SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-agrees-to-timetable-for-un-gun-ban/

The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.

The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious, anti-gun treaty…

. . .and that’s where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.

Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.

As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

Don’t let any of the “experts” lull you to sleep by saying “Oh, we have it handled” or “Until you know exactly what’s in the treaty you can’t fight against it.”

Judging by Ambassador Bolton’s comments — who certainly knows what to expect from the American-freedom-hating international crowd that infests the U.N. — we are certain the treaty’s going to address the private ownership of firearms.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate (which is where we must ultimately make our stand), the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION. So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

tl;dr
Guns may soon be illegal in America, they could be confiscated, and destroyed.

bout time. why the fuck would you need to carry a gun around?

The world just keeps getting worse and worse…

inb4 people start saying guns are evil bad and destructive.

This is going to be for the worse. Anyone who really wants a gun for whatever reason will get it. And now, every innocent person will be unprotected. That assumption alone will lead to more crimes because the criminals will know that they will have no opposition to worry about.

Okay, I can't find any information about this from sites that are not all "THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER CLICK HERE TO FIGHT BACK NOW!" on the issue. Anyone have any links to articles that are not just about how horrible this is, and are more about what the treaty says itself?

The right to bear arms was in the constitution when it was made in the first place, it's there for a reason. Let's try and keep it that way, please. I agree with Tad, 1000%.

Gah. If this is true, which I kinda think it's not going to happen, but whatever, then it will likely be done long before marijuana is legal. >_> Which doesn't make sense at all..

It doesn't make sense to make guns illegal, since it's not like everyone is just like "LOLWUT I'VE A GUN BANG DED. LOLOLLOLOLLOLOL" -_- I'd bet money that the majority of legally bought guns aren't ever used, or at least never shot at a person (if they're used for practice, then that's totally fine, since nobody is getting harmed).

But still.. people CAN die from guns, which is common sense, but nobody has ever died from weed. The majority of "weed-related" deaths are because it's illegal and people get shot for it. >_> Just like prohibition in the '20s, except not as extreme.

Yes, because you owning a gun inherently means you can defend yourself from an attack by someone who most likely has the element of surprise, more experience shooting and/or is less morally led than yourself. More importantly, legally allowing nearly anyone to purchase guns means definitely does not mean criminals can easily get hold of guns and possess them in public areas. Oh and quite obviously the rest of the world is currently overrun by gun wielding criminals who can't be stopped by anyone, resulting in higher gun related casualties and increased fear of gun crime and the like.

Debating the principles of this is easy. I'm more interested in how it will be put into practice.

How exactly are they going to get ten thousand braying rabid raging Texans to hand over their weapons?

No. Guns must be kept.

The founding fathers placed this in the constitution in order to protect our right to overthrow the government, should it ever become time that the government is not expressing the desires of the people. Without guns, America loses the basis on which it was founded.

From: Yakman
Debating the principles of this is easy. I'm more interested in how it will be put into practice.

How exactly are they going to get ten thousand braying rabid raging Texans to hand over their weapons?

I'll send a letter to Obama about my idea to have a nuclear power plant grid power a giant electromagnet.

From: Infantry001
No. Guns must be kept.

The founding fathers placed this in the constitution in order to protect our right to overthrow the government, should it ever become time that the government is not expressing the desires of the people. Without guns, America loses the basis on which it was founded.

I really, really hope your being sarcastic.

Whether or not a government is in power usually relates to whether or not the army supports them.

The untrained, ill-organised general public vs a very powerful army.

From: mixster
Yes, because you owning a gun inherently means you can defend yourself from an attack by someone who most likely has the element of surprise, more experience shooting and/or is less morally led than yourself.

Of course, it's much better to just lay down and die; Something is better than absolutely nothing.

More importantly, legally allowing nearly anyone to purchase guns means definitely does not mean criminals can easily get hold of guns and possess them in public areas.

Illegality doesn't stop anybody who has their mind set on it. Take drugs, for example.

Oh and quite obviously the rest of the world is currently overrun by gun wielding criminals who can't be stopped by anyone, resulting in higher gun related casualties and increased fear of gun crime and the like.

I don't feel like making a huge list of every source that contradicts your intended meaning, so I'll give just one example…

Brazil:
(Don't anyone dare start the "Wikipedia is illegitimate" business)

From: Wikipedia
Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide. In 2004, the number was 36,000. Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths

Clearly, you can't compare one country to another based solely on gun laws and gun-related deaths.


If anything, it's only fair to give the general public the option of having the ability to protect themselves. And again, a criminal who has nothing to fear is much more dangerous that one who has the slightest bit of doubt.

idk if this has been said before but its not gonna happen at all




heres all i have to say if you read the bill of rights




ammendment 2 is the right to bear arms

which means own a gun!

From: Blumblebee
I really, really hope your being sarcastic.

Why would he be being sarcastic?

From: putnam11
Why would he be being sarcastic?

Because obviously guns weren't intended to take down the government when needed, which is what Infantry said. One of those amendments, near the top I think, says something about the public being able to take the government to court or some way of having people they want in the government, and removing them if the public decides as such. I think Nixon was an example? I dunno, I don't really care for history. :p

Every country that has ever mandated the registration of guns has eventually confiscated them.

Look at WWII. How differently might it have ended up if more civilians had been able to defend themselves?

I also recommend you look into Switzerland's history and their gun politics before mindlessly bashing the benefits of having an armed population of civilians.

http://tinyurl.com/yar4du7

Unarmed public + armed government are the major enabling factors for genocide.

I love guns :)

unconstitutional much? itl never pass. + NRA <3

From: Blumblebee
I really, really hope your being sarcastic.

Why would I be being sarcastic?

The founding fathers put in Amendment Two for a reason. They had already seen the power of guns in the hands of civilians through the Revolutionary War. The government that was representing them was no longer being adequate in their governing. Without guns, they would have been powerless against the nation of Britain. With guns, they were able to overthrow the corrupt government. To ensure that democracy survives, the masses need gun access.

HURRAY!
Finally we will see the manslaughter rate drop from the honorable 11000 per year!

person A with a gun - versus - person B without a gun.
How to prevent getting person B killed?
EU solution: Take the gun away from A
US solution: Give a gun to B! LAWL

From: marpis
HURRAY!
Finally we will see the manslaughter rate drop from the honorable 11000 per year!

person A with a gun - versus - person B without a gun.
How to prevent getting person B killed?
EU solution: Take the gun away from A
US solution: Give a gun to B! LAWL

not only that but the wacha ma call it…martia law i think? when military takes control of everything? well ppl rnt gona be voting for that. especially texas.

From: marpis
HURRAY!
Finally we will see the manslaughter rate drop from the honorable 11000 per year!

person A with a gun - versus - person B without a gun.
How to prevent getting person B killed?
EU solution: Take the gun away from A
US solution: Give a gun to B! LAWL

How do you take the gun from A?

You can't.

Besides, as I stated in my last post, you can't compare one country to another.

From: Tad
How do you take the gun from A?

You can't.

Besides, as I stated in my last post, you can't compare one country to another.

you compared Brazil to the US in an earlier post…

edit: re-read it :p didn't read the last part :) sowwey

From: Infantry001
Why would I be being sarcastic?

The founding fathers put in Amendment Two for a reason. They had already seen the power of guns in the hands of civilians through the Revolutionary War. The government that was representing them was no longer being adequate in their governing. Without guns, they would have been powerless against the nation of Britain. With guns, they were able to overthrow the corrupt government. To ensure that democracy survives, the masses need gun access.

your telling me that because you don't have a right to bear arms against the government, that all hell will break loose and the U.S.A will perish into anarchy…Times change, people also had slaves at that time, so does it make you any less American now because you don't have a slave?

How come the rest of the world is doing just fine without one gun p/ person..?

From: Zyt3x
How come the rest of the world is doing just fine without one gun p/ person..?

Because they're not. Look at my second to last post.

And no, it's not just Brazil. There's several other countries in similar situations.

From: Tad
Because they're not. Look at my second to last post.

And no, it's not just Brazil. There's several other countries in similar situations.

Ah.. But more guns = more people tempted to do crimes, no?

From: Zyt3x
Ah.. But more guns = more people tempted to do crimes, no?

Here's where it becomes a guessing game. Keeping in mind that the only crime being considered here is murder (and/or the few accidental manslaughters, I suppose): I believe that if someone is desperate enough that he has to resort to killing someone, he's going to do it whether the gun is easily accessible or not. On the flip side, someone doing something only because they have access to a gun is extremely unlikely and makes little logical sense.

EDIT: I do not wish to argue this anymore. Clearly nobody is going to change their minds, and I don't feel like spending precious time looking up statistics and providing arguments. I think I'll try staying out of the debates section, nothing good will ever come of it…

From: marpis
Take the gun away from A

Hahaha, until my giant magnet has passed congress… I don't think thats at all possible.

Ah the joys of backing up your arguments with sacred texts.

Even a child knows how unconvincing the reply "Because I told you so" is. Why? because it doesn't give a reason. It relies on your unquestioning and - an increasing number of people would argue - irrational respect on that authority for it to work.

This kind of argument is unnecessary, you should be able to do you research and find that the amount of death by guns always reduces after the introduction of gun control laws in a particular state and in countries that a tougher on guns. When you have all these facts and figures there is no need to bring in the American constitution and I think it shows how weak the rest of your arguments are if you have to resort to this.

From: Tad
Of course, it's much better to just lay down and die; Something is better than absolutely nothing.

You possessing a gun doesn't instantly prevent anyone else with a gun from attacking you. If someone holds a gun to your head, it's usually quite hard to pull out a gun and shoot them before they shoot you. Or if they shoot you when you're not looking etc. Guns are kind of meant to kill people easily, not make it easy to defend yourself.

Illegality doesn't stop anybody who has their mind set on it. Take drugs, for example.

Compare the number of alcoholics/cigarette smokers to those taking heroin for example. That's just an example before I say you're analogy is completely stupid. You're defending guns as a method of defending yourself, not as a recreational activity. I may as well say guns shouldn't be banned, because a lot of people litter even though it's illegal.

I don't feel like making a huge list of every source that contradicts your intended meaning, so I'll give just one example…

Clearly, you can't compare one country to another based solely on gun laws and gun-related deaths.

As you defended your use of wikipedia, how about:
This link to gun crime

'Intentional homicides by country'
US:
65% of intentional homicides involve guns (only Guatemala and Columbia have higher %'s)
2.97 per 100,000 people are killed in intentional homicides using guns (once more, Guatemala and Columbia have higher as does Zimbabwe)
(4.55 per 100,000 people are killed in intention homicides not involving guns)

So, you're right - the US isn't the worse. Then again, you compare who come out worse and it really doesn't matter any more. I don't think there's any countries there that we think of as world-leading countries that come even close in all areas.

If anything, it's only fair to give the general public the option of having the ability to protect themselves. And again, a criminal who has nothing to fear is much more dangerous that one who has the slightest bit of doubt.

How are you supposed to defend yourself against a violent criminal who is hell bent on killing you?

I think I'll put my neck on the line here and assume that most gun-related crimes fall into 2 groups: people being robbed (possibly with a murder happening) and people being purposely murdered.

In the case of being robbed, the criminal most likely doesn't want to kill you (that is until he feels threatened because you reach for a gun to try and shoot him). In this case, you should feel comfortable with the competence of your police force so that you believe they will almost certainly capture the criminal and take them in, thus returning your stuff. In the case of intended murder, like I said before - it's hard to defend yourself against a bullet using a gun.


I also just wanted to mention the argument about the impossibility of removing guns from a society. If guns should not be removed, because it's impossible, then why not legalise all drugs? Why not let all foreigners come into the country? Why not get rid of all laws, I mean it being illegal to murder doesn't stop everyone who wants to from murdering, so what's the point of it? See, it kind of doesn't make sense when you say "We should legalise it because it would be too hard to make it illegal" as it applies to just about every law - they're there to reduce the amount of negative actions, not remove them, because if they could remove all negative actions, we wouldn't need them any more.

I really dont think this will/can happen. How are you supposed to take people's guns away? You could ask nicely and get a few people to do so, but past that I don't see how it would happen. Along with compensation; would people be compensated for their guns/amo in the form of money? What about older guns and such that dont have a direct price.

You don't need guns to be safe imo.
Look at us.
Canada.
Guns are illegal.
Were rated the third safest country in the world with (I think) Sweden and the Netherlands on top of us?
@Dan, simple. If you are found with a gun you will be charged/get jail time? Bring it in to your local police station for compensation?

compensation how? If i give you Teddy Roosevelt's Holland & Holland double rifle that was apparently auctioned off at $1 million dollars, you're going to compensate me the $1 million that its apparently worth even though as a gun in general, it wouldn't really be worth much at all?

Don't really care. Guns are pointless to most people anyhow. Unless they want to die. Well then that's another story.

Guns provide me and my family with really cheap, high quality meat, and recreation.

you guys r missing the fun part. what about shooting guns.(not at ppl) thats fun. target range. or hunting…thats fun but i dont wana kill animals

Strict control of legal hunting guns and the like is always a possible compromise. At the end of the day though, that doesn't support the idea that all guns should be legal - what use is a hand gun, (sub-)machine gun etc for hunting? It only really applies to a small range of rifles.

In terms of pure recreation, the rest of the world finds plenty of things to do with their time. Should we legalise all drugs because people who use it find it a great recreational activity?

why compromise when its not going to happen anyway?

Because this is currently still a debate that lives in the hypothetical realm as the original statement of an attempted illegality of guns has not been confirmed, but is a possibility.

From: mixster
In terms of pure recreation, the rest of the world finds plenty of things to do with their time. Should we legalise all drugs because people who use it find it a great recreational activity?

Yes. Why should someone else decide how another person lives their life, if it doesn't harm anyone else? inb4 "choose something else to do".

Over here, there's a saying that if you carry a knife, you're more likely to get stabbed yourself, maybe this principle applies likely to guns? but getting shot, not stabbed, of course.

void_hatred

From: The Claw
Yes. Why should someone else decide how another person lives their life, if it doesn't harm anyone else? inb4 "choose something else to do".

Well, because it increases the likelihood of other people getting hurt (hunting accidents, guns accidentally discharging vs drugs creating violent tendencies, affecting peoples judgement leading them to do silly things). Not to mention all the previous debate about the legality of guns leading to increased gun crime because guns are easily obtainable.

Guns don't kill people. Rappers do.

Just a few days ago a kid in one of my classes was telling his friend that he was offered an AK-47 on the street but he didn't buy it because he couldn't afford it.

Good to know I'll be safe because anyone with one can just come storming in my house knowing I can't do anything about it.


Also, I'd like to re-emphasize this:

From: Infantry001
No. Guns must be kept.

The founding fathers placed this in the constitution in order to protect our right to overthrow the government, should it ever become time that the government is not expressing the desires of the people. Without guns, America loses the basis on which it was founded.

Sure, maybe we don't need guns.
Or freedom of speech (hell, we already lost that).
Or privacy.


Or elections.

Or even the right to own property.

Bringing the constitution up again? I'm very confident the entire US populace would be unable to over throw the government if the army still supported them. If the army didn't support them, then they would be out of power very quickly. Guns don't magically mean you can overthrow a government - good leadership, skill etc are very important for a revolution. Also, watchers of Family Guy will know that "The right to bear arms" is actually an often misunderstood clause - it actually pertains to allowing people to possess arms of bears.

Anyway, instead of worrying that anyone can get a gun, why not think of why they can get one. If someone is going around selling AK47's, then it's because people want to buy them. Sure people still will if it's illegal, but there will be a lot less (as being illegal does that). What's more is making guns illegal would probably lead to gun importation tightening, making it harder to actually get the guns in, let alone finding people to sell them to.

Anyway, if someone did come into your house with an AK47 or another powerful gun, what chance would you have against them anyway? Rather than being able to have a small gun that might save your life if you're a decent shot and they're an absolutely terrible shot, wouldn't you prefer that the chance of that situation ever happening is reduced by a lot?

To analogise this, compare the difficulty of obtaining heroin compared to tobacco - being illegal with quite high penalties and police involvement in reducing it, heroin is pretty hard to find compared to the legal tobacco. Sure, you can still find it, but it's a lot harder and other things.

As a last little bit of food for thought, most modern societies have given up basing every aspect of their society around outdated religious texts, is it possible that the constitution itself can only be relevant to the modern world for so long? On the other hand, given religious influences, why is it that so few of the Christians that make up the US believe in 'forgive and forget' and the pacifist lifestyle, as Jesus preached and led?

From: Widget
Just a few days ago a kid in one of my classes was telling his friend that he was offered an AK-47 on the street but he didn't buy it because he couldn't afford it.

You sure he wasn't talking about weed?

From: Tad
How do you take the gun from A?
You can't.

Making guns illegal and practically impossible to obtain without a good reason (hunting for living) would most likely take guns away from 95%+ gun owners. Now that everyone has a gun already, they should go search houses of potential criminals (ex prisoners etc.). Of course the effect wouldn't show instantly, but a generation or two from now it would. Changes as big as this are worth waiting.

From: Tad

Besides, as I stated in my last post, you can't compare one country to another.

Lol, of course you can. Your example of Brazil is invalid, because the police are bribed there and there are many more issues that lead to violence.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
[php]
USA (2001) 3.98
Italy (1997) 0.81
Switzerland (1998) 0.50
Canada (2002) 0.4
Finland (2003) 0.35
Australia (2001) 0.24
France (2001) 0.21
England/Wales (2002) 0.15
Scotland (2002) 0.06
Japan (2002) 0.02
[/php]
I doubt these numbers have nothing to do with the fact that guns are illegal in all the other countries in the list except for USA.


And to your question "How do you take the gun away from A?"

The two 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts resulted in the prohibition of the vast majority of handguns in Great Britain. As a result of the prohibition and the surrender exercise, more than 162,000 handguns were handed in to local police forces.

Handgun Surrender and Compensation. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General NAO, 1999.

Like that. Well, that's not the solution though. Just prevent A from getting the gun in the first place.

inb4 prohibition.

if they take away guns, crime will sky rocket because not only will there people not giving up guns, there will be criminals using them and not getting stopped, with the addition of gun boot leggers.

You do know that most crimes are solved by policemen, not gun wielding vigilantes?

Learn your facts before making statements like that. The details of your arguments show your ignorance; you should know the topic before you try to debate it.

I'm done here.

From: mixster
You do know that most crimes are solved by policemen, not gun wielding vigilantes?

explain to me how that kept the bootlegers selling beer during the prohibition. crime sky rocketed so much, that the police couldnt keep up with it, and the government eventually had to make bber legal again

From: Awkwardsaw
explain to me how that kept the bootlegers selling beer during the prohibition. crime sky rocketed so much, that the police couldnt keep up with it, and the government eventually had to make bber legal again

explain to me how that was solved by gun wielding vigilantes. Explain to me how everyday people with guns haven't solved world hunger or stopped drug trades. Your asking retarded questions.

From: Blumblebee
explain to me how that was solved by gun wielding vigilantes. Explain to me how everyday people with guns haven't solved world hunger or stopped drug trades. Your asking retarded questions.

no, you are asking retarded questions. i am relating the problem with a real life problem in history, not bull shit problems that will never be solved like world hunger

so answer my question please :)

From: Blumblebee
explain to me how that was solved by gun wielding vigilantes. Explain to me how everyday people with guns haven't solved world hunger or stopped drug trades. Your asking retarded questions.

:p That's silly. Those are completely unrelated.. :) And he did explain how prohibition was stopped by "gun-wielding vigilantes." "[T]he police couldnt keep up with it," kinda shows that there was too much crime, and too many mobsters and gangsters and what not that they realized alcohol was too widespread to successfully outlaw it.

ANYWAY. The right to bear arms in America was not, is not, nor will it ever be for the purpose of saving the whole world. You're using false scenarios to make it seem like this would be a good idea. Just like people do to say drugs are bad. "Marihuana has FOURHUNDREDUNGODLYCHEMICALS! WHARBGRLGRLR!!!!!1111!!!!!" even though that proves nothing since things like coffee have about double the chemicals compared to cannabis; it's just to scare people. Solving world hunger is a joke argument to prove or disprove anything, really.

:) But I see your point. It's just not valid since the first amendment has nothing to do with world hunger or anything.. It's for self security in one country. Not the whole world. ^^

Alcohol can be brewed locally for starters, so doesn't require importing/smuggling. Just that in itself is enough of a reason. What's more is just about every other country contains the number of illegal guns circulating, an example showing it is possible.

Either way, you pro-guns people still don't seem to actually be debating anymore - I haven't see any logically valid examples or the like that actually affect the argument.

Thus, I want to know why it won't work in the US when it works everywhere else. I also want to know how every other developed country isn't overrun by crime. Those are the main two, so answer those first please before challenging something else with a weak example.

From: mixster
Alcohol can be brewed locally for starters, so doesn't require importing/smuggling. Just that in itself is enough of a reason. What's more is just about every other country contains the number of illegal guns circulating, an example showing it is possible.

Either way, you pro-guns people still don't seem to actually be debating anymore - I haven't see any logically valid examples or the like that actually affect the argument.

Thus, I want to know why it won't work in the US when it works everywhere else. I also want to know how every other developed country isn't overrun by crime. Those are the main two, so answer those first please before challenging something else with a weak example.

I don't care if people have guns or not, and I wouldn't care if this passed. :p

But uhh.. The two questions you're asking are easily answered.. Americans are idiots.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." –Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

From: Tad
This is going to be for the worse. Anyone who really wants a gun for whatever reason will get it. And now, every innocent person will be unprotected. That assumption alone will lead to more crimes because the criminals will know that they will have no opposition to worry about.

Fact: America has the highest rate of death by firearms.

I don't see what owning a gun has to do with self defence at all. If someone plans to rob or kill you, how will you even use your gun?
If he wants to kill you, you won't have the chance to fire your gun. If he wants to rob you, he'll pay close attention to you, thus preventing you from grabbing your gun. You'll have a bullet through your head before you can say "God save me pl0x".

Making guns illegal DOES make it harder to own one. So no, it will not lead to more crimes. Criminals are not driven by fear, but it seems the population of America is.

From: Wizzup?

Making guns illegal DOES make it harder to own one. So no, it will not lead to more crimes. Criminals are not driven by fear, but it seems the population of America is.

I don't think making guns illegal makes it any harder to get a gun. I can go buy a illegal glock for less than 100$, not saying I know people personally but I wouldn't be surprised most people couldn't get one after a few phone calls. And whats worse, having guns in the hands of people committed to commit crimes or those who have lawful intentions? The people who take the gun courses, make sure they gun is safely secured.

While I don't agree guns make you any safer in the event of a robbery or such, and while having a gun doesn't make you murder proof … I cannot help but look at the side view of this and point out that organized crime do not use legal firearms. They obviously are getting these weapons somehow, it isn't coming into their hands legally. At the end of the gun laws only restrict those who follow the laws.

And at the end of the day, I do not think it comes down to safety but freedom. Are Americans willing to brush aside their freedom? Especially the gun nuts? A country that prides itself on liberty is slowing losing what they once held proud, and it seems to be a exponentially increasing problem.

tl;dr version: How about we focus on keeping people out of the life of crime instead of trying to bandaid it? Violent crimes simply don't disappear when you make weapons illegal…

That's America for you, over 11,000 people a year die by guns there.

:D

Thats just a FEW of what me/my father own

eff gun control

EDIT: colt 45 is my baby :D, just got it not too long ago

From: Capricorn
I don't think making guns illegal makes it any harder to get a gun. I can go buy a illegal glock for less than 100$, not saying I know people personally but I wouldn't be surprised most people couldn't get one after a few phone calls. And whats worse, having guns in the hands of people committed to commit crimes or those who have lawful intentions? The people who take the gun courses, make sure they gun is safely secured.

While I don't agree guns make you any safer in the event of a robbery or such, and while having a gun doesn't make you murder proof … I cannot help but look at the side view of this and point out that organized crime do not use legal firearms. They obviously are getting these weapons somehow, it isn't coming into their hands legally. At the end of the gun laws only restrict those who follow the laws.

And at the end of the day, I do not think it comes down to safety but freedom. Are Americans willing to brush aside their freedom? Especially the gun nuts? A country that prides itself on liberty is slowing losing what they once held proud, and it seems to be a exponentially increasing problem.

tl;dr version: How about we focus on keeping people out of the life of crime instead of trying to bandaid it? Violent crimes simply don't disappear when you make weapons illegal…

Erm, actually your entire post is wrong. As stated a lot in this thread, there are a lot more gun related crimes and the like in the US compared to countries where guns are illegal for the general population to own. Please stop making the same point that has been said a lot before in this thread and has no factual bearing.

I hope this reiterates my point that guns infact, do not kill people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

tis' sarcasm

From: mixster
Erm, actually your entire post is wrong. As stated a lot in this thread, there are a lot more gun related crimes and the like in the US compared to countries where guns are illegal for the general population to own. Please stop making the same point that has been said a lot before in this thread and has no factual bearing.

Erm, actually most of my entire post is opinion. I wasn't claiming any of that as fact, in fact I don't see much of that that is supposed to be facts either. And heres a quote off of wikipedia, the same exact page you linked to.

In the United States, cities tend to have higher criminal gun violence rates but lower rates of gun ownership,

It starts off by saying there is a trend between gun ownership, and gun violence.

compared with rural areas which tend to have lower criminal gun violence rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26]

And it is iterated again here, just inversely.

Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. Conversely, research has found that in the United States rural areas with high rates of gun ownership tend to have higher suicide gun violence rates and cities with lower gun ownership tend to have lower suicide gun violence rates.[27]

If you do not consider suicide as gun violence then it says again that gun ownership does not always correlate with increased gun violence. I would guess that the reason why for increased suicides with guns is that they ARE accessible. But if some young adult is troubled by life, then making guns illegal won't stop him from eating a whole bottle of acetaminophen or ibuprofen.

In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[28] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000[29],

In Wyoming, 1 in 3 houses has a gun yet they have a lower homicide rate than their country.

although Wyoming also has a very high suicide rate which researchers have accounted for due to the relative accessibility of firearms.[30] High rates of gang membership and gang violence in urban areas have been used to explain these differences in crime gun violence.[31]

I bold the last sentence to really drive home what I am trying to say. It isn't Average Joe next door committing these crimes, its the people who have profit in illegal activities.

Also I would like to talk about a interesting point about the graph you linked to in wikipedia. United States doesn't rank near the top for homicides not related to guns. In fact they only have around 1/2 more homicide per 100k people compared to Canada. You honestly think banning guns will make everyone stop violence? They will just switch to knives, eight balls and bear mace.

Yeah, I can see it now. Deep inside the drug dealers house with a hummer with armour and bullet-proof glass sitting in his garage. Hes counting his money and suddenly on the TV Obama says "Guns are now illegal!", yeah I can see it now. Hes panicing like hell, throwing his possessions around in a fury of anger. How is he supposed to make money with guns being illegal?! Man the hurdle that will be to jump over! oh wait …

From: Brain
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." –Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

A rifle? Pretty tame compared to what they've got in the middle east. Maybe that quote was applicable 70 years ago, but I doubt it is now.

In places where guns are illegal and there are not ga.. owait. Most notorious gangs are in America. Sure you have the Triads, etc and a few scaryish gangs in England that use guns, but for the most part, gangs use fists, knives and bottles.

If someone wants to kill you, they WILL kill you. If someone is coming to rob you, who out of the people who support having guns will actually pull the trigger on someone? Not many people would (I couldn't doubt that Charmz would, however)

Also, Capricorn, you used Wikipedia for your argument, hence is it invalid.

Wikipedia is quite a valid sauce of information as long as the citations for the sauce are valid. The table of information is itself extracted from a UN survey of sorts, so I'm confident in the validity of that bit at the very least.

Regarding Capricorns post in general, the body of it is suggesting that gun violence in the cities is higher despite lower gun ownership levels, most likely due to gangs and the like.

However, he also pointed out the bit underneath. Wyoming, despite high gun ownership only has a gun homicide rate of 1.7 per 100,000. Which is also higher than all other developed countries and a lot of other countries. I also don't find it valid to suggest than an entire correlation is wrong based on a single example which somewhat defies said correlation.

Regarding the last bit about alternative violence. As I mentioned above, you can follow the citations to the UN site and some pdf's that give alternative information. Canada had approximately 40 times less major assaults in 1999 and similar levels of assault. The US is already incredibly violent, but in the end I would prefer to be attacked by someone with a knife than a gun.

Regarding the very last bit, I point you to an earlier post of mine. Should we legalise all drugs, murder, rape and all the rest of them, because some people still do it despite it being illegal? Making things illegal does change things, otherwise every other country in the world would have similar levels of gun violence and all the rest of it, but they don't. So, stop saying making guns illegal will have no effect - it will, you just don't think it will because you're too silly to actually look at other countries.

Lastly, restating my previous two questions. Thus, I want to know why it won't work in the US when it works everywhere else. I also want to know how every other developed country isn't overrun by crime.

From: Torrent of Flame

Also, Capricorn, you used Wikipedia for your argument, hence is it invalid.

I never even wanted to bring studies or stats into this argument. It was mixster who linked to a wikipedia, and it was him who brought the table with values of homicides "out of context".

From my view, I think its more of a freedoms issue then a safety issue so I never would have brought up a wikipedia article to argue a philosophy topic that may not be related to what I believe.

Edit: It never explicitly stated that wyomings homicide rate was the gun homicide rate, and I can't be bothered to check. But if its the overall homicide rate that wouldn't be to bad, and competes against other countries.

About alternative violence, how sure are you that all of that gets reported? Come down to the north side of Winnipeg and hang around at the right places and you will see people getting eight balled and maced. Some places are ghetto as it gets. I will only get into one part of what you said, because I still sincerely believe its a freedoms issue and that is this.

Regarding the very last bit, I point you to an earlier post of mine. Should we legalise all drugs, murder, rape and all the rest of them, because some people still do it despite it being illegal? Making things illegal does change things, otherwise every other country in the world would have similar levels of gun violence and all the rest of it, but they don't. So, stop saying making guns illegal will have no effect - it will, you just don't think it will because you're too silly to actually look at other countries.

The sad thing is, and I think drugs are a great example is that legalizing drugs for personal use actually leads to less use. And I think it is silly to JUST look at gun laws, when USA borders Mexico who are having major problems with drug cartels importing drugs into America. And those drug cartels don't have tiny little glocks, they have army grade assault rifles, missiles and grenade launchers. As far as Canada vs USA goes, Canada isn't a big import country as far as drugs go. In fact a lot of drugs are actually made here and imported into the USA because historically their dollar has been better. You make fat stacks jumping the Canadian border with some poundage of marijuana.

As for asking me if I want drugs and guns legalized, I think you will come to a very biased opinion. Though I find it pretty saddening that you consider drugs at the top of the ladder, up there with murder and rape. Theres a thing called personal freedom, I just think everyone should have it. After all someone smoking marijuana or dropping acid in a mature manner certainly isn't going to be causing violent harm to other people - just themselves, and that was their choice.

I don't really see how it's out of context at all. I brought stats into the argument because Tad already did earlier - I did it directly in reply to him because he used a very singular, unfair statistic by basing the entire world on Brazil. I also freely linked to it and I gave exact details on what the data represents.

Anyway, this is only a freedom debate when those who are pro-guns have lost any other leg to stand on when defending them.

i would hope America has a lower death count by guns than that of Somalia.

From: mixster

Anyway, this is only a freedom debate when those who are pro-guns have lost any other leg to stand on when defending them.

Sure, if your a authoritarian.

From: Capricorn
I don't think making guns illegal makes it any harder to get a gun. I can go buy a illegal glock for less than 100$, not saying I know people personally but I wouldn't be surprised most people couldn't get one after a few phone calls. And whats worse, having guns in the hands of people committed to commit crimes or those who have lawful intentions? The people who take the gun courses, make sure they gun is safely secured.

While I don't agree guns make you any safer in the event of a robbery or such, and while having a gun doesn't make you murder proof … I cannot help but look at the side view of this and point out that organized crime do not use legal firearms. They obviously are getting these weapons somehow, it isn't coming into their hands legally. At the end of the gun laws only restrict those who follow the laws.

The fact is that it WILL be harder to get guns if they are illegal. Think about it…
Compare it to weed, even though it isn't really on the same level, the general idea is the same.

How hard is it to get weed in some states in America? You'll sure as hell won't buy it legally in a shop. I can just walk out of the door, walk 300 meters across the street and buy it in a shop legally; and cheap too.
It may still be possible to get your hands on a gun, but it will be a LOT harder.
It's simple. Saying it won't be harder to get one is just plain crap, and probably originates from fear.

From: Capricorn
And at the end of the day, I do not think it comes down to safety but freedom. Are Americans willing to brush aside their freedom? Especially the gun nuts? A country that prides itself on liberty is slowing losing what they once held proud, and it seems to be a exponentially increasing problem.

The problem with America is that it prides itself too much on its liberty, while it in fact isn't liberal at all compared to a lot of European countries. They have already brushed aside their ``freedom'' ages ago. America is in fact, very restricted.

From: Wizzup?
The fact is that it WILL be harder to get guns if they are illegal. Think about it…
Compare it to weed, even though it isn't really on the same level, the general idea is the same.

How hard is it to get weed in some states in America? You'll sure as hell won't buy it legally in a shop. I can just walk out of the door, walk 300 meters across the street and buy it in a shop legally; and cheap too.
It may still be possible to get your hands on a gun, but it will be a LOT harder.
It's simple. Saying it won't be harder to get one is just plain crap, and probably originates from fear.

Not much to fear, I live in a quiet neighborhood on a nice side of the city. It certainly wasn't hard for Mexican drug cartels to get weapons and they have some of the strictest gun laws. And the drug cartels contribute a lot to Mexico's violence.

The problem with America is that it prides itself too much on its liberty, while it in fact isn't liberal at all compared to a lot of European countries. They have already brushed aside their ``freedom'' ages ago. America is in fact, very restricted.

I doubt pro-guns would let this stand, but maybe I am wrong and your right. We won't know until it happens after all.

Erm, you're saying the US is as corrupt as Mexico is? The reason why it is so easy to smuggle things into Mexico is that it's so corrupt - easy to bribe officials and policeman and all that.

I would also like to defend my point. Racists can claim freedom of speech, but that doesn't make it right to be. Freedoms are great while they benefit the society, but when they no longer do it's time to reconsider them.

All that I have noticed from this debate is there are no real positives for allowing everyone to legally own guns, but that there are plenty of negatives. Still though, my questions go unanswered. Why will making guns illegal not work in the US? Why are all other developed countries not overrun by crime?

Banning the sale of guns to citizens won't help anything, it might even make it worse. First I'd just like to throw out on a side note that I have a few gun collecting friends, and they've spent thousands of dollars on their guns.

Let's look at the most ignored part of confiscate, destroy and banning of guns. That's going to cost millions, and screw over all the gun companies and their employees. It's really not something America needs right now.

Once guns are illegal, that won't stop certain criminals from purchasing them illegally. Some already purchase them illegally as is. Then there's now civilians who don't have guns. Right now there's at least a bundle of people per city that are very desperate for money, and would break into someone's house and steal valuables if not for fear that they possess a gun.

I find it very comparable to the idea of making it illegal for citizens to own a motor vehicle. Thousands of people die because of vehicles, and if we banned all private owned cars we would cut back massively on pollution.

At last, something new!

So you have brought up two points in that second paragraph. Firstly, the cost of implementing. As I don't do this for a living, I haven't researched it much, but I would think the long term savings on health care (from gun wounds) and the reduced crime would compensate for the short term costs.

The second point was companies. Well, there are a lot of industries that are banned even though they could bring in money. I'm sure anything as large as this would take some time to put into action and the like, giving companies time to close up and the like. However, I don't think money and jobs alone is enough.

Next, you don't raise a new point. Every other developed country has lower gun related crime than the US. Making guns illegal does have an effect - no two ways about it. What's more is that I would rather be robbed and left with my life than be robbed and killed.

Lastly, cars are an interesting point. Sure, banning cars would actually be a huge positive and the like (something I would be in favour of). However, most people would strongly disagree. My main problem with this analogy though is that guns are made to kill,where as cars are made to transport. Sure, guns may not be made to kill humans, they're still made to kill and that's something that not everyone needs in their daily life, where as cars provide transport that it's important for people to get from A to B.

do we also suggest that pepper spray is banned - people that are against guns?

I don't know if this has been brought up, but…..
When you legally buy a gun, you have to register it, so banning guns would get rid of all the legally purchased guns, that were probably being used responsibly but responsible people.
I would be willing to bed that most guns purchased by criminals for criminal activity were purchased illegally, thus not registered.
So banning guns would just take them away from everyone that legally and responsibly purchased their firearms, while leaving firearms in the hands of people that are using them for criminal activities anyway.
Unless of course you propose a search of every nook and cranny in the U.S. to find every gun, but even then you can't be in all places at once.

I would also like to bring up this story, in case it hasn't been brought up yet.

Well what I think is interesting is our suicide rate.. :o

The US has the highest gun related suicides in the world, and our firearm homicide rate is half of the suicide rate. Cuhrazay.

Anyway, this is kinda interesting, mixster. I'm sure you can use it for proof that the banning of firearms would be a good thing in America.

http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/3586,Most-Common-Causes-of-Accidental-Death

Then again, that's from the whole world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate

Worldwide, cars cause many more deaths than firearms.

And I'm not arguing for or against anyone, I just think it's quite intriguing. :3

Also, if banning guns/cars is for the death caused by it, then that doesn't really make sense. Alcohol and tobacco cause more deaths by far than guns and cars combined.

The gun is not so much to protect you from domestic crime, it is meant to protect you from the government.