Question for people Pro-guns....

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

Techno Squidgy:
Who on earth needs an automatic weapon beyond the military?

The Assault Weapons Ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons. Well, unless they also happened to be assault weapons. But the two are defined individually, so a gun can be one, both or neither.

While not strictly illegal, automatic weapons are HEAVILY restricted. The FAWB didn't change that, nor did its expiration stop that.

Anyway, more to the point, the ban was unsuccessful because of a common mentality within America: If it doesn't work perfectly, scrap it. Rather than revising the law, they used its failue to stop EVERY crime as a reason to let it expire.

Drugs are illegal.
Therefore, only criminals have drugs.
If guns become illegal in America, then only criminals have guns. I know it works in some countries, but I don't really see it as viable here. Unless you have some way to monitor EVERY box that moves into the country, guns will be in the country. All that gun legislation does is determine if only criminals will own guns, or if both criminals and citizens will own guns.

Also, guns aren't just for shooting other people. I live in a rural area of California. We get wild boars here. For those of you who don't know, wild boars grow to be 150+ pounds (about the weight of an adult human). They're agressive, highly territorial, and an invasive species. Their form of foraging rips up the landscape and habitats of other animals. While some animals will prey on their young, the full grown boar has no predators whatsoever. Did I mention they reproduce fast? It only takes about 8 years or so for wild boars to number in the hundreds in an area which used to have none. A gun is the only way to control their population. There is nowhere to cart them. Tranquilizer darts will knock them out, true, but they're slow. A drugged boar still has more than enough time to charge and gouge a man before it succumbs.

There are other wild animals that can be a problem as well. Cougar or wolf attacks on humans are very rare. However, once one of these larger predators preys on a human, it recognizes humans as a viable food source. If it has offspring, it will teach those offspring to prey on humans as well. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that predators which have preyed on a human are killed immediately.

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

Yep, it's too late now to make them illegal and expect it to do anything good. Only thing you can do is restrict their use and try to get them out of the hands of criminals.

yeah you do that Britain. I'll keep my guns so that when some idiot gets a machete I dont have to stand around nad watch for six hours in terror while the police have to stand around using ineefective mace, tasers and batons.

Im going to suspect this is cause of the latest colorado massacre. now, looking at CO, maybe they should get a state ban on them since their citizens dont seem to understand responsibility. but for the other 49 states, guns arent really the great evil people make them to be. and besides, it was britain that started the whole we need guns thing.

Almost all crime committed in the U.S. with or through the use of a firearm is done so with illegal and unregistered guns--weapons obtained via illicit channels and held without formal right.

The United States doesn't have a gun problem. It has a people problem.

matrix3509:
Yes because criminal really care about doing illegal things. I'm just going to assume you are being intentionally disingenuous here, its better for my own sanity that way. The fact here which you so willfully ignored is that if a criminal wants a gun badly enough a law isn't going to stop them. That you think criminals only care about money is as ludicrous as it is false.

How does this adress the blunt fact that gun bans prevent criminals from getting guns?

I was writing a tl dr post replying to half a dozen people in this thread based on my experiences with certain countries mentioned in this thread (uk, france, mexico, switzerland) and then I realized how pointless it was, each country having its particular circumstances and the population acting in a different way, and the futility of trying to communicate personal experience to people who are in sarcasm defence mode and don't want to consider world is more complex then they think, especially in regard to certain countries (if you're using mexico or france or heck even switzerland to argue for or against gun control, you don't understand those countries or why gun control/non gun control works/doesnt work/ in those countries).

I'll just answer one guy as i feel there is opportunity to exchange views without being confrontational.

Omechron:

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

I'd rather face knives and baseball bats then guns any time tbh :)
From where I stand i have trouble understanding why people present the melee weapons that need the agressor to get in close and do the deed himself as worst then the impersonal ranged weapon where you can kill people simply by squeezing a trigger. Maybe because in my view i'm always unarmed so if anyone has a gun it will be the one trying to mug me, whereas americans here imagine themselves armed and loaded?

The topic of gun control does come out quite a bit with every spree shooting, as do many of the arguments. According to some statistics guns are dangerous.[1] Our crime rate with guns in the US is ridiculously high compared to that of the rest of the industrialized world (even those with rampant private gun ownership). It's all true.

And yeah, there's a lot of common counter arguments: guns have uses too, especially against vermin and hungry megafauna, that the police are short staffed, that our government gets rambunctious when they're not nervous about someone trying to shoot them out of spite. That there's a gun culture, and changing that would be a problem. Indeed, the United States has had a frontier most of its existence, and that has given us an individualist culture. We still have plenty of rural and downright wild areas and our institutionalized hazard control services cannot possibly cover all occasions.

Myself, I'd even go on to argue that not only do we not have enough police to intercept crime (or even carry all cases through the justice system), but recent events regarding phone cameras, regarding child-run lemonade stands, regarding the arrests of spontaneous dancers, regarding the Occupy raids and, heck, regarding the Megaupload arrests have made it clear that the police are not (necessarily) our friends. They segregate themselves from us civilians, and are more interested in throwing people in jail than seeing justice done, and they go where they are directed by lobby-controlled administrators, not where they are necessarily needed. So, for now, it appears the long arm of the law is hedging towards the service of tyrants than of the people.

But all this is moot when it comes to gun control, because the whole reason we would restrict access to firearms is to allegedly protect us from ourselves. And people not only need to engage in dangerous activities for the purposes of industry (agrarian or otherwise), but we also like to engage in dangerous activities. Perhaps crazy, perhaps stupid, but definitely thrillseekers, we jump out of airplanes, and go undersea deep enough that we have to depressurize for weeks. We climb rocks and go to parts of the world where we have no business being. Just to see it. Just to be there. And sometimes we like to appreciate the instruments of warfare and lob some artillery at some old wrecked cars.

The question eventually has to be raised: What is the determining factor that that makes one dangerous thing acceptable, and another dangerous thing not? The ability to kill others? Then cars would be outlawed, as they cause more death and injury per capita, per car or per owner (however you want to measure it). Intent of a device? Well then you start getting into thought crime, and this logic breaks down comes when civilian weapons are more effective despite their multipurpose nature (better range, do more damage, more accurate), than military ones.[2] We can't regulate things just because someone thinks their existence is evil, otherwise a lot of fringe culture, from AD&D to Rock & Roll to Pogo dancing to video games become subject to regulation because someone finds it distasteful and thinks our kids will be corrupted under its influence.

Incidents such as the 2012 Aurora shooting represents one of the costs of our liberty, namely that we have to endure (and be terrified by) the occasional dramatic trajedy. People do run amok, and they do so worldwide, and when they do, they sometimes get hold of dangerous equipment and kill a lot of people. But regulating guns won't stop this. and it is impossible to regulate enough to stop someone determined to do a lot of damage.

The sad truth is, the US has reacted to events with overregulation, are now suffering the consequences of having done so. Having not endured war in our homeland (not since the era of mechanized warfare, at least) we haven't been able to take terrorist attacks in stride the way it often is in Europe. In the meantime, just as the victims of the 9/11 attacks were hardly a blip in the statistical safety records of airlines, the Aurora cinema shooting will hardly be an anomaly in the violent crime statistics in the United States, the highest rates are due to domestic incidents and gang warfare. And if you're truly looking to save lives (rather than react to the most recent drama), heart disease, cancer, respiratory illness and strokes are killing us far, far more than bullets.

238U

[1] The chances of a handgun killing its owner is twice as much as the chances of it killing an assailant. (The chances of it doing either is fairly remote. Most families with handguns survive without incident.)
[2] An assault rifle is actually a downgrade of a battle rifle in that it uses bullets that feature a smaller powder charge, changed on the statistical observation that most action was at 30 yards or less anyway. Less powder per bullet meant that more ammo could be carried per soldier. Battle rifles such as the M14 are still used by designated marksmen for that intermediate range between ordinary riflemen and snipers.

I'm a pro gun, and the why is easy.
I live in a violent country where virtually any criminal can get hold of a firearm for less than a minimum wage, i know so because some friends of mine are involved with traffic and even tried to sell me some guns after hearing i want one (they didn't quite understand i want a LEGAL one).

I believe that an armed population is a great deterrent against crime, look at the difference between brazil and the U.S.

Compare the crime rates between the U.S.'s armed population and brazil's bunch of sheeps (unarmed population) and you'll see what i mean.

If you were a criminal would you try robbing a mall knowing the odds are a dozen people are carrying guns with them and will use them if they feel endangered?

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.

I'd like to see this claim backed up, because I'm fairly certain US rates of both gun crimes and "other" crimes are higher per capita than any other country in the developed world.

edit: for the record, I'm fairly certain the numbers I've seen indicate that there's no clear relation between gun accessibility and crime rates, neither in a positive and negative direction. I'd still be for increased gun regulation in the states, but that's primarily to avoid accidents from improper handling of the weapon.

Jean Hag:
If you were a criminal would you try robbing a mall knowing the odds are a dozen people are carrying guns with them and will use them if they feel endangered?

Criminals don't rob malls in the US, they just go in and shoot everyone up indiscriminately.

Those are madman, not even criminals. You can't stop someone from perpetrating a massacre if he so desires.

And we have them too.

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

Blablahb:

matrix3509:
Yes because criminal really care about doing illegal things. I'm just going to assume you are being intentionally disingenuous here, its better for my own sanity that way. The fact here which you so willfully ignored is that if a criminal wants a gun badly enough a law isn't going to stop them. That you think criminals only care about money is as ludicrous as it is false.

How does this adress the blunt fact that gun bans prevent criminals from getting guns?

A gun ban isn't going to stop all criminals from getting guns. If someone wants a gun bad enough they are going to find a way to obtain one.

its funny. on one hand i run a website devoted to military history including weapon manuals. on the other i dont see the point of anyone outside of a shooting range, farmers, police or miltary having weapons.

i dont even touch the gun control debate in the usa, those guys have so many weapons and they are so easy for anyone to get, along with the gun culture that i tend to write the USA off as a lost cause and hold it up as an example of how not to do things

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.

Neither have I and I live in America.

Moth_Monk:

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?

If you honestly want an answer then don't be so condescending, otherwise don't bother trolling us.

Anyway, making something illegal doesn't make them impossible to get so there will always be some criminals with guns. You may need to defend yourself from them. There are other reasons too but I honestly doubt you're interested in hearing them.

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.

Thinking guns should be legal and thinking they are needed are not one in the same. You can own and use guns without hurting other people.

Scrustle:
I don't really want to get in to a debate about guns. I've already done that on this site and it was a complete waste of time. I just want to point out to people that there is a difference between legalising guns in a country that's not used to them, and banning guns in a country that is.

But the main reason I posted here was to say that gif is both awesome and hilarious.

Best response to this type of thread. Give this guy a cookie!

TheNamlessGuy:

Nantucket:
Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

Take this scenario:

Say you track this big buck to the outskirts of town, and you find that he as made himself a makeshift home in an abandoned warehouse. With a handgun you could easily sneak up on him and get a deathshot! That way he won't be running around with your daughter any more and filling up her head with ridiculous ideas and corrupting her character!

OT: Who gives a crap, it's not like the US government would change it.
Hell, I live in Sweden and even I know the president would get thrown out because of the second amendment.

There's a joke in there somewhere but I just don't see it. Game shooting is shooting from afar with a shotgun and then taking it home to eat. There's nothing better than roast hare. :3 I want to go hunting now....

And let King George come into my house and push me around? Not likely!

Hazy992:
The US and the UK are two very different places. America has a large gun culture and has always had access to them so the argument that 'if we outlaw guns only the criminals will have them' makes sense there. Everyone has guns, you suddenly try take them away and only the people who have them are those who are ignoring the law anyway.

The UK however has almost no gun culture. Hardly anybody has a gun in this country and if we suddenly had access to them we wouldn't know what we were doing and it could get pretty dangerous. Gun control makes sense for the UK.

In short what I'm saying is what works for the UK doesn't necessarily work for the US and vice versa.

This. This is the only answer to this topic.

The USA, to a degree, relies on guns and therefore needs them to keep the status-quo. Not to mention that it would be harder to regulate strict gun-control when the place boarders countries that do not.

In the UK, however, the sudden introduction of something we have previously demonised and have learned to fear will upset the balance. People who live in rough areas will start arming themselves to the teeth in fear of the new surge of 'baddies with guns' and getting twitchy about it.

Two different countries, two different cultures: that's why Canada is armed to the teeth and yet has less gun-related crime than the similarly-packing USA.

When people argue against assault rifles, as an example, 'because they aren't necessary for hunting' - its a straw man argument. Hunting was never the reason for the second amendment.

America was a country that had to earn its independence. Early americans wanted to preserve the right to form militia, or to defend oneself from hostiles (who themselves might have access to guns), or from invaders, or from their own government. You know - the people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people.

Making guns illegal is all fine, until the day a tyrant gets hold of your government and turns such forces as the police force/military into enforcers of said tyranny. Hopefully you'll never need to use your right to bear arms to throw off a tyrant. Or if someone w/a fascist bent manages to get elected in your country (whatever that may be) the fact that you and all the other citizens are armed - will certainly limit how far he'll be able to go while he remains in control.

besides, guns are very simple low-tech devices, you could make one in your garage w/completely legal machines/materials. Certaintly not on par w/modernized military special weapons, but they'd do the job. Making them illegal would no more get rid of them than making meth illegal does, unless you could also get rid of the *demand* for them so no one felt it was worthwhile to produce them.

Look at how some of the martial arts were born, when weapon ownership was made illegal for the peasants, so they created fighting styles that turned their farm implements into equally as deadly weapons as the ones they weren't allowed to own.

All I have to say on the matter.

TheNamlessGuy:

Nantucket:
Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

Take this scenario:

Say you track this big buck to the outskirts of town, and you find that he as made himself a makeshift home in an abandoned warehouse. With a handgun you could easily sneak up on him and get a deathshot! That way he won't be running around with your daughter any more and filling up her head with ridiculous ideas and corrupting her character!

OT: Who gives a crap, it's not like the US government would change it.
Hell, I live in Sweden and even I know the president would get thrown out because of the second amendment.

Hahahaha! I love that video!

Well, I'm all about guns. People are evil and will use anything to kill others. I feel like our right to bear arms is more important than the presumed safety of eliminating guns. But hey, who's asking me.

The reason that the Second Amendment exists is because governments are afraid of an armed populace. While gun control does not necessarily immediately precede dictatorships, it's no surprise that pretty much every dictatorship that has ever existed has had laws to prevent its people from getting their hands on weapons.

Why must people keep talking about assault rifles? The US banned registration of new assault rifles in May 1986, though anything previously registered is fine.

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

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you're going to make a thread about this issue, at least get the basic points of your opening post right.

Guns are not illegal here in the UK. Its amazing how many people think that, and its really fucking annoying.

Handguns and semi-automatic and automatic rifles are illegal. Anything else is fine, providing you have the correct license. For example, shotguns of any kind, hunting rifles, or single shot military rifles. All ok.

Special police units are armed with handguns and SMGs or even rifles. Ever been to an airport?

Nantucket:
Um... as somebody from the UK I have to say guns are not outright illegal.
Pheasant hunting is still a popular sport and guns are required obviously.

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

Yay! at least somebody realises! :P

This topic has been done to death time and time again. I'll just say that as a UK gun owner I support our restrictions, as I too see no reason to own handguns or automatic rifles. Here we have the guns we need, and nothing more.

Shotguns for game sports or clay shooting, and rifles for deer etc. Everything else is a bit over the top.

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.

I'm not sure it's that they can't get them, it's limiting the channels through which they can be obtained. A lot of would be criminals might be turn off guns completely if they're difficult to obtain. Plus limiting guns limits the ease of killing someone, no ones ever heard of a mass knifing before. All I'm saying is that if you took it away, there would be less death and a smaller percentage of the population running around with the weapon, it wouldn't get rid of it completely, but the numbers would go down.

Qouted from SmegInThePants

Making guns illegal is all fine, until the day a tyrant gets hold of your government and turns such forces as the police force/military into enforcers of said tyranny. Hopefully you'll never need to use your right to bear arms to throw off a tyrant. Or if someone w/a fascist bent manages to get elected in your country (whatever that may be) the fact that you and all the other citizens are armed - will certainly limit how far he'll be able to go while he remains in control.

......*looks at David Cameron*....hmmmm

Being a resident in the UK means i aint never seen a real firearm in my life and i would prefer to keep it that way. What really pisses me off is in the UK you can't really defend yourself, your family or your home from burglers not even with the fists you were granted at birth. Momment you do you get arrested and have to do time because they cried "UMAN RIGHTZ!! LOLZ!!" You see in the UK the burglers have more rights then the normal law abiding person.

I would prefer it to be. You enter my house uninvited with intent to harm me, my family or steal my stuff. Your rights are now forfeit if you get hurt thats your own bloody fault shouldn't be breaking into peoples homes in the first place then should you? Side note- Doen't help matters that alot of the police in my town are fresh out of school lolis with fuckall muscle...thats my towns protection?..*facepalm* No wonder crime rate in my town isn't too pleasant nowadays.

SmegInThePants:
When people argue against assault rifles, as an example, 'because they aren't necessary for hunting' - its a straw man argument. Hunting was never the reason for the second amendment.

America was a country that had to earn its independence. Early americans wanted to preserve the right to form militia, or to defend oneself from hostiles (who themselves might have access to guns), or from invaders, or from their own government. You know - the people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people.

Making guns illegal is all fine, until the day a tyrant gets hold of your government and turns such forces as the police force/military into enforcers of said tyranny. Hopefully you'll never need to use your right to bear arms to throw off a tyrant. Or if someone w/a fascist bent manages to get elected in your country (whatever that may be) the fact that you and all the other citizens are armed - will certainly limit how far he'll be able to go while he remains in control.

besides, guns are very simple low-tech devices, you could make one in your garage w/completely legal machines/materials. Certaintly not on par w/modernized military special weapons, but they'd do the job. Making them illegal would no more get rid of them than making meth illegal does, unless you could also get rid of the *demand* for them so no one felt it was worthwhile to produce them.

Look at how some of the martial arts were born, when weapon ownership was made illegal for the peasants, so they created fighting styles that turned their farm implements into equally as deadly weapons as the ones they weren't allowed to own.

What you have said is just silly, there is no fucking way a tyrannical dictator would ever come to control the united states, let alone turn the armed forces against it's civilian population. The right to bear arms, died when America became a global superpower. Don't be a fucking idiot and delude yourself into believing that something like that will ever happen. Your army is there to protect you against outside threats and that's all you need, it'll be a cold cold day when a dictator ever comes to control the united states and a reason for the stupid right to bears arms is ever relevant again.

Ragetrain:

Being a resident in the UK means i aint never seen a real firearm in my life and i would prefer to keep it that way. What really pisses me off is in the UK you can't really defend yourself, your family or your home from burglers not even with the fists you were granted at birth. Momment you do you get arrested and have to do time because they cried "UMAN RIGHTZ!! LOLZ!!" You see in the UK the burglers have more rights then the normal law abiding person.

The Coalition Government is fighting hard to have a bill pushed through that will give you more rights to defend your home. I believe the bill went along the lines of: If you have a shotgun you can point it at the person but you are not allowed to shoot unless you are physically threatened with a lethal object.

To be honest, if you've got a gun in the first place then you're experienced and a hunter therefore hopefully cool under pressure so there is a small chance of shooting the burglar. I doubt somebody would fight back too much if they're staring down the barrel of a gun anyway.

You're also allowed to physically attack the person if they threaten you but you are not allowed to kill them.

I'm not sure how far this bill has gotten or if it has been thrown out of parliament. The case that supported this was turned into a shambles due to the fact the farmer who killed the burglar had the biggest Weed farm in the country lol.

Wadders:
Handguns and semi-automatic and automatic rifles are illegal.

I don't know the particulars of UK firearms legislation, but this has to be wrong, or there's a regional difference between NI and the rest of the UK. We have a semi-automatic rifle and 2 handguns (1 semi-auto, 1 revolver) all very legally owned.

A higher percentage of people in Switzerland own guns then in the US, and they have lower Gun crime then the UK. There are things you're not taking into account when it comes to crime in the US. Higher diversity tends to lead to more violent crime, cultural tensions and all that. We're also on the border of Mexico and drug trafficking means that like it or not we get caught up in the Drug War.

So yeah, in terms of situation we're far to different to really compare if you want an accurate depiction of what gun availability leads to. Better off comparing the UK to Finland or Switzerland. And as others have noted, you should be comparing violent crime, or deaths from violent crime, not just gun crime.

ReadyAmyFire:

Wadders:
Handguns and semi-automatic and automatic rifles are illegal.

I don't know the particulars of UK firearms legislation, but this has to be wrong, or there's a regional difference between NI and the rest of the UK. We have a semi-automatic rifle and 2 handguns (1 semi-auto, 1 revolver) all very legally owned.

