Things besides guns we should ban to give ourselves the delusion of safety

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Well, for one thing, we should find a way to make sure the U.S stops making our (Canada) crappy "artists" popular. Carly Rae Jepsen, Justin Bieber, Nickelback, Céline Dion comes from Canada...and they got popular. Thanks guys

Ultratwinkie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jul/13/mexico-drug-smuggling-tunnels-video

They exist. They are mainly used to sell drugs but they can be used to smuggle anything.

When the smugglers you are up against are willing and able to use underground tunnels. You are pretty much fucked.

Also, legalizing pot won't do anything. Cartels are so entrenched the time of "weakening them" is long gone... by decades.

They are so entrenched that they have infinite resources and manpower? Unlikely, to say the least. Its just going to take longer, the rest of the drugs arent sold enough to sustain their "empire"... when a massive body cannot fuel itself it collapses into itself, just take away the majority of their fuel and if they do not immediately begin to downsize they will collapse.

Kinguendo:

Ultratwinkie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jul/13/mexico-drug-smuggling-tunnels-video

They exist. They are mainly used to sell drugs but they can be used to smuggle anything.

When the smugglers you are up against are willing and able to use underground tunnels. You are pretty much fucked.

Also, legalizing pot won't do anything. Cartels are so entrenched the time of "weakening them" is long gone... by decades.

They are so entrenched that they have infinite resources and manpower? Unlikely, to say the least. Its just going to take longer, the rest of the drugs arent sold enough to sustain their "empire"... when a massive body cannot fuel itself it collapses into itself, just take away the majority of their fuel and if they do not immediately begin to downsize they will collapse.

Except America smokes more than just pot. You also have Cocaine, which some cartels are built on.

Its more than just one cartel, there are many. Not all of them are pot dealers, because there is more than one drug. Sure you may take down the smaller cartels, but the small ones never mattered. It won't effect the big ones, who have their hands in more than just one trade.

And some have military training and weapons. Which means normal police can't even touch them.

As I said, the time when we could weaken the cartels is long over.

Anyone who doesn't support gun control is willfully blind. The facts about gun violence in countries that do have gun control should be the end of the argument.

Unfortunately for American citizens, they have been brainwashed into believing they have a right to own guns free of interference or regulation. This brainwashing is due to a misunderstanding of their own constitution, promulgated by a very strong pro-gun lobby and a whole lot of gun-loving citizens.

Also unfortunately for Americans, guns are so widespread now that any attempt to get them under control would be futile.

It's sad, really, to see a civilized country actively support such an uncivilized position.

Let's see...

Disease
Death
Life-threatening defects

Yeah, that's about it.
In fact, kill anything that ever does anything!

Kanatatsu:
Anyone who doesn't support gun control is willfully blind. The facts about gun violence in countries that do have gun control should be the end of the argument.

Unfortunately for American citizens, they have been brainwashed into believing they have a right to own guns free of interference or regulation. This brainwashing is due to a misunderstanding of their own constitution, promulgated by a very strong pro-gun lobby and a whole lot of gun-loving citizens.

Also unfortunately for Americans, guns are so widespread now that any attempt to get them under control would be futile.

It's sad, really, to see a civilized country actively support such an uncivilized position.

The thing is the gun control lobby are the same idiots as the pro-gun lobby.

Both of them have no idea on anything.

The gun control lobby drafts up all these laws that get circumvented on day one because they didn't word it properly or didn't understand what they were talking about.

The main issue on gun control is the polarization and adherence to party ideology. If we didn't have dogmatic ideology, people would be able to draft effective gun control without resorting to a "what would democratic/republican jesus do" mentality.

Both parties have no basis in reality anymore. They resemble more fundamentalist religions than anything else. America would be better off if both of the parties disappeared.

Unfortunately, that seems like it won't happen in my lifetime and Americans are stuck with the pseudo-religious political parties.

Jonluw:
Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug.
The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.

However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.

Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.
The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them.
I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that.
Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort.
Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.

No, guns aren't really necessary in a civilized society, but we don't live in a civilized society, even the most acculturated of us are only savages in nice clothes. Gun control does not correlate with lower crime, take England, that place has such a hard-on for gun control that the cops don't even have sidearms, yet those fidgety Brits are always bursting at the seams for a good old fashioned riot, not exactly detrimental to the U.K. having the second highest crime rate in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, Norway has one of the most, if not the most lenient gun laws in Europe, there is an estimated 500,000 unregistered shotgun count in that frozen nation, as it is considered an "over the counter" item. Yet, the number of deaths by firearm in 2009 was so small, I could write short biographies on each one and be done before Sunday. The homicide rate was only 31 in 2010, I piss off more people than that in an hour and a half. Clearly guns do not automatically mean everyone and their grandma is leaning out a car window mowing down mailmen and girl scouts, although it doesn't mean that a world where everyone is packing heat is ideal or realistic. Gun control, in excess is a flawed idea, banning guns or controlling them to the point where you have to be famous or a cop doesn't keep criminals from getting there hands on them because for one, they're CRIMINALS, and two, extreme regulation only creates a lucrative black market, easily accessible by, you guessed it, criminals. The only people who aren't able to get guns are law abiding citizens, leaving only two groups who own the bulk of firearms: criminals who, as with gun laws, don't give much of a shit about other laws that most people can agree are totally necessary, and law enforcement. Doesn't that sound nice? The gang-banger and the Swine, working together to make your life suck worse than ever. The reasons for low gun crimes and low crime rates in general are not as simple as ban/deregulate this, the answer clearly lies somewhere else, I won't be so arrogant as to say I know what it is, but I think social programs and legalization followed by regulation of drugs and prostitution could only help. I love guns and I'm totally aware of the Freudian reasons for it, but not every fucking lunatic should be able to buy one legally, there should be regulation, as with vehicles, you should have to get a license to show you know how to use a gun, but this license should be accessible to the common law-abiding citizen. Now if you excuse me, I have to go go bang hookers, shoot whiskey, snort coke, smoke weed, and fire a massive quantity of firearms in the desert. Thompson would be proud!

