If gun control worked, Chicago would be Mayberry

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Gun control works, this much has been demonstrated in other countries. There's one thing those countries have that we don't though. Ever since the beginning of this nation we've manufactured guns, there are millions upon millions of guns throughout our streets. This means there's ample supply to acquire firearms even when gun control measures are in place, which goes back to my first three words.

In order for gun control to work several things need to be true:
1. Illegal weapons need to be hard to obtain, in the case of the US this will require decades of gun control for the supply to dry up and buying guns to not be such a readily available option.

2. Legal weapons have to be turned in. Over time, all legal guns eventually turn to illegal guns as relatives die and people inherit them or burglaries are committed to find weapons (which would happen when they stop being for sale on the streets). In essence, there has to be nothing for the criminals to steal.

3. Ammunition needs to be difficult to find. A gun is almost useless if it doesn't have bullets, or those bullets are too expensive to use on petty crime. It would take a long time for existing ammo supplies to disappear.

4. Gun control must apply to all states equally. Because of interstate commerce there are open borders between states, and to a more local extent between cities. This means if one area outlaws guns, it's quite easy to travel one state or even town over and purchase a weapon to bring into the banned area. The only way this could be averted is if all states have equal bans on firearms.

Any measure that doesn't take the above four points into account is doomed to failure and simply results in the situation where criminals have guns but law abiding citizens don't. It would take an utterly massive amount of political will, which quite frankly doesn't exist in order for there to be effective gun control legislation. All that said, I don't like guns/don't want them around me, and find a lot of the gun lobby arguments to be rather poor, but I'm behind the fight because I fully support citizens having arms guns are part of that... but the real arms battle in the future is going to be over software and encryption. Those are weapons I'm far more interested in and don't want to see limited.
edit on 25-8-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be great if we could just make the military illegal then there would be no more wars??
Anyway, drugs are illegal...how's that working out?
When will the leaders of this nation wake up? Really though, gun control has nothing to do with the government wanting to keep civilians safe. Gun owners know/understand this.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Now, if we can get all the gullible people to listen, and learn, we might get somewhere! The data all supports this, but people still deny. They panic when they find out a neighbor, arrested for trumped up charges, owned a lot of guns. Never mind that he was a good neighbor, no criminal record, etc.; he must be "bad" because he collected guns.

The ultimate irony of course is that the politicians calling for gun control the loudest have armed guards.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I really cant understand that since in these threads were basically just wishing for things why cant we wish for guns to be in the hands of NO ONE!!!!!

Given the current state of affairs the above seems about as likely as the constitutionists (Is that a word?) getting their way



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


This is because they tend to see themselves as being people of elevated importance, and thus in need of protections not necessary to the commoners. Instead it just makes them giant hypocrites.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aazadan


2. Legal weapons have to be turned in. Over time, all legal guns eventually turn to illegal guns as relatives die and people inherit them or burglaries are committed to find weapons (which would happen when they stop being for sale on the streets). In essence, there has to be nothing for the criminals to steal.


Yes confiscation of legal weapons has worked soooo well throughout history right? Right? Riiiiiight.

libertycrier.com...

"Documentary showing that “gun control” has historically been used to disarm citizens and make them helpless before governments commit genocide. Dramatically covers major genocides in the Soviet Union, Germany, Uganda, Rwanda, China, Turkey, and other countries.Shows how “gun control” in the U.S. has been used to victimize blacks, Indians, children, women, and others.Combines gut-level emotional appeal and fast-paced, powerful graphics with a cool statement of historic facts and quotes from the relevant laws."



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Gun control does work at a national level. Just look at every country that has it and compare violent crimes rates. Nobody can dispute that. However, that matters not as the Constitution allows the right to own guns. Do let the anti gun control crowd make you look like an idiot by having you defend a position that 1. your wrong about and 2, has no bearing on the debate.


Can't tell if your response is sarcasm or not. I cant speak for a lot of the countries with strict gun control laws but I do know that violent crimes rates in England (which has very strict gun control) are much higher than the US has ever been when you break it down per 100,000. Violent crimes don't have to be gun related, now the crooks over there just stab or bludgeon people. Personally if I wanted to commit a heinous act I would use a knife, they are much quieter, easier to conceal and if you cut the right places they cause more damage than a lot of civilian accessible firearms containing standard ammunition.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
I really cant understand that since in these threads were basically just wishing for things why cant we wish for guns to be in the hands of NO ONE!!!!!


But then we would be talking about bat/sword control. The criminal minded will always find the means to one-up what ever they will go up against. China is a good example that a crazy person can kill just as many with a knife as a crazy person can with a automatic weapon. Killing sheep is easy no matter what is used.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





You can't be trusted is what they are saying to gun owners.

You have to beg government's permission to own a gun.

The anti gun proponents will passionately vilify gun owners, then turn around and shout, 'don't you dare pass voter ID laws'.


You have to beg the govt to give you little peace of freedom , anytime soon.

Because in the end , it is the govt which needs to break the American people and that is the new strategy US is following to start new wars along the planet because I learned after years and years of wars justified by US govt , people around the world know that US is a country which is always waging on wars.So after decades of invasion and occupation , it seems that US govt is near the end of the line of using democracy for it's short term agendas.

So there is the war waging America , and there is the resistance to war-cry vaccine which has been injected on American people for years.and the main question is :

how will US govt start the next war



In my latest analysis and studies , I found that there are two ways to get US army to invade another country.

1-good old democracy



in that strategy , Obama won't attack anywhere unless he can get a momentum on convincing American people that it is necessary to invade Syria.

That is how the democracy works.

And American people don't believe any fast and furious attack on other countries because they saw how GWB was lying about wars.

So , democracy won't work.

2-To break American people



That means they put force on American people so that people can not take the momentum and break. The only strategy is to make American unstable by internal issues like the bombings and killing , then they use any mean to make American people numb and careless to US wars and invasions. While also distracting them by materialist view of life. Like making more TV shows , music videos , fictional studying , for people to kill their moments.

Like what we saw in Libya , democracy doesn't matter because Obama didn't even wait for the congress to invade Libya. He did what he wanted. about gun control he did what he wanted.....He simply does what he wants.

BTW , I think you tend to fight the enemy instead of solving the problem. But remember that problems are still there.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Seems like theres 2 types of people in this issue.

1 type when you ask them to imagine a hypothetical world COMPLETELY without guns, they wont see violence and will take it to mean its most likely a peaceful society and imagine everything that comes with it.

The 2nd type will talk about the next best weapon they can get their hands on



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Gun control will never work, because criminals dont operate within bounds of laws. Thats what makes them criminals. Outlaw guns, the people you dnt wanr having them still will have them. Because their criminals. Its that simple.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Khaleesi
Yes confiscation of legal weapons has worked soooo well throughout history right? Right? Riiiiiight.

libertycrier.com...

"Documentary showing that “gun control” has historically been used to disarm citizens and make them helpless before governments commit genocide. Dramatically covers major genocides in the Soviet Union, Germany, Uganda, Rwanda, China, Turkey, and other countries.Shows how “gun control” in the U.S. has been used to victimize blacks, Indians, children, women, and others.Combines gut-level emotional appeal and fast-paced, powerful graphics with a cool statement of historic facts and quotes from the relevant laws."


It has turned out well for citizens just as often as it has turned out poorly historically. In modern times, guns are even less relevant because of the massive arms gap. The government has fighters, stealth bombers, guided missiles, tanks, APC's, satellites, navies, control of supply lines, drones, and more. In terms of citizen/government relations, every single one of us could have 10,000 bullets, an M16, and the training to use it and we still wouldn't have a chance. As a result the only comparison that matters is the citizen/criminal relationship, and gun control does result (over time) in criminals having less deadly weapons.

Like I said before though, I'm against gun control. It may be an irrelevant form of arms these days but I don't want the second amendment weakened. The best way to maintain personal liberty these days are software and encryption methods that are classified as weapons. No second amendment=those are gone too.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aazadan

It has turned out well for citizens just as often as it has turned out poorly historically.


??????? Please show me where it has turned out well for citizens. Maybe for a time, all is well but, do you truly trust that ALL future leaders will be kind to their citizens? A nation without arms will ALWAYS have benevolent leaders? Power will corrupt SOMEONE at some point and what will happen. History will happen.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
people.duke.edu...

Here is a study showing gun control myths and how gun control advocates try to validate their position by skewing the data.

"MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."

This is a myth because they intentionally excluded data from the study.

" self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender"

"The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it."

" Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."

This is just a small sample of what the article says. I recommend reading the full article.
edit on 25-8-2013 by Khaleesi because: spelling correction



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Seems like theres 2 types of people in this issue.

1 type when you ask them to imagine a hypothetical world COMPLETELY without guns, they wont see violence and will take it to mean its most likely a peaceful society and imagine everything that comes with it.

The 2nd type will talk about the next best weapon they can get their hands on


Since humans are the most vicious animal on the planet which scenario do you think is correct?



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Khaleesi

Originally posted by Aazadan

It has turned out well for citizens just as often as it has turned out poorly historically.


??????? Please show me where it has turned out well for citizens. Maybe for a time, all is well but, do you truly trust that ALL future leaders will be kind to their citizens? A nation without arms will ALWAYS have benevolent leaders? Power will corrupt SOMEONE at some point and what will happen. History will happen.


That happens with or without arms. Look at what is happening in the US right now. Our president can suspend elections, congress has been bought out by corporations, there are serious concerns that the NSA can blackmail congress/judges, while each and every one of our rights (this includes the second) have either been marginalized or flat out only exist in theory now. This has all happened while we (or atleast those of us outside of DC, Chicago, and NYC) have guns. Even under Hitler most citizens of Germany were allowed to have guns, it was only Jews that couldn't really.

The way you prevent dictators is through actually being involved in politics. Apathy and lack of transparency are what lets individuals become tyrants. When leaders are accountable and administrations are transparent these things are cut down. This is why we have such a problem now, everything important is classified/national security. This principal applies to more than just governments... look at our financial sector and what has happened when they're allowed to hide what they're doing.

If you want examples of where gun control has turned out ok for citizens, just pick a random country in Europe, there's quite a few of them last I looked and almost all of them practice some form of gun control. The reason it works there however, and won't work here I already outlined above in those 4 points.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Seems like theres 2 types of people in this issue.

1 type when you ask them to imagine a hypothetical world COMPLETELY without guns, they wont see violence and will take it to mean its most likely a peaceful society and imagine everything that comes with it.

The 2nd type will talk about the next best weapon they can get their hands on


Since humans are the most vicious animal on the planet which scenario do you think is correct?


Very good point! Just because I am not violent does not mean I am naive about other people. What will happen to the :
"1 type when you ask them to imagine a hypothetical world COMPLETELY without guns, they wont see violence and will take it to mean its most likely a peaceful society and imagine everything that comes with it."

Probably clubbed to death because there are no guns in that 'peaceful society'.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aazadan

Originally posted by Khaleesi

Originally posted by Aazadan

It has turned out well for citizens just as often as it has turned out poorly historically.


??????? Please show me where it has turned out well for citizens. Maybe for a time, all is well but, do you truly trust that ALL future leaders will be kind to their citizens? A nation without arms will ALWAYS have benevolent leaders? Power will corrupt SOMEONE at some point and what will happen. History will happen.


That happens with or without arms. Look at what is happening in the US right now. Our president can suspend elections, congress has been bought out by corporations, there are serious concerns that the NSA can blackmail congress/judges, while each and every one of our rights (this includes the second) have either been marginalized or flat out only exist in theory now. This has all happened while we (or atleast those of us outside of DC, Chicago, and NYC) have guns. Even under Hitler most citizens of Germany were allowed to have guns, it was only Jews that couldn't really.

The way you prevent dictators is through actually being involved in politics. Apathy and lack of transparency are what lets individuals become tyrants. When leaders are accountable and administrations are transparent these things are cut down. This is why we have such a problem now, everything important is classified/national security. This principal applies to more than just governments... look at our financial sector and what has happened when they're allowed to hide what they're doing.

If you want examples of where gun control has turned out ok for citizens, just pick a random country in Europe, there's quite a few of them last I looked and almost all of them practice some form of gun control. The reason it works there however, and won't work here I already outlined above in those 4 points.


You do realize that violent crimes are committed ... without guns .... in these countries that is statistically as high or higher than the US as posted earlier in this thread?


And now I can't find that post. I know there was a post somewhere about non gun violence statistics.
edit on 25-8-2013 by Khaleesi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Yes, it does, and that's why we MUST own guns. Otherwise, these kooks gain total control.

What sane person trusts such people to protect them?



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
www.politifact.com...


"The meme said: "There are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K., making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000. … So hey, Europe, how ‘bout you shut the #%$@ up about gun control?"

Bless those Europeans and their gun control laws!
edit on 25-8-2013 by Khaleesi because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join