Emotional about gun control? Please read

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe you want to live in a society where anyone is allowed to buy any gun they want, and carry it wherever they want, but all I see is that creating a very unstable and fearful society.

[/ QUOTE ]


Really? I see the OPPOSITE.

Guns were banned in England, and crime increased. Particularly property crimes.

Who are YOU to tell me I cannot posses a gun for my own protection?


AB

[Koss]

[ QUOTE ]

Who are YOU to tell me I cannot posses a gun for my own protection?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not, I'm simply saying that you wouldn't like the result if EVERYONE did.

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you do if you are someone who thinks the outright banning of guns is misguided but yet are alarmed at the ease in which, for lack of a better word, "scumbags" can get one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that person falls in line with the VAST majority of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really what most people think? Wow. Isn't it just common sense that unless guns are absolutely banned, the scumbags will always be able to get them?

Marijuana is illegal in this country but potheads still smoke pot. Hence, gun control doesn't do much to keep guns out of the hands of real criminals.
Basically, the position above reads, "I don't want to banish guns completely, but I want to make it difficult for John Q. Citizen to get a gun." Only the criminals and cops will have guns, awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how to respond to this because it isn't what I said at all.

Are you saying there are no possible solutions other than a.) banning guns or b.) everyone carrying guns?

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you just compared GUNS, a device used to KILL OTHER LIVING THINGS, to BOOKS, pieces of paper with words on them. This is the kind of stuff done in the original study posted that makes me want to dismiss the whole argument. How many people are shot in the face by books each year? How many liquor stores get knocked off by people wielding books? I'm not pro big government as much as I'm anti getting shot in the face. I support the idea that the government is here to protect its citizens. Part of that may be to set measures in place to regulate the sale and useage of instruments of death. I'll more than happily acknowledge that current measures may be doing little if any to combat gun crimes, but I don't think that means the gov't should drop all gun-control programs and never look back.

Maybe you want to live in a society where anyone is allowed to buy any gun they want, and carry it wherever they want, but all I see is that creating a very unstable and fearful society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Books are far more dangerous than guns. There is even a famous quote about this fact, something about a pen and sword.

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who are YOU to tell me I cannot posses a gun for my own protection?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not, I'm simply saying that you wouldn't like the result if EVERYONE did.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are assuming facts not brought into evidence.

The people that I "may wish" didn't have guns ALREADY HAVE THEM NOW. Gun control laws do nothing to change this. The laws only make it more difficult for FREE CITIZENS to arm themselves.

And all free citizens have an absolute right to arm themselves. I do wish everyone did.


AB

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Books are far more dangerous than guns. There is even a famous quote about this fact, something about a pen and sword.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH.

Also, Napoleon. "I fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets."

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you want to live in a society where anyone is allowed to buy any gun they want, and carry it wherever they want, but all I see is that creating a very unstable and fearful society.

Who are YOU to tell me I cannot posses a gun for my own protection?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not, I'm simply saying that you wouldn't like the result if EVERYONE did.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Switzerland there used to be a rule: 'If you don't show up with a rifle, you can't vote'. Switzerland was a pretty nice country to live in back then. And it's a pretty nice country to live in right now.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. For this to be true we would have to be talking about control of anti tank weapons and the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's much easier for a foreign government to import a few anti-tank rockets than tens of millions of small arms. Also, give me some fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a sheet of copper and I can take out anything short of a M1 Abrams tank. The lack of anti-tank weapons is a small inconvenience for a population intent on resisting. IED's are incredibly easy to make.

[ QUOTE ]
On a few occasions jews did fight back with guns, they were still crushed utterly. Citizens with guns would have just been an inconvienance to Stalin/Hitler at most.

P.s. I am undecided about gun control am probably slightly pro gun freedom but that dosnt stop me from thinking the above arguement is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, it worked in the soviet-afghan war. Armed resistance works, it just requires the backing of another government. You can be sure someone else would support the US citizens if it came down to that. I will agree mentioning the jews is a bit silly. The government was intent on systematic genocide and not policing. The whole process was also kept rather low key. It was not the ideal situation for a resistance. But I have been told the civilians were rather effective in the Russian revolution. An ideal situation for a resistance is the Iraq occupation. There we are merely trying to police a country and not slaughter everyone in it. And as you can see they are doing rather well against the mighty US forces. And most of the military guys I know think the insurgents are extremely poor shots. They have all told me that suppressing a US uprising would be a lot more difficult.

[wacki]

elwood:

[ QUOTE ]
Gun supporters get all up-in-arms when people read the text of the 2nd Amendment in a way that is at least supportable by the text itself (i.e. that the well-regulated militia clause modifies the right to keep arms),

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right? It's pretty obvious that Madison (the author of the bill of rights), Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
but, generally, have no problem allowing a restriction that is nowhere near the text of the Amendment (prohibiting criminals from legally acquiring firearms.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it is high hanging fruit. I may be a hypocrite in not defending a violent criminals rights but so what? If I even attempted that argument I would be brandished a crazy psycho by those I'm trying to reach. There is much lower hanging fruit. And to be honest if someone shows a history of abusing a right I don't see a problem with taking that right away.

[ QUOTE ]
Even the author of the article seems to have no problem prohibiting criminals from getting legal guns, yet brushes aside interpretations of the text of the second amendment contrary to his own labelling them as "myths."

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please give me some specifics? Page 66 is the amendment section.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you just compared GUNS, a device used to KILL OTHER LIVING THINGS, to BOOKS, pieces of paper with words on them. This is the kind of stuff done in the original study posted that makes me want to dismiss the whole argument. How many people are shot in the face by books each year?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm comparing are two fundamental civil liberties.

Alleged concern for crime doesn't justify infringing upon either of them. In any case, ultimately ideas, disseminated in books, have far greater consequences than availability of guns.

There are two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) types of people in favor of "gun control": knaves and dupes. (To borrow from Lysander Spooner.) The knaves know the "gun control" debate has nothing to do crime, and are in favor of it for the same reason pro-liberty folks are against it -- namely that they understand the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to individual liberty and a free society (which the knaves oppose).

The dupes, by contrast, actually believe the knaves' transparent propaganda that "gun control" is necessary to reduce violent crime.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not pro big government as much as I'm anti getting shot in the face.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must live in an extremely dangerous neighborhood if that's a non-negligible risk. More "gun control" is not going to alleviate that risk at all. I suggest you learn to protect yourself, possibly even with a gun.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you want to live in a society where anyone is allowed to buy any gun they want, and carry it wherever they want, but all I see is that creating a very unstable and fearful society.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like in Vermont, where anyone can carry a concealed handgun with no permit of any kind? My understanding is that it's not a "fearful" or "unstable" place to live at all.

If you want to in any way restrict my (and others') right to keep and bear arms, then perhaps you SHOULD be fearful.