambles right now, or would be a much worse military-controlled police state in order to fight back against these thugs.

Edit: While I'm freaking typing out this stuff about Switzerland, I end up getting ninja'd. Damn.

Both of you have excellent points about Switzerland, but I always feel that people overlook the circumstances of the 'UK has no guns and minimal crime' lie that gets trotted out. Law Enforcement is a MASSIVE part of just how those statistics are handled and European Law Enforcement is completely different than that of the US, and that's always ignored in those arguments.

People ignore the fact that Great Britian's violent crime rate Exceeded that of the US after they banned private Handgun ownership, and handgun crime increased as well. They also leave out the fact that those low crime rates in the UK came from a near tripling on government spending in Law Enforcement, Police, Courts, and Prisons. THAT is why the UK has less violent crime than the US, it could be politely termed that the UK is a Police state. People miss the fact that they use their Army for domestic security, have domestic spying agencies whose sole purpose is to spy on their citizens, and have legal traditions that include harsher sentencing, worse prison conditions, and less Civil Rights for the accused than the US. (people always forget that America is completely different from the rest of the world in many, many, MANY ways)

Every other country in Europe mirrors this to one extent or another because of how their governments came into existence. France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, pick any one of then and their Law Enforcement behavior, Government power, and Legal traditions are significantly harsher and less forgiving than the US, enlightened democracies or not. Sure, the US has a massive prison population and armed police, but set against European Law traditions and the legal systems of our friends, US Crime and Punishment is a joke in many respects.

Daystar Clarion:
Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

In a similar statement oddly enough the US is the reason for 90% of Canada's illegal firearms and almost all gun related crimes are with unregistered guns. When I found this out I thought it said a lot.

So when will the UK be outlawing knives and glass bottles? This is just from some dude's blog, but it's pertinent to the conversation (any time I bring up statistics, I always lose because someone else brings up more stats).

"based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

What is it with you people in the UK and your knife fetishism? (I'm being sarcastic.) Knife toting knife nuts everywhere. Over here in America, we aren't like that because we have strict knife control legislation. (More sarcasm.) And our books and movies don't glamorize stabbing in quite the way that yours do. (Extra sarcasm.)

I'm again reminded of a Jim Jefferies line "England is the only country in the world where the word glass is also a verb." I've never seen someone get a glass bottle to the face, but from what I understand, it's a common occurrence over in your country. (Sarcasm.) Hell, I don't even know what a glass bottle sounds like when it breaks outside of movies and video games. (Sarcasm.) Over here, we drink out of cans like the rest of the civilized world. When will you LEARN?! (Sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm.)

Seriously though, this is what people from the UK sound like when they advocate gun control.

On a more sincere note, the gun control argument falls apart on both sides. No, more guns wouldn't have saved that many people (in the theater disaster) because it was dark, crowded, chaotic, and full of kids who wouldn't be able to carry them anyways and for good reason. And no, gun control wouldn't help either because dude also brought smoke bombs with him. He might have gotten a kick out of shooting people, but he also knew how to get explosives. If he had just gone the bomb route the whole way, he could have killed way more people. Like they do, say for example, in many other parts of the "civilized world."

I believe that the man who committed those murders today bought his guns legally though...

I'm not really rebutting your sentiment... this debate is SO beyond complete understanding at the moment, I. Just. Don't. know.

chadachada123:

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.)

Oh for the love of-

Switzerland has private gun ownership and a very high rate of gun ownership, but they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland

The reason for this and for countries like the UK being so low is because the gang presence is basically non-existent there.

In the US, there is horrible, horrible crime in the cities, where criminals ILLEGALLY own their guns. The only protection from these gangs are personal firearms.

People who buy their guns legally in fact, are five times less likely to commit a felony than the average citizen.

Now, as far as your personal statement that only killers would want to buy a gun, I want to buy a gun for protection from killers or robbers, who, as said above, almost definitely got their guns illegally to begin with.

If Britain had anywhere near the gang presence that the US has, Britain would be in shambles right now, or would be a much worse military-controlled police state in order to fight back against these thugs.

Edit: While I'm freaking typing out this stuff about Switzerland, I end up getting ninja'd. Damn.

aba1:

Daystar Clarion:
Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

In a similar statement oddly enough the US is the reason for 90% of Canada's illegal firearms and almost all gun related crimes are with unregistered guns. When I found this out I thought it said a lot.

link please, sounds like some interesting data.

We have this thing called the constitution. It guarantees the right to own firearms. Some people don't like this but it is VERY hard to get the constitution amended, especially on an issue like this.

So argue all you want, this is not going to change in our lifetime.

*sigh* When will people realize that Europe is not the same as the U.S and that reading a Wikipedia article on gun control is not the same as having a lifetime of experience living in a pro-gun nation?

It's getting pretty old.

moopig66:
I believe that the man who committed those murders today bought his guns legally though...

I'm not really rebutting your sentiment... this debate is SO beyond complete understanding at the moment, I. Just. Don't. know.

Oh, whoops, I had meant that whole post for the majority of gun crimes, the gang-member stuff, and not the mass-killer stuff.

I imagine this is going to be a long, longgg couple of weeks of arguing about guns, we best get used to it now, heh.

marfin_:

aba1:

Daystar Clarion:
Blightly is an island.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

In a similar statement oddly enough the US is the reason for 90% of Canada's illegal firearms and almost all gun related crimes are with unregistered guns. When I found this out I thought it said a lot.

link please, sounds like some interesting data.

Didn't get the information from the net I saw it on the CTV news as a statement from police because they were discussing potential ways to try and improve security at the borders to eliminate illegal gun trafficking.

Wish I had a link I would love to see more detailed statistic myself to be honest.

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

This. 100% this.

I always find it fascinating how it seems most people from the UK or Australia or any other country think they are right because their population has less gun crimes than americans. Little do they know that their population is quite smaller than ours.

Froggy Slayer:
Oh dear lord this thread again.....

I'm going to say that I'm in support of greater gun control laws in America, but not necessarily against gun ownership. What I think is that people should probably get psychologically checked before they're allowed to handle a weapon. And don't tell me about the whole 'right to bear arms thing'. That was from a different era when it was basically a necessity.

Stricter gun control would be nice. But, like you, I believe that an outright ban of gun ownership would be out of the question in the case of the U.S. And yes, part of that is the Constitutional Right to bear arms.

True, it was much more of a necessity than it is now, by far. But, home defense is much less dicey when those defending their home have a firearm that they know how to use responsibly.

...Of course, it would also help should we get invaded by a foreign country, or if there's a zombie apocalypse, among other things. Name a doomsday scenario, and I doubt there there wouldn't be SOME way that having a gun wouldn't help you. Barter, self-defense, you name it, it may help in a end-of-the-world situation.

TopazFusion:
So gun control is the next hot topic in the rotation huh? (After gender politics, feminism, and rape)

Well, in that case . . .

EVERYONE ...

image

...

OT: Different culture, attitudes, and values.

Fantastic use of that pic

OT: Well OP, I want guns in case I want to shoot my government for being dicks. Since you're not from America, you already know how shitty our government's foreign policies are. Those are the same people that the US citizens need to be afraid of.

Now, I don't own any guns, and I don't plan of shooting any dicks, but I'm just defending the right to do that. It's the last failsafe built by our founding fathers, and it needs to stay there, whether we think it's a good idea to use it or not.

Moth_Monk:
I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US.

How's your not-gun crime? I'd rather be shot than beaten to death with a cricket bat.

Personally, I don't care much either way about gun legislation. On the one hand, people who want to hurt each other will always always ALWAYS find a way, so taking away one tool is pointless. No gun on earth is as dangerous as a station wagon. On the other hand, the actual REASON people having guns was important to the founding fathers wasn't to point at thieves, but to point at the government... but that's kind of a moot point in a world where tanks and helicopters exist.

Lets putit simply. First off the idiot will just whine and complain continuously. And the conspiricy nuts andwaht has already been said. But our main fact is in fct more cultural, our country was made by the gun, we had a very violent upbringing and growing up as well. But i am pro gun control, i say more haresher peneltys and stricter control of illegal mods. I live in colorado by the way, the place that go thte shooting.

We need better phyco tests now >_>

I don't want to comment on the actual topic since a) I don't have a strong stance though I'm on the general side of letting us have our guns if we want within reason (whatever that means) and b) there's the obvious different cultures are different thing.

BUT, I do want to point out the silliness of saying there's less gun crime in a place where people don't have (as many) guns. Well duh. Is there less crime in general though? That statistic is just a bit more important if you really want to have a serious discussion about gun control.

I'd imagine there are less grizzly bear attacks in Texas than <whatever state they are common>. Is that evidence that we should start hunting grizzly bears? (I'm aware it's a shaky analogy, but it's an amusing one)

Dearming the U.S. is simply impossible. We have too many guns to collect from the owners and keep track of.And where would all the compensation money come from. Don't know about you but I want cash for every bullet and every firearm. So, tax credits aint going to cut it. Also, thats assuming everyone is simply willing to give up their arms.

cotss2012:
Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

LOL WTF?!?!

So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.

I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.

How about the sheer size of our nation?

Do you think mexico could or would regulate its border in its entirety? Do you think we could regulate the mexican border? every square inch of it and etc, lots of guns in south america, and they already ship enough drugs into the USA that guns would be no issue to add to the list, if it became lucrative enough.

Canada would be better about it but we have an much larger border with them, and crime gangs already have drug trafficking lanes from there to here, guns are much rarer but if the price is right it would be worked around.

And lets not forget our massive coastlines east and west and gulf, often used by traffickers to move product and people into our nation.

So how in the name of heaven could we secure our borders near well enough to make and kind of full out gun control work exactly? Lets add the money cost to build a fence along the southern border state i forget the price tag, but it was enough that it was never seriously considered, add on top it people seemed to have no problem digging under or going over any walls they put up anyway.

I dunno what the figures would be but i bet it would be near enough to double our national debt, to secure all those borders, to get all those guns off the streets, and the all the violence and arrests that would insure if anyone started coming into americans houses and demand they give up their guns.

Bottom line it is simply too damn expensive and our cultural history of living under a oppressive government that over taxed us, tried to take away our guns, put restrictions on what you could say and where you could speak. makes us far more distrustful of government, we did fight a full on war to gain our independence.

Add to that that our modern day federal government acts much like the kings of old, limiting our freedoms more and more each passing decade, spending us into the poorhouse, when you can tax every man woman and child 100% for 10 years and not pay off the national debt we have racked up, so yea alot of americans would take offense if the feds or anyone tried to pull anything.

Well on the one hand it's in our constitution...

On the other hand... guns are dangerous... and they're the cause of much more havoc and destruction than they can possibly make up for in self defense and generally positive stuff... honestly there is pretty much no situation that won't be made worse if everyone involved owned a gun... despite how much gun nuts like to talk up how they're taking away our ability to defend ourselves, it does little more than, in most cases, lower the casualty rate... the average citizen with a gun is no rambo and would only serve to stir up confusion and get himself killed in the grand scheme of things, whether by the police incapable of differentiating between the actual perpetrator and the guy with a gun or even possibly by someone completely unrelated...

My point is that the average American is a fickle and stupid beast, who left to his own devices with a weapon, of such magnitudes, would only serve to hurt himself or someone else, whether intentionally or not...<.<

As far as self defense arms are concerned... hunting arms... it's really a different conversation... and believe it or not I don't want to take away peoples guns... I would prefer to live in a country where everyone has enough confidence in their safety and enough trust in the general population for their not to be a need for guns... though this is 'Merica, so that won't happen...<.<

Oh shit new page, shits gettin real...<.<

I'm Canadian and our gun laws are very strict. I can't even import a fucking airsoft gun into Canada without customs seizing it. Yet I can buy full metal airsoft guns the resemble the actual thing in a store in Toronto.

As a Canadian, my stance on guns is this: There needs to be regulation, but not necessarily bans. The reason is that people who intend to do bad things or break the law, will do so regardless of Anti gun laws or gun bans. Law breakers break the law, simple. Now I agree with the US laws regarding concealed firearm permits in the sense that honest people will get them. The more honest people walking around with a concealed gun, it acts as a deterrent to criminals because you never know who has a gun.

I understand that nations such as Canada and the UK have strict laws regarding weapons, but part of it may have to do with culture as well. I don't mean to generalize, but the attitude regarding guns in Canada and the UK are totally different compared to the US which may contribute to the lower statistics in gun related deaths in the UK vs America.

I realize that these laws aren't entirely effective as shootings still occur in both the UK and Canada, but they shouldn't be so easily obtainable either. Just look at the recent shooting during the Batman midnight release that only happened a day ago. The dude bought thousands of rounds off the internet and three rather large weapons all in the span on a couple months.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked