Why a ban on guns would never work.

Originally posted by pieman
Even if we follow your logic and there's no gap because the victim won't see a murder coming then you'd have to concede that a gun cannot be used defensively.

I've made no mention of the scenario under which a firearm might be used defensively, so for the purposes of our particular discussion, its irrelevant. But yes, you're correct, under many circumstances it absolutely would not matter.

reply to post by pieman


Encasing every gun in concrete is the same as destroying every gun.

You're presenting an impossibility (one which you have admitted to being impossible) as being possible.

You're all over the board attempting to connect lines which you have admitted cannot be connected.

At least attempt some simple semantic trickery. It would go a long way to help mask the reality that you clearly do not understand the words coming out of your own mouth.

Originally posted by vor78
I've made no mention of the scenario under which a firearm might be used defensively, so for the purposes of our particular discussion, its irrelevant.

I think it's an incredibly important factor, if a gun cannot be used defensively (and I don't believe it can be) there is no lawful reason to have a gun*. Anyone found in possession of a gun should be arrested for intent to commit murder.


*There might be some discussion about hunting here but let's not bother, you don't need to hunt for food so you don't need the efficiency of a gun, if you want to hunt, you can use a bow or a spear. It takes more skill but that's kind of the point.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
At least attempt some simple semantic trickery. It would go a long way to help mask the reality that you clearly do not understand the words coming out of your own mouth.

You can't actually find flaw in my logic so you're attempting to invent it. It's pathetic and it demonstrates the vacuity of your position more clearly than any argument I make. But I'll re-state my position so you have no more excuses.

It is possible to destroy enough guns to effectively eliminate the threat they present, namely, being shot by them. All that is required is the will to do so. Any questions?

reply to post by pieman


Actually, many people in my area are low income and use hunting to stretch their budget. Bow hunting can work for some game, but not all. Additionally, as you say, it requires more skill than gun hunting, and the likely result is that game that would have been killed by a marginal rifle shot will merely be wounded with a bow.

As for the defensive use, note that I said its true only under 'many' circumstances. Not always, such as in the case of an armed burglary or if the attacker makes a mistake that makes his presence or intentions known. Additionally, I'd also point out that in the instances where a firearm gives the attacker a major advantage, its generally also true that it would give the defender a major advantage. Not only that, there are also many who simply are not physically capable of defending themselves in any kind of hand-to-hand combat. For them, a firearm is an equalizer and their only realistic opportunity to defend themselves if the need were to ever arise.

reply to post by pieman


You regarding a ban:

It might not get rid of every gun but it would eliminate the threat they present.

Admitting a ban will not eradicate the threat in a nonsensical double-speak manner.

You also said:

And whatever way you cut it, no matter what weapon the "perp" has, the fight is fairer if he doesn't have a gun. You said it yourself, there is no (personal) weapon that is more effective than a gun.

Given the reality a ban will not eradicate you yourself claim the best measure against this threat is to be armed.

You're "logic", if you really want to call it that, has presented a fine argument against any ban or similar measure.

What I see is a classic case of you having some emotional investment in how you "feel" things should be and are climbing every wall and crossing every ocean possible to come to the conclusion you want rather than the conclusion that reality dictates.

Originally posted by vor78
Actually, many people in my area are low income and use hunting to stretch their budget.

They don't need to hunt for food. Anybody who needs to hunt for food probably can't afford a gun.

As for the defensive use, note that I said its true only under 'many' circumstances.

Look, you need to be consistent in your logic, if a gun ban would have a marginal effect on successful murder attempts because you rarely see your attacker coming they can not be very effective defensively as you never see your attacker coming.

reply to post by pieman


Actually, the logic is perfectly consistent because not all attacks are created equally. Again, if someone kicks down the back door, you may well have time to react. If the wife decides she wants to collect the insurance money, you're probably never going to see it coming.

As for hunting, you have to realize something: there are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands throughout the US and many have been passed down through the generations. Besides, you can buy used 22s and single-shot 12 and 20 gauge shotguns all day around here used for well under $100. It can pay for itself rather quickly. And if you don't think they 'need' to hunt to help stretch the budget so they can make ends meet, I invite you to visit rural Arkansas, southern Missouri, or many other areas of the southern and midwestern US.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]

I don't think people realize that guns can be used for recreation. I love to take my guns out and go shooting.

When my fiancee is out of town, I keep my 9mm fully loaded in the drawer of my bedside table. We also have a beautiful antique gun cabinet absolutely filled with guns.

In my neck of the woods, EVERYONE has a gun. And everyone else knows it. So obviously, burglaries are minimal.

Taking away the LEGAL registered guns from normal people and you will only leave the unregistered, illegal firearms in the hands of criminals. I would rather not let those types of people have an advantage over me.


Also, in this little gunless scenario, would police have guns? If they didn't, that would be stupid. What would they defend themselves with, water balloons? If they did have guns, though, and noone else did, you don't think any corrupt cops would try to sell guns on the black market?

Also, knowing how corrupt law enforcement can be, I really wouldn't want to be defenseless myself and yet know that the local police have guns. When only the police have guns, thats called a police state. If you want to just hand over your weapons, which are one of the rights we amazingly still have, go ahead. I'm not going to. Just line up like sheeple and hand your guns over to TPTB. In fact why don't you give up your right to free speech as well? Lets just grab some whiteout and "fix" the constitution. I for one, will never freely give the government anymore power over me than it already has. They can take my guns over my cold, dead, body.


Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

----Benjamin Franklin

[edit on 23-6-2010 by State of Mind]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by vor78


I could not have said it better ty....

To say it lightly a $.27 cent re-load put over 100#'s of meat in the freezer, if you found meat on sale for $1 a pound you would be lucky to buy what my .27 cents put in my freezer, for the new price of a cheap gun at that...
Yet alone a borrowed or used gun...nothing else I own paid for itself in "one time use" but a gun.

And as far as a commodity, guns are worth more resale and market value, than most precious metals and, don't swing wildly...unless, there is a new law put into placce making...a particular gun more desireable.."expensive"

Originally posted by pieman

A gun is not a threat. Being shot by a gun is a threat. A gun with no man to shoot it can not kill.

Sounds familiar. Guns dont kill people. People kill people.

And arming everyone is exactly what you suggested:

And whatever way you cut it, no matter what weapon the "perp" has, the fight is fairer if he doesn't have a gun. You said it yourself, there is no (personal) weapon that is more effective than a gun.

You're turning into the quite the NRA fanboy.

Try speaking out loud. Maybe hearing yourself will help with the inconsistencies.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by vor78
Actually, the logic is perfectly consistent

Only if you can't follow your own train of thought.

And if you don't think they 'need' to hunt to help stretch the budget so they can make ends meet, I invite you to visit rural Arkansas, southern Missouri, or many other areas of the southern and midwestern US.

Maybe they should sell their huge antique gun collections. Stretching you budget suggests that you won't starve in the absence of.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Sounds familiar. Guns dont kill people. People kill people.

Guns just make people more effective killers

And arming everyone is exactly what you suggested:

And whatever way you cut it, no matter what weapon the "perp" has, the fight is fairer if he doesn't have a gun. You said it yourself, there is no (personal) weapon that is more effective than a gun.

Explain how that quote suggests arming everyone.

Actually, don't bother, if you're incapable of basic reading comprehension I doubt you'll ever make a point worth the trouble of reading.

reply to post by pieman


Step by step, okay?

You said:

-ban wont get rid of all guns

-best if the perp didnt have a gun

You claim we cannot ensure all perps will lack guns.

Then:

-most effective weapon is a gun

Ergo, can't keep guns from perps, best way to meet the perp is with equal force. Equal force in this case being a gun.

Either you are suggesting we arm everyone, impossibly disarm all the perps (I cant imagine why you would suggest we embark on an admitted impossible task) or that we simply permit ourselves to die at the hands of those perps with guns.

You are suggesting one of the three options. Which one is it?

In my experience with people with your position it's always some combination of attempting the impossible task of disarmament and accepting everyone else sit back and die. As long as it's "manageable."

[edit on 23-6-2010 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
In my experience with people with your position.........

In my experience, a person who can't be bothered to read all the posts in a thread and just assume a persons position isn't worth the effort, they're not thinking for themselves, they're just regurgitating someone elses verbal vomit.

I believe that, as a species, we are beyond any requirement for guns, if there ever was one. I believe that we should eliminate them all in a staged fashion. I believe this is perfectly achievable given the collective will.

While I concede there will be a few die hards that will build a bunker and store a cache, I don't believe that these are the people who will go around negligently shooting people. Thus I say that, while guns won't be 100% eliminated, the threat they pose will be eliminated.

If a person is found to be carrying a gun, I suggest they are charged with possesion with attempt to kill, as a person is presently charged with intent to supply drugs. This will stop most of the "perps" before they ever get the chance to use the gun.

There are other, non-lethal, weapons the police/people can use to maintain order or defend themselves once we are reasonably sure that guns are a minimal threat.

In short, as I said in my first post, as far as I'm concerned, a world without guns equates to our evolution as a species, whether that involves a peaceful or a hard fought transition. I'ld prefer the former but I can live with the latter.

[edit on 23/6/10 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
Many they should sell their huge antique gun collections. Stretching you budget suggests that you won't starve in the absence of.

Well, try thinking about it for a second. On average, they own four or five. If they sell them, they're going to get a few hundred bucks out of it total. That might help for a few months, but its not a renewable resource. Once the money is gone, its gone for good.

Oh, and by the way, in your gun ban fantasy, what good does selling them do? That just means that they pass from one individual to another.


[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]

reply to post by vor78


That was sarcasm, look, the fact that they're doing it to stretch their budget rather than keep themselves from starvation means that they can stand to half their chances using a bow or sling shot or dart gun or trap or whatever. Humans have hunted for hundreds of thousands of years without guns.

reply to post by pieman


Certainly, you could go bow hunting, but I suspect you'd end up with a higher percentage of wounded animals than we do now because of the relative skill levels required of the hunter. And its not well suited for all forms of hunting. For instance, you're going to lose arrows if you try to duck hunt with it and good arrows aren't cheap. There are also the legal issues that may apply to ground shots on many bird species.





[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]

reply to post by vor78


You're right about bow hunting, it's harder. From a different perspective, hunting with a gun is a bit easy, there have been quite a few species hunted to extinction because hunters have guns.

I'm fairly confident that, if the semantics of eradicating fire-arms can be worked out, the semantics of effective sport hunting in their absence will be a easy by comparrison.