P.S. Fuck you, alcohol is awesome!

T

Ultratwinkie:

Kinguendo:

Ultratwinkie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jul/13/mexico-drug-smuggling-tunnels-video

They exist. They are mainly used to sell drugs but they can be used to smuggle anything.

When the smugglers you are up against are willing and able to use underground tunnels. You are pretty much fucked.

Also, legalizing pot won't do anything. Cartels are so entrenched the time of "weakening them" is long gone... by decades.

They are so entrenched that they have infinite resources and manpower? Unlikely, to say the least. Its just going to take longer, the rest of the drugs arent sold enough to sustain their "empire"... when a massive body cannot fuel itself it collapses into itself, just take away the majority of their fuel and if they do not immediately begin to downsize they will collapse.

Except America smokes more than just pot. You also have Cocaine, which some cartels are built on.

Its more than just one cartel, there are many. Not all of them are pot dealers, because there is more than one drug. Sure you may take down the smaller cartels, but the small ones never mattered. It won't effect the big ones, who have their hands in more than just one trade.

And some have military training and weapons. Which means normal police can't even touch them.

As I said, the time when we could weaken the cartels is long over.

So you legalize and regulate all drugs, as well as prostitution. Nobody would ever buy pot from some street dealer that might short them or sneak in some ultra addictive shit, when they could go to the CVS and buy eighth of some fine-ass cannabis for 35 dollars. The same is true with prostitution, why would you go to some sketchy whore that might rob you, when you can go to a secure brothel where the whores all have medical information at hand? You wouldn't because the latter option for both scenarios are fucking awesome! This would take two of the largest trades off the table, leaving the cartels, street gangs, and other criminal organizations to either adapt or die, or get different jobs.

puncturedrectum:
T

Ultratwinkie:

Kinguendo:

They are so entrenched that they have infinite resources and manpower? Unlikely, to say the least. Its just going to take longer, the rest of the drugs arent sold enough to sustain their "empire"... when a massive body cannot fuel itself it collapses into itself, just take away the majority of their fuel and if they do not immediately begin to downsize they will collapse.

Except America smokes more than just pot. You also have Cocaine, which some cartels are built on.

Its more than just one cartel, there are many. Not all of them are pot dealers, because there is more than one drug. Sure you may take down the smaller cartels, but the small ones never mattered. It won't effect the big ones, who have their hands in more than just one trade.

And some have military training and weapons. Which means normal police can't even touch them.

As I said, the time when we could weaken the cartels is long over.

So you legalize and regulate all drugs, as well as prostitution. Nobody would ever buy pot from some street dealer that might short them or sneak in some ultra addictive shit, when they could go to the CVS and buy eighth of some fine-ass cannabis for 35 dollars. The same is true with prostitution, why would you go to some sketchy whore that might rob you, when you can go to a secure brothel where the whores all have medical information at hand? You wouldn't because the latter option for both scenarios are fucking awesome! This would take two of the largest trades off the table, leaving the cartels, street gangs, and other criminal organizations to either adapt or die, or get different jobs.

The problem is that not all drugs are safe nor are they commercially viable or able to be regulated.

Pot can be legalized because its the least dangerous. Maybe Opium, but that was made obsolete by Heroin. Doubt Opium legalization will do anything to the Cartels.

Cartels don't dabble in regular prostitution, they dabble in sex trafficking.

Ultratwinkie:

Except America smokes more than just pot. You also have Cocaine, which some cartels are built on.

Its more than just one cartel, there are many. Not all of them are pot dealers, because there is more than one drug. Sure you may take down the smaller cartels, but the small ones never mattered. It won't effect the big ones, who have their hands in more than just one trade.

And some have military training and weapons. Which means normal police can't even touch them.

As I said, the time when we could weaken the cartels is long over.

Want to crack down on crack? Easy, clamp down on Wallstreet. Yes, there is probably 1 or 2 that dont do Charlie but lets not base views of the entire bunch on the vast minority of non-blow snorters.

Also, Marijuana sales alone make up around 60% of the Drug Cartels revenue. Like I said, its the most used recreational drug in the world... by a large margin.

And military training makes you bulletproof? Why even waste time funding armies then? They cant even shoot each other, it just seems like a waste of time and resources now(!) Stupid military training making police officers useless... Thats a lot of sarcasm, if I do say so myself.

Let's just ban everything and be done with it.

Also,

Knobody13:

599,413 died from hear attack

what the crap is a hear attack?
I know it's supposed to be heart attack, but I felt like pointing it out.

Kinguendo:

Ultratwinkie:

Except America smokes more than just pot. You also have Cocaine, which some cartels are built on.

Its more than just one cartel, there are many. Not all of them are pot dealers, because there is more than one drug. Sure you may take down the smaller cartels, but the small ones never mattered. It won't effect the big ones, who have their hands in more than just one trade.

And some have military training and weapons. Which means normal police can't even touch them.

As I said, the time when we could weaken the cartels is long over.

Want to crack down on crack? Easy, clamp down on Wallstreet. Yes, there is probably 1 or 2 that dont do Charlie but lets not base views of the entire bunch on the vast minority of non-blow snorters.

Also, Marijuana sales alone make up around 60% of the Drug Cartels revenue. Like I said, its the most used recreational drug in the world... by a large margin.

And military training makes you bulletproof? Why even waste time funding armies then? They cant even shoot each other, it just seems like a waste of time and resources now(!) Stupid military training making police officers useless... Thats a lot of sarcasm, if I do say so myself.

Its not that it makes them bulletproof, it means the cops are out of their league.

Mexico tried to fight the zetas, but every police chief that tried ended up having a hole blown in his house, his family shot like Bin laden, then making a bloody escape by gunning down random neighbors who walked out their houses, even children. The weapons, armor, and explosives were all military grade. The training was also military grade, as ex-special ops from the Mexican military joins cartels like these.

So to even fight the Zeta cartel, you need an actual military. Cops just won't do. Since the zetas are massive, it will look like a war zone than a crack down.

What part of "multiple cartels" do you not understand? That is just ONE cartel. They can't be stopped by legalizing Marijuana. They are smarter than you think and have diversified beyond drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html

I have a question for those who support gun-control. Why exactly is the AR-15 considered a dangerous "assault weapon" which has no place in the hands of civilians, yet something like a Remington 74 is considered a legitimate hunting rifle? Both are semi-automatic firearms, both are magazine-fed firearms and both are of comparable dimensions and weight. The only significant difference between these two firearms is the calibre of ammunition in which they are designed to fire. The AR-15 fires the .223 and the Remington 74 fires the 30-06. The .223 is very useful for varmit control and small-game hunting, while the 30-06 is an excellent choice for big-game hunting. There are many "legitimate" hunting rifles which are chambered for .223.

So why do many people cry out to ban firearms like the AR-15 but not the Remington 74? In my opinion it is because of the appearance, nothing more. The military origins and appearance of the AR-15 scare people who are not terribly familiar with firearms. Thus you have the media making up misleading phrases like "military grade assault weapon" or "high-powered black rifle".

The AR-15 variants available on the civilian market are not true assault rifles like the M16 or M4 used by militaries around the world. They share many commonalities in design, but integral components are changed or removed for the civilian variant. A civilian AR-15 is not capable of automatic fire, and no amount of tinkering, with the exception of forging an entirely new reciver, will give it full automatic capability. Due to altered reciever design dangerous looking firearms available to civilians (eg. AR-15, CZH 2003 Sport, DSA SA58) are really no different from any other semi-auto hunting rifle in terms of capability or usefulness. If a farmer wants to clear his land of coyotes using an AR-15 and magazines pinned to the limit set by regional hunting bylaws, why not? Nobody cares if he drives a Hummer SUV, despite its military origins and appearance.

Anyways, my point is that it makes no sense to say "we should ban all assault weapons". It simply make you sound irrational and uninformed. It would be far more logical to say "we should ban all semi-automatic firearms". I will oppose such an idea, but at least I won't be irritated by rampant misinformation. I realize that not all gun-control proponents make this mistake, but it seems quite a common sentiment on this forum and many news sources.

A gun is nothing more than a tool, just as a knife or an axe is. A gun never fired itself, there always has to be intent for someone to point the gun at person and then pull the trigger, just as someone has to have intent to jam a knife in between someone's ribs. Tools don't kill people, tools have to be used by people as tools have no will of their own. What we need is to ban assholes that kill other people, get rid of war and murderers, but sadly we can't do that.

We can't change human nature, getting rid of one tool that can be used to kill someone isn't going to take away the darkness found inside the heart of every man or woman, and until you can cure the problem of mankind's evil then there will always be wars and murders. If guns are gone we will just go back to using swords and spears to kill people.

Also I just want to ask a question: Have we really become such a frightened culture that we let every little horrible thing that happens in this life scare us and make us cower in fear? We have been through two World Wars, we beat Communism, we went to the moon for God's sake! What happened to us? Are we just going to be afraid and give up more and more of our freedoms for (temporary) safety just because some punk with a gun shot up a crowd of people or a terrorist blew up a building? We should be better than that, the moment that we give in to our fear and we go to such irrational lengths to protect ourselves the terrorists have won because they managed to make us afraid, they did their job.

In closing I would like to quote Benjamin Franklin,

"Those that give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."

Can we ban the improper and lack of use of statistics?

Since when was gun control a binary concept?

Because that's all people ever treat it as!

Yes, I'm looking at YOU, reader.

lacktheknack:
Since when was gun control a binary concept?

Because that's all people ever treat it as!

Yes, I'm looking at YOU, reader.

Ever since the people who want to completely ban all guns started assuming that anyone who disagreed wanted completely uncontrolled gun ownership, and vice versa. Basically two extremes colliding and pushing out all moderate opinions.

"If guns were banned people would find a way to kill each other with giant rocks." Or something like that. I agree, people kill people, but guns do make it much easier. It's much easier to carry and fire a gun to kill some one as opposed to, let's say, smashing them with a giant boulder.

zelda2fanboy:

aba1:

zelda2fanboy:
Ban bears. We should send them all to countries that ban guns.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-faces-2-years-in-prison-for-shooting-grizzly-while-defending-family/

Obviously banning all guns is a bad idea. Farmers and such need them to protect there livestock etc.

And as we know, bear filled places like Alaska are known for their rich and lively farm communities...

Now say these hooligan kids go out in the woods for some pranking, and then strap a bullet proof vest onto a bear. Now what do you have? Invincible bears... now you have invincible bears running all over the place, burning your women, raping your churches, but whats this? Here comes your gun wielding citizen with an armor peircing bullet, the bear drops dead, and America is saved.

Buretsu:

lacktheknack:
Since when was gun control a binary concept?

Because that's all people ever treat it as!

Yes, I'm looking at YOU, reader.

Ever since the people who want to completely ban all guns started assuming that anyone who disagreed wanted completely uncontrolled gun ownership, and vice versa. Basically two extremes colliding and pushing out all moderate opinions.

Maybe we should fix that!

I'm moderate. I believe that some guns should be legal, others should be not. It baffles me that more than 3% of people lie on the extremes.

Fijiman:
Let's just ban everything and be done with it.

Also,

Knobody13:

599,413 died from hear attack

what the crap is a hear attack?
I know it's supposed to be heart attack, but I felt like pointing it out.

Guile: SONIC BOOM!

Mathurin:
Um no, there are not more similarities than differences, the only similarity is "they both kill people"

As you yourself say; "They must be carfully stored and maintained" - True of both. "They react to external changes" - True of both. "They are complex" - Arguably true of both. "They go off through intent or neglect" - True of both! Do you know how close we were to nuclear winter due to misunderstanding?

But those are trivial similarities. The main point, that we seem to agree on, is that they kill people. Nukes on a macro level, and handguns on a micro level. So my point is that we don't want the power to kill - whether it be one person or a million - to be an unregulated right(I don't know if that is what you want, but I get that impression. Correct me if I have misinterpreted you), it should be a privilige that you have if you can prove that you are a sane rational person that is capable handeling the responibility. In much the same way we do with a drivers liscence, as a car is also a dangerous thing with the power to kill.

Mathurin:
Im not arguing that, the people had to be willing to demand democracy, much like the arab spring. Yet guns were a vital part of it, were the american revolution fought without guns, with armor and the handweapons prior to firearms, the americans would have lost.

That might be true to some small degree of that particular historical event. Were the american revolution faught without the help of the french army and navy though, the americans would have lost. So the success of the american revolution could be attributed to the great-power politics in Europe. We saw the same thing in Libya very recently. And even if we grant that you are right about the US, this emphasis on guns do not explain for example the medieval city republics, which often had to "free" themselves from fuedal overlords. No guns, but rule by the people.

This historical argument is of limited value however. Even though handguns might have been an important for maintaining "libertas" in the past, they are of limited value in a world where governments own nukes, tanks, predator drones and bombers. The US constitution was written 250 years ago. Much has happend since then.

bloodmage2:

Mathurin:

bloodmage2:
you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

If you think this is halfway then you have no idea what my position is.

1) How will you enforce this?

see post about cord in safe etc.

Ah, so you would do it by violating privacy without due process, marvelous, now you are violating 2 parts of the bill of rights.

bloodmage2:

2) You know very little about guns, correct?
Guns are not generalist devices, they tend to be very specialized for their tasks,

tell me, what exactly are the different purposes of a gun other than killing things? like i said, if you are in an urban environment, a gun in your apartment to fend of potential robbers is understandable. out in the rural areas, a gun for hunting and a gun for defense is all you need.

You have indicated you are an archer and do target practice, do you only use one bow for that?
Guns are also used for target practice, its very similar to bows actually in that it's a weapon of hunting and warfare.

I don't know a ton about archery, but I think I can put it into archery terms.
If you are hunting deer/elk you need a 60lb compound bow and broadhead points
If you are hunting rabbit a 60 lb compound with broadheads would go through 3 rabbits, shredding each of them. You need something weaker, like a 30 lb recurve with blunts or practice points.
Similarly, you don't use the same rifle for deer as you would for rabbit.

Also, I will explain some of my small collection.
Semi-auto .22 rifle - gift from parents, isn't losing value, fun for non-serious target practice
Bolt action .22 rifle - more accurate rifle for inexpensive serious target practice
Mosin nagant - cheap decently accurate .30 cal, good for deer hunting if needed, otherwise good for longer range target practice, common rounds are light armor penetrating.
Short double barrel - pure toy, non-serious target practice. I bought it because I wanted one, I keep it because the trade in value would be low and I might want another one someday. Like that stereo you don't use but might need sometime.
2 .22 revolvers - holdovers from youth, cheap target practice, 1 is a quality and accurate pistol, the other isn't really worth much.
.45 auto pistol - defense pistol, this one is well tuned and accurate
9mm pistol - got a really good deal on it, hard to pass up
Pocket pistol - purchased when I was thinking about getting a concealed carry permit, I keep it because its the only pistol I have 'on the books' in my name.
This is the only one currently kept in my apartment, the rest stay at my parents farm.

Each of these guns has a slightly different purpose or use, and some I don't use yet keep around because I have no reason to sell them, how is my possession of them harming anyone?

bloodmage2:

collectors dont collect just for kicks.

and neither do zoos, but the common man is not allowed to keep multitudes of exotic and/or dangerous animals in their homes. if its simply collection you want, then perhaps there could be a separate collectors license: removes the limit of guns, or at least raises it, but does not allow purchase of ammo.

That depends on your definition of common man, but yes, individuals are allowed to keep exotic pets.
I don't want a gun I cant shoot, part of collecting old or replica firearms is getting a greater understanding of history by using them. Most people don't understand how difficult a muzzleloader is to load, I do, I have one, it helps me understand the difficulties faced by early Americans.

bloodmage2:

3) Telling me how to raise my children eh?
When I was about 14-15 a friend came to my house, as we walked through the living room he saw my dads gun and picked it up. I immediately told him to stop, took it from him and unloaded it. When you raise kids with knowledge about firearms you dont have to worry about them being stupid with them. From the age of 7 or so I knew where a gun was, it was no mystery, I had already learned to shoot it and could do so anytime, I didnt have to sneak, I just had to ask.

i suppose i am, but you honestly need it if you are telling young, impressionable children that it is a good idea to have tool whose only function is killing things. i've no problem with teaching children how to defend themselves, but if you are leaving a gun within a child's reach its no better than leaving an open bottle of bleach or rat killer. its simply a way to ensure irresponsible parents aren't the cause of their child's untimely death.

I think you mean the only function is killing AND target practice, similar to bows.

I wish I could find an old link to CDC mortality stats I had which showed that accidental firearm deaths of kids under 12 were minute, like a half dozen or so.
This is another manufactured problem, when people present studies about 'children' killed by guns they include anyone under 18, fluffing their stats with gang shootings

bloodmage2:

4) Excellent area for a backdoor ban, just make the tests too hard to pass,

a valid point, but i feel it is necessary. guns should be owned by those who NEED them. not WANT them, NEED them. as in, you live in a part of the city that sees daily muggings bellow your window, or that hunting deer, birds, and squirrels is a significant part of your diet. if one just wants a collection big loud bang-device to make up for one's tiny dick, one should not have one. the test is there so that A) all persons with a legal firearm know every inch of their device and the consequences for using it incorrectly and B) to deter anyone who, as before said, does not strictly NEED a firearm.

The biggest part of this issue is, who asked you, and who decided that your opinion should be law.
Making possession of anything based on need, really major serious need like you indicate, sets a precendent where virtually anything can be outlawed, because you don't NEED it. This is not a hallmark of a free society.
Do you NEED those cheetos, really?
Do you need those square feet of living space, I think you can squeeze into a place half that size.

That aside, using overly difficult tests to block things has been done before, hence the only way I can get behind any test is if they are tied to something else, like a high school diploma, in this way they cannot be denied without causing a massive uproar of discontent.

bloodmage2:

also, literacy tests have already made a precedent in the US, you may not test someone before they are allowed to access a right.

and it is my opinion that a gun is a PRIVILEGE as is a car and driver's licence: something potentially dangerous, but a necessary danger in the hands of the capable who need them.

Its nice that you have that opinion, but the Supreme court of the US is of the opinion that it is a right.

bloodmage2:

How about this for halfway
A) Increased sentencing for anyone caught committing a crime while in possession of a firearm
B) Felon in possession = 10 years
C) Knowingly providing a firearm to a felon or for use in a crime = 10 years.
D) Theft of a firearm = 10 years
E) Mandatory firearms training, as part of high school education.
Punish individual criminals, not collective society.

while those are good, and a high-school course in firearms is not exactly terrible, i would find it better if it was done the same way drivers ed. is: not exactly mandatory, but anyone who has any intention of using it will take it. i enjoy archery, and when you are just using a bow to hunt or target shoot, its fine with me, and the same thing goes for guns. the difference is, most people that own bows know a good deal about their use, and use them only for the purpose of target shooting or hunting game. far too many people in the U.S. own guns that really don't need to for reasons ranging from lack of self-confidence to right wing delusion (i.e. "da gubbmint be takn muh gurns, dey be takn muh raits!" sort of nonsense).

You have fallen into a strawman delusion. Very few of those people exist, its simply how they are represented.

Anyway, I suggest it as mandatory for 2 reasons
1. Licensing can be tied to it without fear that the test will be made too difficult to pass as a backdoor ban
2. Demystifying firearms will reduce the number of people scared of them, hence reducing the people wanting to ban them
This is called "meeting halfway" you get a license, I get assurance it cant be a ban, and more people get exposed to my hobby, making demonization of it harder.

bloodmage2:

To clear out prison space I suggest we legalize drugs and prostitution, which will also deprive gangs of their income.

that is completely irrelevant, but i wholeheartedly agree.

I actally disagree with you on relevance, the majority of gun crime in the US occurs through drug gangs, yet people engaged in the debate are trying to remove guns from the stereotypical 'ignorant small dicked redneck' which barely exists. It's a perceived, I would even say imagined, danger.
The majority of gun crime is a symptom of drug crime, gangs and poverty. That's it.
If we tackle these issues, gun crime wont be an issue anymore.
Sure, we will have the occasional nutter who goes nutter with a gun, but then japan has the occasional nutter who goes crazy with a knife, any anybody can go nutter through a street festival with a car, wracking up a higher kill count. Its like the commonly mentioned 'lone gunman' that the secret service so fears, because they cannot be stopped or prevented by any means.

NightHawk21:

Mathurin:

NightHawk21:
Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.

You dont see why?

Here is a hint, the 2nd ammendment was not created to protect the right to hunt.

Its more than that though, I prefer military firearm designs over civilian ones, even for hunting.
They are stronger and better suited to rough treatment, they are easier to breakdown and clean. Parts, ammunition and accessories are cheap and easy to find.

I dont understand why people choose 'civilian' firearms over military surplus or those heavily based on military design.

Civilian is in quotes because the dividing line between civilian and military firearms is much harder to pinpoint than you might think.

As a non-American let me be honest when I say the second amendment means jack shit to me. This is not the 19th century anymore, times have changed and proposals of the past that made sense then might not make sense now.

It doesnt have to mean anything to you, until it means nothing to 2/3rd to 3/4 of the US, it has force of law.

NightHawk21:

As for the point you raised about hunting; just because something is easier and more suited to the job does not mean that it is what everyone should be using. There are some methods that have the potential to cause great harm (whether to the environment or something else), when they provide a very small benefit over the safer product.

Are you suggesting that using military arms to hunt greatly harms the environment, as opposed to 'civilian' weapons

I think you are trying to suggest that military arms cause great harm to other human beings. Except you would hopefully have states for that.
So, tell me, how many assault rifles, or rifles of any type, are used in homicides on a yearly basis.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
Um no, there are not more similarities than differences, the only similarity is "they both kill people"

As you yourself say; "They must be carfully stored and maintained" - True of both. "They react to external changes" - True of both. "They are complex" - Arguably true of both. "They go off through intent or neglect" - True of both! Do you know how close we were to nuclear winter due to misunderstanding?

A firearm does not need to be carefully stored and maintained, if thrown in a ditch it degrades, the worst it will do is slightly pollute the ditch with rust. A nuke leaks radiation, and without careful maintenence and storage can kill or poison many.
Not true of guns

Firearms do not react to external changes, dropping a gun does not make it go off, earthquakes and power outages do not affect them. The only external change which a gun reacts too is high temperature, which might make it go off simply by igniting the powder.
Not true of guns

I dont recall using 'they are complex' as a bullet point, but the level of complexity is nowhere near the same level.

Firearms only go off through intent or neglect, extreme neglect. Explosives go off pretty easily, depending on the explosive.

I know that for many years the world stood on the brink of destruction.

PrinceFortinbras:

But those are trivial similarities. The main point, that we seem to agree on, is that they kill people. Nukes on a macro level, and handguns on a micro level. So my point is that we don't want the power to kill - whether it be one person or a million - to be an unregulated right(I don't know if that is what you want, but I get that impression. Correct me if I have misinterpreted you), it should be a privilige that you have if you can prove that you are a sane rational person that is capable handeling the responibility. In much the same way we do with a drivers liscence, as a car is also a dangerous thing with the power to kill.

Everyone has the power to kill, barehands or a broken bottle will do it, you just want to regulate the ease of it.

No rights are absolute, but regulation is a touchy subject because for the last 20-30 years gun control advocates have been dominated by the "gun are only good for killing" crowd, which makes it very hard to believe that any gun control advocate only wants registration and licensing, rather than merely wants to use them as an intermediary step before confiscation.

I dont mind a licensing scheme actually, I just demand the license be tied to something else, like say a High School diploma, to make certain the license doesnt become overly hard to get, or the list of licensees doesnt become a de facto list of firearm owners, that would be a violation of privacy.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
Im not arguing that, the people had to be willing to demand democracy, much like the arab spring. Yet guns were a vital part of it, were the american revolution fought without guns, with armor and the handweapons prior to firearms, the americans would have lost.

That might be true to some small degree of that particular historical event. Were the american revolution faught without the help of the french army and navy though, the americans would have lost. So the success of the american revolution could be attributed to the great-power politics in Europe. We saw the same thing in Libya very recently. And even if we grant that you are right about the US, this emphasis on guns do not explain for example the medieval city republics, which often had to "free" themselves from fuedal overlords. No guns, but rule by the people.

This historical argument is of limited value however. Even though handguns might have been an important for maintaining "libertas" in the past, they are of limited value in a world where governments own nukes, tanks, predator drones and bombers. The US constitution was written 250 years ago. Much has happend since then.

Handguns were of very limited value in maintaining liberty, it was military arms that were important.
Both libya and the US revolution wouldnt necessarily have failed without outside intervention, it just would have taken a lot longer

Much has happened since the constitution was drafted (closer to 225 years ago, but no worries) yet nobody is saying freedom of the press or rights to be secure in our homes should be removed.
Much has changed, and the constitution can change as well, it just takes 2/3 to 3/4 of the nation to decide for that change, and its not happening yet.

everyone always thinks things have changed and the old ways just arent needed, and then they are needed, and arms will always be important for securing liberty in the long run.

There are people alive right now in europe who remember living under foreign occupation, and being forced to do labor for them, things havent changed as much as you might think, and they can change right back in a jiffy.

Human Beings. Dem some dangerous motherfuckers

Ultratwinkie:

Jonluw:

Ultratwinkie:

Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.

Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.

I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US.
Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right.
Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.

Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless.
Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.

To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.

And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns.
Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.

Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.

Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.

The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.

Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.

Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.

Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.

All i'll say is if you've ever been mugged by some dude holding a knife it can be pretty damn scary. Then as I reach for my wallet I take out my trusty hand gun instead and point it right between his eyes and see the fear as he realizes he made an awful mistake. Pretty sure I stopped one criminal from trying that shit again, or at least thinking before he trys to mug someone.

I hate the "false sense of security" argument. I feel damn safe with my handgun. That story above is true btw and while I wouldn't have pulled the trigger if he lunged at me (would have just tried to knock him out with it probably), I still felt safer knowing I had the upper-hand.

Ban cars, they probably kill a lot more people than guns do.

I will let the first part slide, since it really is irrelevant to the debate. I should probably have laid it to rest in my last post. My point was not that nukes and guns were identical, my point was that they both need to be strictly regulated.

Mathurin:
Everyone has the power to kill, barehands or a broken bottle will do it, you just want to regulate the ease of it.

No rights are absolute, but regulation is a touchy subject because for the last 20-30 years gun control advocates have been dominated by the "gun are only good for killing" crowd, which makes it very hard to believe that any gun control advocate only wants registration and licensing, rather than merely wants to use them as an intermediary step before confiscation.

I dont mind a licensing scheme actually, I just demand the license be tied to something else, like say a High School diploma, to make certain the license doesnt become overly hard to get, or the list of licensees doesnt become a de facto list of firearm owners, that would be a violation of privacy.

Yes, I certianly do want to regulate the ease of it. And I think that is the reational thing to do. The power to kill a human being with the twitch of a finger is a power to great for everyone to have it.

May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners? The whole point of issuing liscences is to know for sure who owns guns and that they are up to that responsibility. A list of drivers licence holders should be a complete list of the people driving cars on public road. Otherwise it would be completely pointless.

I also think that such a licence should be a bit hard to get. "With great power comes great responsibility"...

Mathurin:
Handguns were of very limited value in maintaining liberty, it was military arms that were important.
Both libya and the US revolution wouldnt necessarily have failed without outside intervention, it just would have taken a lot longer

Much has happened since the constitution was drafted (closer to 225 years ago, but no worries) yet nobody is saying freedom of the press or rights to be secure in our homes should be removed.
Much has changed, and the constitution can change as well, it just takes 2/3 to 3/4 of the nation to decide for that change, and its not happening yet.

everyone always thinks things have changed and the old ways just arent needed, and then they are needed, and arms will always be important for securing liberty in the long run.

There are people alive right now in europe who remember living under foreign occupation, and being forced to do labor for them, things havent changed as much as you might think, and they can change right back in a jiffy.

I really meant guns/arms of all sorts. I am not a native speaker of english, so I was not aware of that particular nuance, sorry. (I do know when the constitution was drafted, but brevity...)

Concerning Libya and the american revolution; that is a contra-factual it is really hard to meaningly discuss. Too short time has passed since the overthrow of Gaddafi to have any prespective on the matter. And the revolution is also really complex. I have heard scholars arguing both ways.

Nobody is saying freedom of the press or the rights to be secure in our homes should be removed because they have proven to be relevant in the modern age. However the second amendment has, under scrutiny, proven worthy of revision because it is not AS relevant. This has much to do with dramatic technological, and considerable political develpoment. And while the social situation has changed dramatically, warranting numerous amendments, the principles of freedom of speech/the press has stayed the same because they have proven to be great priciples, even in the modern world. The second amendment is not, in not only my opinion, a great priciple. I might have been, but it is not anymore.

The US constitution was a great political platform for it's time. It is however a politval document and as such it should always be the object of debate, critique, scrutiny and yes, change. Politics is about how to rule a society in the present. A 225(;-)) year old document has no value as scripture. It does have great value as a startingpoint for politcal discussion and development.

And I know that it CAN change, what we are discussing is whether you SHOULD change it, and I think you should.

puncturedrectum:
Snip

Norway? Lenient gun laws?
Norway is just like the UK in the sense that not even the police carries firearms.
They have some lying in their cars or at the station to use if the situation calls for it, but you'll never see an officer carrying a piece.

You're not allowed to buy a gun without first getting a license that proves you know how to use a gun, have been through a course, and if you want to shoot large animals, that you are able to shoot with enough accuracy to humanely kill an animal.
You also have to send a request to the police asking for permission to buy a gun.
Even then, all the guns have restricted magazine capacities. I think it was two rounds, but don't quote me on that.

If you want to buy a pistol, you have to have been a member of a handgun club for 6 months prior, and you have to send a request to the police.
This is not a request that will be accepted if you have a record of violence or misconduct (or excessive drinking), and that you have no record of psychological problems. This also means that the police has a registry of every legal gun owner.

It is required that the firearm (or one of the vital components) is at all times kept in a specialized locker when the gun is not in use.
(This is a very important part. It quells the black market)

Hollow-tip, armor piercing, etc. ammunition is of course illegal, and all firearms that are normally used in war are illegal.
A gun may only be approved for sale if it has a respectable application area. Self defense does not count (except in certain cases, where polar bears for example are a threat).
This is one of the major differences between Norwegian and American gun legislation: It's never acceptable to fire at another person.

Pretty much no crimes in Norway involve firearms. It is simply too difficult for criminals to acquire guns for it to be worth it.

If you want to look at a country in a similar socioeconomic situation, but with laxer gun laws, look at Finland.
Not surprisingly, they've had trouble with shootings.

Jonluw:

Ultratwinkie:

Jonluw:
I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US.
Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right.
Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.

Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless.
Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.

To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.

And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns.
Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.

Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.

Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.

The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.

Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.

Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.

Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.

Oh great the "but-but Europe" excuse.

Europe is not the world. Europe has a history of restricting weapons to the government since guns were first invented. Contrary to what you may believe, once you step outside Europe, it stops being Europe.

Since when does the UK deal with the Cartels on any actual level? If they did, their cops would look like Americans cops. If they were stupid enough not to, the cartels would send the entire country's police force back in caskets.

Cartels make all your points irrelevant. Cartels steal from government armories, sell the drugs, and deal the guns. America is in a different socio-econimic climate entirely. Cartels are the supply AND the demand. Any gun control laws while they are near would fall flat on its face.

I am sick and tired of hearing this fallacious excuse. Take some time to learn the political climate.

... and they call Americans disconnected with the world.

Ultratwinkie:

Jonluw:

Ultratwinkie:

Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.

Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.

The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.

Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.

Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.

Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.

Oh great the "but-but Europe" excuse.

Europe is not the world. Europe has a history of restricting weapons to the government since guns were first invented. Contrary to what you may believe, once you step outside Europe, it stops being Europe.

Since when does the UK deal with the Cartels on any actual level? If they did, their cops would look like Americans cops. If they were stupid enough not to, the cartels would send the entire country's police force back in caskets.

Cartels make all your points irrelevant. Cartels steal from government armories, sell the drugs, and deal the guns. America is in a different socio-econimic climate entirely. Cartels are the supply AND the demand. Any gun control laws while they are near would fall flat on its face.

I am sick and tired of hearing this fallacious excuse. Take some time to learn the political climate.

... and they call Americans disconnected with the world.

I was not talking about your point about cartels, was I?
I was pointing out why it's fallacious to think a prohibition of guns would inherently have the same effects as drug prohibition.
In either case have I never been advocating completely banning guns.

The differences between Europe and the US is exactly the reason why I've been making a point to say that gun control must be implemented gradually.

Cartels are a problem though. You could of course defuse them by lifting the drug prohibition, but everyone knows that's not going to happen.
A simpler idea might be to place more focus on stopping firearms that may be crossing the border, and perhaps create a buffer zone near the border where gun laws differ from the rest of the country.
Specifically, what I'm thinking about is keeping armouries and weapon factories away from the border states, implementing extremely strict gun control in these states (perhaps even a ban entirely), and keeping an armed police force supplemented in part from the rest of the country, focusing on cartel activity. And maybe ligthing up a teensy bit on the whole illegal immigrants issue.

There comes a point when smuggling weapons across the border just isn't worth it. This doesn't happen with drugs.

PrinceFortinbras:

I will let the first part slide, since it really is irrelevant to the debate. I should probably have laid it to rest in my last post. My point was not that nukes and guns were identical, my point was that they both need to be strictly regulated.

Mathurin:
Everyone has the power to kill, barehands or a broken bottle will do it, you just want to regulate the ease of it.

No rights are absolute, but regulation is a touchy subject because for the last 20-30 years gun control advocates have been dominated by the "gun are only good for killing" crowd, which makes it very hard to believe that any gun control advocate only wants registration and licensing, rather than merely wants to use them as an intermediary step before confiscation.

I dont mind a licensing scheme actually, I just demand the license be tied to something else, like say a High School diploma, to make certain the license doesnt become overly hard to get, or the list of licensees doesnt become a de facto list of firearm owners, that would be a violation of privacy.

Yes, I certianly do want to regulate the ease of it. And I think that is the reational thing to do. The power to kill a human being with the twitch of a finger is a power to great for everyone to have it.

And I suggest its a power to great to be limited to the elites

PrinceFortinbras:

May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners? The whole point of issuing liscences is to know for sure who owns guns and that they are up to that responsibility. A list of drivers licence holders should be a complete list of the people driving cars on public road. Otherwise it would be completely pointless.

I also think that such a licence should be a bit hard to get. "With great power comes great responsibility"...

The main reason for drivers licenses is to ensure education, that everyone on the road knows the rules by which they should operate, and how liability will fall if they dont.

I cant imagine why a gun license should be hard to get, I have been handling firearms safely and responsibly since I was younger than 12, I cant imagine why an average 18 year old would have difficulty understanding firearms function and safety, especially since they are simpler and easier to understand and operate than a car, which most 16 year olds are allowed to operate.
The only reason why would be a prejudice against guns/owners, or an intent to limit firearms ownership.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
Handguns were of very limited value in maintaining liberty, it was military arms that were important.
Both libya and the US revolution wouldnt necessarily have failed without outside intervention, it just would have taken a lot longer

Much has happened since the constitution was drafted (closer to 225 years ago, but no worries) yet nobody is saying freedom of the press or rights to be secure in our homes should be removed.
Much has changed, and the constitution can change as well, it just takes 2/3 to 3/4 of the nation to decide for that change, and its not happening yet.

everyone always thinks things have changed and the old ways just arent needed, and then they are needed, and arms will always be important for securing liberty in the long run.

There are people alive right now in europe who remember living under foreign occupation, and being forced to do labor for them, things havent changed as much as you might think, and they can change right back in a jiffy.

I really meant guns/arms of all sorts. I am not a native speaker of english, so I was not aware of that particular nuance, sorry. (I do know when the constitution was drafted, but brevity...)

It wasnt important and I wasnt calling you out on it really. For informations sake, arms refers to any weapon, todays military arm is the assault rifle, in 1776 america it was the musket, bayonet, among other things.
The primary thing to realize is that the 2nd ammendment was not created to allow hunting, it was created because a persistent democratic nation requires the people to be capable of taking on the nations military, with a chance of being something other than slaughtered.

PrinceFortinbras:

Concerning Libya and the american revolution; that is a contra-factual it is really hard to meaningly discuss. Too short time has passed since the overthrow of Gaddafi to have any prespective on the matter. And the revolution is also really complex. I have heard scholars arguing both ways.

Nobody is saying freedom of the press or the rights to be secure in our homes should be removed because they have proven to be relevant in the modern age. However the second amendment has, under scrutiny, proven worthy of revision because it is not AS relevant. This has much to do with dramatic technological, and considerable political develpoment. And while the social situation has changed dramatically, warranting numerous amendments, the principles of freedom of speech/the press has stayed the same because they have proven to be great priciples, even in the modern world. The second amendment is, in not only my opinion, a great priciple. I might have been, but it is not anymore.

The US constitution was a great political platform for it's time. It is however a politval document and as such it should always be the object of debate, critique, scrutiny and yes, change. Politics is about how to rule a society in the present. A 225(;-)) year old document has no value as scripture. It does have great value as a startingpoint for politcal discussion and development.

And I know that it CAN change, what we are discussing is whether you SHOULD change it, and I think you should.

The only reason free speech and free press have been proven neccesary is because government overstepped itself. The 2nd may not be relevant in the long run, only time will tell.

If you want to discuss or advocate changing the 2nd, I am all for that, I get very angry at people who instead want to ignore its existence, little realizing that every law they make violating the 2nd, set a precedent for violating the rest.

As for its value, I dont think a 60 year period of growth and wealth is enough to justify your new world view, people are still the same, they are just better fed and educated and have a stable world, for the moment. Politicians will still promise the world for power, and try to abuse it as much as possible.

In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?

Jonluw:

Ultratwinkie:

Jonluw:
Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.

Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.

Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.

Oh great the "but-but Europe" excuse.

Europe is not the world. Europe has a history of restricting weapons to the government since guns were first invented. Contrary to what you may believe, once you step outside Europe, it stops being Europe.

Since when does the UK deal with the Cartels on any actual level? If they did, their cops would look like Americans cops. If they were stupid enough not to, the cartels would send the entire country's police force back in caskets.

Cartels make all your points irrelevant. Cartels steal from government armories, sell the drugs, and deal the guns. America is in a different socio-econimic climate entirely. Cartels are the supply AND the demand. Any gun control laws while they are near would fall flat on its face.

I am sick and tired of hearing this fallacious excuse. Take some time to learn the political climate.

... and they call Americans disconnected with the world.

I was not talking about your point about cartels, was I?
I was pointing out why it's fallacious to think a prohibition of guns would inherently have the same effects as drug prohibition.
In either case have I never been advocating completely banning guns.

The differences between Europe and the US is exactly the reason why I've been making a point to say that gun control must be implemented gradually.

Cartels are a problem though. You could of course defuse them by lifting the drug prohibition, but everyone knows that's not going to happen.
A simpler idea might be to place more focus on stopping firearms that may be crossing the border, and perhaps create a buffer zone near the border where gun laws differ from the rest of the country.
Specifically, what I'm thinking about is keeping armouries and weapon factories away from the border states, implementing extremely strict gun control in these states (perhaps even a ban entirely), and keeping an armed police force supplemented in part from the rest of the country.

Cartels have gone beyond drugs. They are now into sex trafficking, rackets, and other crimes. They are massive, and diversified. There is no way we can stop them now outside of an actual war.

The time when pot legalization would harm them is long gone. Especially since they have all the other drugs to make.

America has a litigious and drug culture. Do you seriously think that drugs beyond pot would be allowed? It would be a legal nightmare for both consumers and companies who produce them.

Not to mention companies are allowed to "cut" their product in America. Its the same reason cigarettes are so toxic, because companies added chemicals. So all the drugs would just end up like cigarettes. Even food and drinks are cut, and they aren't even drugs.

On top of all of this, there are many government armories. National guard, Naval, army, Marine, etc. California alone has plenty of them, numbering at 25. Not to mention the military bases have armories, and those bases are used for extensive testing. Most of the military bases in California are Naval bases, which effects half of America's navy.

So with taking away the armories, you take away military bases and take away America's largest testing ground for military objects, and effects America's naval effectiveness on one side.

Its much more complicated than most people want to deal with. So they just keep drugs illegal, and allow guns to the citizens but have them regulated.

The Cartel problem would require America or Mexico to step in. Both are too scared of the Cartels to do anything. If Mexico steps in, it looks at civil war. If America steps in, its military will face another Vietnam, but with more sadistic enemies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked