Why a ban on guns would never work.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


We should have told them to use their fist. It seems they think they can win a battle with them...

Originally posted by pieman

A Pool used properly will not kill

You getting the idea yet?

A gun will not kill if properly used.

A gun will kill if properly used.

See how versatile the firearm is.

If one chooses to do so, following appropriate procedures, the gun owner can shoot at paper targets and never kill a single being.

However, if ever faced with a life and death situation, the "paper puncher" can use the experience gained by punching paper to punch holes in an assailant.


[edit on 2010/6/22 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Oh right, you mean the lend lease (war profiteering) program that the US was running before Japan forced you to grow a pair.

The lack of arms after Dunkirk had nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the fact that the brits had to evacuate Dunkirk in sail boats and were left as the only country willing to face the germans in the West, seeing as the US was too busy cowering in it's isolation to stand up and join the fight proper.

Yeah, WW2 really shows up the willingness of the US to fight tyranny. "Well we don't want to fight but we will sell you these guns". You proud of that little episode?

Originally posted by pieman
A car used properly will not kill.

A Pool used properly will not kill

That's kind of a moot point, isn't it? People don't use them properly. There are, on average, 45,000 people killed on America's roadways every year. Another 4,000 die by drowning. And lets not forget about those evil bicycles, which kill over 800 Americans every year.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If one chooses to do so, following appropriate procedures, the gun owner can shoot at paper targets and never kill a single being.

A gun is not designed to shoot paper targets, if it is used to do so it is not being used for the purpose to which it was designed. If used for the purpose to which it was designed, a gun will kill.

Originally posted by pieman
A gun is not designed to shoot paper targets, if it is used to do so it is not being used for the purpose to which it was designed. If used for the purpose to which it was designed, a gun will kill.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that millions of Americans use them for the purpose of target shooting. Myself I prefer cans and paper plates.

Originally posted by vor78
That's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

Not really, the difference between a gun and a car is that you can posses a car with no intention to use it to take life in any circumstance. I don't understand why you guys aren't getting this, it's a fairly simple concept. Guns are different because they're only purpose is to kill.

And millions of americans use a butter knife to screw in their screws but you're not going to tell me that a butter knife is a screw driver.

[edit on 22/6/10 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
I don't understand why you guys aren't getting this, it's a fairly simple concept. Guns are different because they're only purpose is to kill.

I guess I'm not 'getting it' because I actually live in an area with enough guns and gun owners to equip a modest third world army. Believe it or not, people aren't shooting each other, either. Granted, its different in Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, or some of the other inner cities, but for those of us who live in rural areas or one of the ten thousand or so small towns across the country, its just not a problem.

Now, challenging the first responder, when handguns were banned in the UK, why did handgun-related cime rates jump 40% in 9 years?

Originally posted by vor78
I guess I'm not 'getting it' because I actually live in an area with enough guns and gun owners to equip a modest third world army.

Which means you are unable to grasp the simple concept that guns are designed for the single purpose of killing something?

Crime is generally lower in rural areas compared to urban areas. Rural or urban, crime where a gun is easily available is more likely to be deadly than crime where no gun is available, no matter where you live.

Originally posted by Doubleagent
Now, challenging the first responder, when handguns were banned in the UK, why did handgun-related cime rates jump 40% in 9 years?

At a guess (because you haven't linked to the statistic you quoted) I'd say it is because owning a handgun became a crime. Being found with a hand-gun becomes a "hand gun related crime", which doesn't mean the same thing as a handgun was used to commit a crime.

Originally posted by pieman
Which means you are unable to grasp the simple concept that guns are designed for the single purpose of killing something?

No, what it means is that I can grasp the simple concept that it doesn't matter what it was 'designed for.' All that really matters is how it is actually used. And you're right, rural areas do tend to have lower crime rates, but that's kind of the point. Its just not an issue for very large geographic area of this country.

Take a step back and think about something: You're preaching to us from several thousand miles away, far from any American firearm. We're right in the middle of it. We're speaking from the experience of dealing with American gun owners every single day.

If we're not worried about it, why are you?

[edit on 22-6-2010 by vor78]

Originally posted by pieman

Oh right, you mean the lend lease (war profiteering) program that the US was running before Japan forced you to grow a pair.

The lack of arms after Dunkirk had nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the fact that the brits had to evacuate Dunkirk in sail boats and were left as the only country willing to face the germans in the West, seeing as the US was too busy cowering in it's isolation to stand up and join the fight proper.

Yeah, WW2 really shows up the willingness of the US to fight tyranny. "Well we don't want to fight but we will sell you these guns". You proud of that little episode? [emphasis mine]

There is no post on this thread that better illustrates you're propensity to twist the truth to your own ends. Your logic regarding the logic behind gun control is shot through with lies, but in the wee hours I was too tired to track down every one and refute it.

Your vitriol toward the US is wholly without merit. It is an insult to every American who lost his life defending Europe in two wars in the 20th Century and it is an insult to every American who survives today.

It is strange that the country that you call cowardly using the crudest of terms is the nation that turned the tide in both wars.

It is also interesting to note that in your mind, the proper fight is one in which your butt or the butts of your forebears were in mortal danger.

Every American whose life is threatened by anything from a two-legged dirt bag to a four-legged beast to a slithering reptile is every bit as worthy of protecting his life and interests as is any European nation who needs American assistance to survive.

Lend lease was not war profiteering when Britain needed guns and butter, but in your twisted logic it is now and the deaths of a few million GIs with their guns designed to kill were just the thing to keep you from speaking German and Russian in these posts.

As for the reason Britain needed guns to protect the homeland after Dunkirk, I will post this link again, this being the third time.

www.nraila.org...

Pieman, you have destroyed your credibility and exposed yourself as being shameless in your willingness to not only ignore facts, but to invent them.

Whatever has embittered you has diminished you and I would advise some serious soul searching, but the literature confirms over and over again that those like you have little interest in employing even a smidgen of insight.

Good day.


[edit on 2010/6/22 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by vor78
No, what it means is that I can grasp the simple concept that it doesn't matter what it was 'designed for.' All that really matters is how it is actually used. And you're right, rural areas do tend to have lower crime rates, but that's kind of the point. Its just not an issue for very large geographic area of this country.

what do you mean?

that crime rates aren't an issue?
or that crimes involving firearms aren't an issue?

either way....where the heck do you live?

i live in a relatively rural area and it's not all that turbulent, generally speaking...but still there are too many incidents with guns that just shouldn't be.

kids are increasingly taking guns to school, too, these days - all over the U.S.
for whatever reason, it doesn't matter!
it is appalling that we've let our idea of what constitutes "freedom" determine the safety level of our children's daily lives!

and so much for freedom!
all the guns in the world aren't going to liberate us from the bad bad situation in our coastal waters...

Take a step back and think about something: You're preaching to us from several thousand miles away, far from any American firearm. We're right in the middle of it. We're speaking from the experience of dealing with American gun owners every single day.

If we're not worried about it, why are you?

i pretty much agree with everything Pieman says.
and i live right here in the good old trigger happy U.S.A.

& i AM worried about it!
& right in the middle of it.
& speaking from the experience of dealing with America gun owners everyday, too, just like you

i worked for ten years as a R.N., too
even in this small town there have been too many victims of firearms that had nothing whatsoever to do with the gun that hurt or killed them!

to me, just one little kid who gets shot in the head, in their stroller, caught in the crossfire of some jacked up gang-banger's drive-by B.S. is
ONE TOO MANY.

what good is my so-called freedom at the expense of another citizen's VERY LIFE????

there's no justification for that at all

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
A lot of man woman and children would still be alive today if it was not so freaking easy to get your hands on a gun in the US.

that's right!

And for what ? Feeling liberty is under attack ? That is just it...

Just to many fruitcakes... Silly Americans.:shk:

we are fruitcakes!
i hate to admit it but yeah.

reply to post by queenannie38


You're always going to have some level of violent crime, no matter what kind of ban you have in place, whether its for firearms or pointy objects. One look at the crime statistics of the UK or other nations with very strict gun laws proves that quite well.

Myself, I live on the foothills of the Ozarks. It happens, yes, but is it something anyone around here worries about? No. There are a few thousand people in the small town in which I live, but we average only about one homicide per decade. The overall homicide rate in the area isn't zero, probably around 2 per 100,000, but that's comparable to many western European nations. The one thing you don't see around here are random acts of gun violence. Certainly no driveby's. Its usually domestic.

That's why I say that no one is worried about it. You're more likely to get struck by lightning around here than to end up shot in a random act of gun violence, and that's true throughout much of the country. I'm not saying that's true everywhere, mind you. Most of our major cities are cesspools of random violence and it often spills out into the surrounding suburbs and semi-rural towns. That said its worth noting that some of the worst cities such as Chicago, Washington DC, and Baltimore, have extremely strict gun laws on the books.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by jeh2324

 

I am not using the word “cowboy” to insult you, just to illustrate the point that guns were necessary back then, now they are not. Its like the middle ages in the UK when we were all running about with swords, but today you would never see me walking down the street with a sword. The point is that guns should have no place in a modern society.

Life is full of shoulds, woulds and coulds. Communisim would work just fine if people weren't of the nature we are. Guns are as necessary now as they ever were. The ability to protect one's self and family are paramount to freedom.

For a definitive read on how this actually plays out in the US, read John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. I'll post a link to a recent article on the mass shooting in London, that he wrote. Lott started out to write an actual basis for understanding gun use and control, because up to that time, believe it or not, no one had actually done a thorough statistical analysis on it. His credentials are impeccable. And he was a left leaning guy at the time, fully expecting to be creating a valuable tool for rational discussion on the subject, that could "prove" the conventional wisdom of limiting firearms ownership. However, being an honest guy, he published the results, despite that they showed a solid basis for the opposite conclusion. And he was thoroughly attacked for it.

article.nationalreview.com...

Since this topic is far too broad to cover in detail in one or even ten posts, I'll lay out the logic on one small part, that very few people seem to have a handle on. Many people who believe that citizens ought not have access to guns, make the argument that even if the Framers of the Constitution, meant for it to be more a bulwark against tyranny, (they did, BTW) and not for defense from external enemies or hunting or even crime prevention, that it is a moot point, since the government has much bigger badder weapons. No guy with a rifle or .45 is going to be able to stave off an attack from his own government. They have tanks and rocket launchers....etc.

However, there is something much subtler at play here. It involves Games Theory. In order to exert government force against one's own countrymen, the government must convince the military and/or police to threaten their own citizens. And this proves problematic. In China, when the students were occupying Tienanmen Square, they had to wait a few weeks, and bring troops from a far away province, who were of a different ethnic origin, to crush (literally) them. Why? Because local troops would not fire upon or act against unarmed peaceful protesters that were friends and family and neighbors. They resisted their "orders". And this was in a totalitarian government, where one might expect absolute control over the military.

Russia had similar problems in Chechnya and other places. In the US, this would play out a bit differently. No official, elected or otherwise, would dream of ordering the military to go crush ordinary citizens. They know it would not only not be carried out, but that they would suffer the repercussions of trying, because it would be a distinctly unlawful order. It, like our right to bear arms, is explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

However, we could still be rounded up and separated from the population at large, through subterfuge....say an order to round people up for their own protection or that of others in a quarantine for "medical" or "disaster" reasons. And, if the people were unarmed, many if not most say National Guard troops would comply, with such an order from above. Some Captain perhaps, would follow the logic that it was for their own good, and that no one was likely to get hurt.

continued.....



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Enderdog]


[edit on 22-6-2010 by Enderdog]

reply to post by Enderdog


continued from previous post.

Fear of Court-Martial for failure to obey orders, would weigh heavily on his mind. With an armed populace though, the equation becomes quite different. Faced with the knowledge that at least some armed citizens are going to resist being rounded up, for their own good or not, he has to consider that a few things are likely to result. That perhaps his troops...the guys he knows and has trained with, are going to be shot at...maybe killed. That perhaps those same guys, will have to shoot their own citizens....neighbors...students (remember Kent State?)....etc. And if he gives the order, and they don't, he will be responsible for prosecuting them for failure to follow orders.

This is quite the quagmire. Any good and decent officer, knows that he had better not give any orders that won't be obeyed, if he hopes to keep his career intact, to say nothing of moral qualms.

So, faced with an armed populace, and such an order, the very people who will be tasked with carrying out any such potentially Unconstitutional action, or small part of such an action, will be far more likely to question the legality of such an order. All military officers are sworn to DISobey an UNlawful order. This provides good people with good moral character, the ability to short circuit unlawful procedures by our government. And the second amendment was written in for that very reason.

In the movie Crimson Tide, the two main characters are both good men, and both are doing what they think is right. And both have good reason to believe that what they are doing is lawful, under the Code of Military Justice. At the end of the movie, the Military Panel that decides who was right, concludes that they both were. And in any conflict, where people on the same side have differing interpretations of the rules, there are going to be internal conflicts as well. The 2nd Amendment tips the balance away from totalitarianism, and toward freedom. That's all it can do.

You can't force people to be good people. You can only provide the means whereby good people are not at the mercy of bad people. The rest is simply the price of freedom.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Enderdog]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no post on this thread that better illustrates you're propensity to twist the truth to your own ends.

Actually it was an exercise in pointing out that the truth of the American contribution to the European war is entirely a matter of perspective. I've as much basis for my point of view as you have for yours, more perhaps.

Europeans are pretty sick of the stupid & ignorant attitude that the US "saved" anyone in WW2, the Germans were generally defeated by tens upon tens of millions of Russian soldiers in the east. The Brits saved themselves by defeating the Germans in the air. America came in late and only when attacked. The war might have been longer without the US but it might have been shorter if the US had joined in 1939.

Maybe you should go and familiarize yourself with the "facts" before you accuse me of twisting them.

EDIT: I have no idea what the point of the NRA propaganda link you've posted is, what am I supposed to gain reading it? I know what happened in Dunkirk and the problems that existed immediately following.

Pieman, you have destroyed your credibility and exposed yourself as being shameless in your willingness to not only ignore facts, but to invent them.

As far as that goes, can you please quote the fact I invented or be honorable enough to retract that statement, and pieman has a small "p", thanks.

[edit on 22/6/10 by pieman]

Originally posted by vor78
All that really matters is how it is actually used.

That's just not true. You have said that a gun is no different from a car as both can potentially take life. My response is that the difference between the two is that a gun is designed to take life while a car is not. It matters because the nature of a guns design means that the only reasonable purpose to posses is to kill.

If we're not worried about it, why are you?

Right is right, wrong is wrong. If you want to limit the discussion to Americans, go to an America specific board.

Originally posted by pieman
Right is right, wrong is wrong.

Right is right, wrong is wrong? If you're really that arrogant, that you think you know better from your little soapbox several thousand miles away than the people who live in this country, then its pointless to continue with you.