It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An "L" Stance on Guns and Gun Control

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:39 PM
"L" means Libertarian

Guns are morally neutral. Sometimes guns are used by the villains and other times guns used by the heros. Guns exist, they can't be gotten rid of either since there are millions of them in the world, and typically once a gun is made it has a very very long lifetime, getting passed down through the generations, being refurbished and such. The vast vast vast majority of gunshots are merely practice shots, with no intent to kill whatsoever. Guns get more sophisticated all the time, there are a large variety of them as well, and have multiple applications.

Some people use guns for hunting, some for protection (like police officers or guarding against home intruders and vandals or for personal protection against threatening individuals), and others for recreation (shooting cans and targets helps some people concentrate better, others get a thrill out of doing it, target practice, paintball/airsoft, robot competitions, etc). The cops don't always show up in time, and in dangerous neighborhoods people are often times left to fend for themselves, but outlawing guns won't make them go away, the criminals will still get them, and regulation of guns still won't keep them out of the hands of thugs. In fact, outlawing guns will only make it safer for thugs to knock over stores and banks, or to burglarize your home, it will probably start happening more frequently than they do now.

Thugs can get their hands on guns regardless of what the law says, very easy to do, just like how they can get their hands on illegal drugs. Outlawing guns would be tantamount to funding a war on guns, similar to the war on drugs it would be lost merely because there will always be a demand for the gun trade, and furthermore gun companies would just go underground like prohibition, I'm pretty sure people would figure out a way to make their own guns and ammo if they couldn't purchase them or know where to get them.

I think what I am saying here is true, don't you agree? Wouldn't it be much more costly to regulate guns with tax dollars, and then to lock people up just for owning firearms? Aren't our jails already too full as it is? Why make criminals out of all gun enthusiasts just because there are a few criminals in the world whom are way out of control and probably could get guns anyhow? Why sacrifice freedoms in the name of safety, when there isn't even a guarantee of safety even if expensive laws were to be implemented in the first place?

I realize that other countries that prohibit guns have a much lower instance of gun violence, however, they merely don't have the public demand for guns that we do in the US. They spend a lot less in taxes in their gun regulation merely because of this lack of demand for firearms, but in the end it still is a repressed freedom in those countries, their gun enthusiasts probably just move here instead to satisfy their activities. Their criminals merely find other means of killing, such as poisoning or knives or clubs, yes more primitive means to their end, but they achieve it nonetheless.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:46 PM
Well said. And then on the other side you have societies like Switzerland where everybody has a fully automatic gun and there is virtually no gun violence there. It really should be pretty obvious to anyone that laws only affect people who obey the laws.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:47 PM
Well said !! The events of the past week have proved that guns aren't dangerous,crazy people with guns are.
A firearm holds no intention !!

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:08 PM
S+F! And well deserved you echoed my thoughts on gun control nearly to the T, I have always felt and demonstrated that taking away law abiding citizen's rights to protect themselves with firearms only serves to strengthen criminals who will get weapons no matter what the law says because they do not have any respect for the law. It has been shown numerous times that criminals in areas with high numbers of law abiding citizens with firearms and the willingness to protect themselves and their families criminals are far less brazen. Criminals are generally creatures of opportunity that prey on the weak, where there are the weak (unable to defend themselves with legal firearms the criminals will be much stranger and more brazen. It really amazes me that these gun control stooges actually think they are doing any good other than to empower criminals, I wish they would get a clue one day.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:10 PM
Men have always had weapons.

"Guns" are just modern weapons.

Disarmed nations are victims awaiting their turn.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:31 AM
In Utrecht one of the larger cities in the Netherlands there wa a guy murdered 2 dayys ago...

The first since 2008.

We can't have guns

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:32 AM
S+F, Look at Mexico. 30,000 deaths in 2 years with a total ban on guns. Well written, but I'm sure you're preaching mostly to the choir.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
S+F, Look at Mexico. 30,000 deaths in 2 years with a total ban on guns. Well written, but I'm sure you're preaching mostly to the choir.

that's a little hilarious.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
In Utrecht one of the larger cities in the Netherlands there wa a guy murdered 2 dayys ago...

The first since 2008.

We can't have guns

I do not know much about Netherlands gun policy, how long have the gun control laws been in place? How deep set were firearms in the culture before the ban went into place? Don't get me wrong I think gun control can work but only in certain places. I personally believe the U.S. would be the last place that an all out gun ban or even strict gun regulations on earth that would work and actually reduce crime, IMHO of course

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by BigDave-AR

I think you are right. The Netherlands have banned guns at least since the day that I was born and i'm 28.
People that want to commit a crime don't let guns change their minds, but how much people died or got injured because of a gun accident.

You can get a gun here if you want to, there is always a way, but at least the idiots won't be armed here.
There are countries in Europe where you can own a gun, it's just that they do not make the news regularly.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

What about all the violence in the Netherlands from the Turkish gangsters a few years back? When I was traveling Europe I remember seeing a news report of one gang shooting up the other gangs nightclub with a machine gun.
Forgive me sir, I do not know you personally, or am making a personal attack towards you, but I generally felt like Europeans in general turned a blind eye towards many things that weren't considered civilized and pretended they didn't exist. Sex tourism, Human trafficking, narcotics, street violence, ethnic conflicts, problems with Bosnian refugees, etc. were all very rampant while I was touring Europe. There was crime everywhere. A few weeks ago in the UK there were a series of violent days long riots over something.
Yet every time a tragedy happens in America we have to endure countless opinions outlining how we apparently do things wrong.
I'm not a social theory expert by any means, but some countries I went to had guns everywhere. Switzerland was a good example. I saw some of their army guys riding the bus with assault rifles. One home I visited, the owner was very proud of his handgun collection and showed it to me. Yet there crime and general social disharmony were very low.
If America has a fault, I think it is that we don't take a tragedy for what its worth and remember it would still be a tragedy regardless of the underlying social issues. As far as crime and guns, I think for every gun used in a crime here there's like 10,000 out there that aren't. That's statistical insignificance. In America we also like to ban things we find socially dangerous. For example, crack coc aine and heroin. However, these things are commonly available on the streets anyway. This kind of stuff doesn't work. Even tactics they use in your home country don't seem to work. The legal drug markets spawn bigger illicit drug markets. The legal sex industry spawns a larger illicit sex industry that isn't regulated. There is no simple answer.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by commdogg

Hi no worries. No offense taken at all. Its refreshing for a reply on topic not to be offensive.

As I said before, Criminals will be criminals wit or without a gun.

My country still has it's own laws and regulations and you will that there are big differences in the European union.
Although they are getting smaller...

The Swiss are a bad example though. It is the only country that doesn't give a crp about Europe and remains a solitary nation. The reason that they all own guns comes from them having no professional army. Not one of importance anyway. They are basically all on standby and they are regularly required to be on military training camp.
A rifle and two magazines of ammo are mandatory so they are ready to fight when the shtf ( If I remember correct )

There have been situations where shootings took place here yes we don't deny this.
These people that were armed were already involved in dark busynesses anyway.. I can't even imagine if all the nut cases out there on a night out causing mayhem were all armed. No good would come from it.

The events you are talking about have been isolated cases and they are the exception. and n in no way these types of events happen on a regular basis. ( Unlike personal crimes that have a relational basis )
You are probably awre that only bad news will get attention making it look as if it is not save here.

I can imagine this also counts for the US though.

I talking about the countless of accidents an use f firearms that could have easily be prevented i the were banned. IMO every single death is worth the ban.

Even tactics they use in your home country don't seem to work. The legal drug markets spawn bigger illicit drug markets. The legal sex industry spawns a larger illicit sex industry that isn't regulated. There is no simple answer.

I don't no where you got this idea but I'm afraid you are way of about it. A market for sex and drugs will always exist. I will explain you what I mean but you will have to ask me so we can discuss it somewhere else.

The issue is in violation of the ATS terms and I will not go there here. Again I'd be happy to share my thoughts and experience but not on ATS.

Anyway thank you .


posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Basically the legal brothel industry spawned a larger still illicit sex industry. Since the Amsterdam red light district is a sex tourism destination, unregulated/unlicensed prostitutes can operate as part of a criminal enterprise with the facade of being legal. This is done because an illegal business run by gangster has a far lower overhead than a legal one that is taxed, etc. These prostitutes are generally human trafficking victims from other countries. There is a whole bunch of information on this in various legal journals, and I will look for some of them if I can get time later to do so. Also, trafficked children have been found in these places, as I doubt the Netherlands would freely give them a license to work as a prostitute. Since more people go there to buy sex, more illicit sexual services are offered comparatively. Does that make sense?

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by commdogg

Yeeah I understand perfectly what you mean.

However I do not agree.

There will always be people willing to pay for sex. This is not gonna make a difference illegal or legal.
With legal prostitution you get a big part of the sex scene transparent, and you also take away criminality.

What happens is that because of their legal job, prostitutes as well as their visitors are willing to cooperate and watch for signs of girls forced into prostitution. Of course their will always be people that still take advantage of a situation. However.... Since it is an open scene for the most part, people will notice any criminal activity and report it as such.

This would never have happened in an illegal sex scene... The Turkish gang leader has been caught and and is spending his days in a Turkish cell.The Dutch already requested his transfer for when he is released.

Take for example Taiwan which is infamous as a vacation destiny for creepy guys that wish to have sex with a virgin or just children for that matter. Officially that is illegal , and the punishment for getting caught is a lot more severe then in any western nation.
Still... it go's on ....

Basically I say that the lack of any regulation in an industry that does not know any control, since it 's all happening underground, abuse is a tool way more implemented and force is used more often. Which results in an un save and more dangerous world for everyone involved.

I hope that makes sense

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Well that's good they got him.

The point though is when certain activity is legitimized it draws a higher percentage of patrons for the illicit side as well.
Whomever regulates the sex industry in the Netherlands is equipped to regulate it as it was envisioned to lawfully operate. Meaning the sex workers have documents, are expected to comply with licensing requirements etc. The businesses that utilize them are expected comply as well. That's all well and good if they do. The problem is, the legal brothels attract customers that probably do not care about the legality. That's where illicit outfits come into play.
Its kind of like alcohol in the US. It's legal virtually everywhere, yet they still have bootleggers and moonshiners out there because they can make a profit by skirting the regulatory agencies and selling illegal spirits. People still buy illegal alcohol, because they can get it 24/7 in the areas where liquor stores close for certain hours, or just because moonshine is cheaper than regulated and taxed alcohol.
Make sense? There is always a black market for things even if they are legal under certain conditions.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by commdogg

Yes of course.

A black market will always exist, simply because of the need. However... That same black market will exist when there are no legal options. This will take the whole scene underground and much more difficult to regulate, observe, influence and discovered even.

I want to visit a prostitute. I'll head for a place where I can find them, I pick one, and do the deed, pay, and I'll go home.
If this was illegal I would have to basically do the same thing, only this time same guy that pimps the ho's also has all the other illegal possibilities to offer.

So would you make a job illegal which is known to happen anyway. For the big part by people that choose to work in it and those that only want that one thing.Criminalize all of them, and create a scene where there are no rules and regulations at all... With all the negative stuff that comes with it.

Legalize a part of it so those that choose to can while you create new ways to identify the unwanted, and the possibility to actually do something about it.

The positive results from a legalized sex industry far outweigh the negative.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

The point is though, my argument, in a nutshell is the same argument used here for banning firearms. The delusion is that, as you say, we know it won't work for other forms of crime like prostitution, or drug policy, yet we somehow think it will for gun crime? I mean for prostitution anyway, you would agree in the Netherlands the illicit side of it, even if inflated by the legal regulated aspects, is not the problem of those that engage in it under the compliance of law?
You said yourself, there is no such thing as being free of a black market, so whats the alternative? A regulated market with some fringe behavior, or a completely unregulated one? Would there be less guns around, probably, the catch is that all the guns around would be crime guns, instead of the small percentage of them that are here now versus lawful ones.
In any school of thought for crime control, there are positives and negatives, so what exactly are we to live with? Who makes the call, especially when the opinions are polarized along political lines?
I back-doored that one a little bit I know, but it is a valid question.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by commdogg

You know you make a good point.

I'm afraid I've not looked at the subject without prejudice. I belief someone should be able to make that choice by themselves actually.

You made me change my mind. Thank you

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Cool. Either way, the decision should be a cold one, not made on the heels of some kind of devastating incident.

new topics

top topics


log in