Forgive my ignorance here as my knowledge regarding Northern Ireland legislation is rubbish.
But - doesn't NI deal with the IRA on quite a regular basis? Perhaps the safety of residences due this organisation has impacted your gun laws?

I think the idea that "people are killing each other with guns, so we should ban guns" is really missing the point. A gun is a means to an end. You have a people problem that you have to deal with. Incidentally, a gun is a perfect tool for that.

cerebus23:

MrHide-Patten:
Frankly as Dylan Moran once quiped: "Oh no, how could this have happened? Well you've all got guns... and tehy do have a limited number of houshold uses."

But as an Aussie I don't think making them illegal will help the yanks, because then only criminials with the resources will be able to get them, as they do in Aus. Frankly Mankind was buggered when he designed the thing.

Wish i lived in samurai times honestly, before guns had any part in combat.

OT Reminds me i want to rally for a sandbox samurai rpg/mod think that would be something nice to see. well other than counting that mod for mount and blade.

I like my technology too much to be in the past at any one time. Actually I think thats the only senario that a gun would be useful. Travel back in time, conqure the earth.

farson135:
How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?

Wild pigs in the US- 4,000,000
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313597.pdf
Wild pigs in Australia- 23,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3308375/Australia-has-more-wild-pigs-than-humans.html

Wild pigs already do billions of dollars in damage every year in the US and we hunters are the only thing that actually prevents them from taking over like they have in Australia (and that is not the only species that is breeding out of control in Australia). In addition to that is just general pest control.

Or how about because we still have dangerous (not just annoying) animals in the US like wild bear- http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

Or how about because we feel the need to protect ourselves? A friend of mine lives on the border, you can literally see the border from his home (or at least the place where the sign that is supposed to mark the border is). Drug runners regularly use his property to smuggle drugs in. If he called the police it would take them 20 minutes or better to get to him. Do you think it is a good idea for him to be disarmed? And before anyone says it, he cannot move, his grandparents bought the property, he cannot afford to purchase a new home, and no one in their right minds would buy that property. Then you have a friend of mine who was raped. She carries a gun on her because she doesn't want it to happen again. And of course you have incidents like this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31416285/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There are other things but let us focus on the economics for a moment.

The basic fact is that attacking the gun industry is harmful to the world's economy. You may not realize this but your police force and military practices with ammunition. That ammunition is cheap because the US produces a tons of it and exports. Either practice goes down or costs go up.

Plus, you are talking about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. You have gun shop owners, ammunition manufacturers (both large companies and small businesses), unrefined resource providers, military contractors, etc. Where do you think the materials to make these firearms and ammunition come from? What about all of the leather used in holsters? Where do you think the computer chips used in gun owners tech comes from? And on.

Your attack on the gun industry would send shock waves throughout the entire economy. There is no major part of the US and world economy that is not somehow connected to the firearms industry. How many ranchers are going to lose money when the demand for leather goes down? How many businesses built around firearms companies are going to survive if the largest business in the area goes under? How many mining companies are going to feel the effects of a fall in the brass market? How many ranges are going to go under and thereby force Police Departments to build actual ranges and how much money will that cost? Etc.

Then, in addition to that, you are going to have to get rid of the firearms somehow. Ignoring the how for a moment, let us instead focus on the cost to do that. First you are going to destroy hundreds of multimillion dollar businesses directly unless you pay them off (lots of money there). Then you have the 80 million gun owners in the US. If ever gun owner owns $300 in guns and firearms accessories that equals $24,000,000,000 you have to pay them (unless you are just going to take the guns and say fuck you to every gun owner). Of course that number is vastly underestimated. I myself own several thousand dollars in firearms and accessories and I am rather young. Plus, most bolt action rifles cost over $300, most semis cost over $600, and most pistols cost over $400.

In other words, firearms are necessary in the US and it would cause a huge harm to get rid of them. Not to mention the basic fact that it is impossible to get rid of them. 300,000,000 guns do not just disappear because you want them to (not to mention all of the guns outside of the US and all of the illegal guns).

BTW guns are not illegal in the UK, just heavily regulated.

I just find it a shame that a society has become so heavily reliant on an object which sole purpose is to kill other things. So much money pumped into an industry that could be put better use else where which could help further the human race or cure world wide problems.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked