Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Gun control

wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 1:43:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is gun-control an answer to gun related crimes? By applying "an answer", I mean response. NOT the solution. I used the article "an" instead of "The".
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 2:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes and no: yes insofar as guns do kill people, as well as rappers; no insofar as it is just the pilfered proletariat trying to impress their stupidity upon the burgeoning bourgeoisie.

Video related:
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 1:42:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No.
Overall violent crime is down over 20%. Mexico and UK banned all guns, UK has highest crime rate in Europe. Sweden has no gun control, they have the lowest crime rate in Europe.

"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them." ~ George Mason

A people of sheep are ruled by wolves. The purpose of the people having arms is to protect themselves from tyrannical government.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 6:40:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 1:42:45 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
No.
Overall violent crime is down over 20%. Mexico and UK banned all guns, UK has highest crime rate in Europe. Sweden has no gun control, they have the lowest crime rate in Europe.

"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them." ~ George Mason

A people of sheep are ruled by wolves. The purpose of the people having arms is to protect themselves from tyrannical government.

I'm not talking about banning guns...
OssyOsOs
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 8:17:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 1:42:45 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
Sweden has no gun control, they have the lowest crime rate in Europe.


As a Swede I'll have to say that this is bull. "No gun control" is about as far from the truth as possible.
You need a license for any kind of gun and to actually get this license you need a valid reason.
These reasons include if you are a active hunter, marksman/shooter or want to keep a gun for a collection. For the last one the weapon will also have to be made non-functional as a firearm.
Self defence is not included.

I'm also wondering where you got the fact that we have the lowest crime rate from. As far as I know we got a pretty average crime rate all things considered.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gun control worked in Australia.

"In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn't been a single mass shooting since Port Arthur."

http://abcnews.go.com...

The reason the USA has such little gun control is so people can live in fantasy doomsday prepper-land and dream of one day being Rambo and saving the country from a hostile evil Government take over.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 1:21:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 1:43:29 PM, wordy wrote:
Is gun-control an answer to gun related crimes? By applying "an answer", I mean response. NOT the solution. I used the article "an" instead of "The".

I cannot agree that this conclusion is logical.

Here is what we are considering: Will adding lethality to criminality reduce either the lethality or criminality of these situations? Is it reasonable to expect that law abiding persons can - on a mass scale - win an arms race against criminal elements?

This question requires that we intentionally confuse the uses of legal firearms for illegal ones. Firearms used for defense cannot compete against firearms designed and used for offense. For the exact same reasons that no immobilized, static fortification can forever resist a concerted attack, all else being equal.

In military strategy, the eventual loss of any unsupported fortification is a given, although it is also generally assumed that a 3-1 advantage in resources are needed to dig out an entrenched enemy.

Persons and property can be defended by the use of small arms. IF heavier weaponry is not used by the attacker (giving the defender the 1-3 disadvantage.)

Therefore, some measures must be taken to prevent the proliferation of heavy weaponry by criminal or almost-military gangs. Gun control measures such as these will help to allow citizens to maintain the 3-1 ratio of superior resources needed to defend a position.

This assumes that the fire arms are used principally to defend a position. Most firearms are not used for defense, but for sports and recreation.

These firearms should not be considered to be true "weapons," that can be quickly used for improvised combat. They are no match for actual weapons designed for the quick neutralization of a target by killing or intimidation.

Combined these observations require us to acknowledge that deer rifles will not normally outgun a military weapon; regulate or do not regulate these, they will never present an adequate defense against an actual attack. These can only be improvised for combat use.

Actual attacks are only defended against if a 3 to 1 advantage in firepower and resources can be maintained by most civilians. This will not be the case if we allow heavy weapons to enter the fight.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.

This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

It did help in Australia but consider the factors that go into it. They issued a buy back program in which 20 percent of guns were returned. Australia only had 30 million guns in private ownership though. The US has around 300 million-360 million, this around 10 times the total gun count in Australia. Not to mention states like Alabama are 90 percent opposed to the idea.

There is a possibility it could work, but doubtful. The logical idea would be to ban high capacity magazines.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 1:49:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's either all guns be abolished or everyone is allowed to have guns. It's unfair if only some people (a.k.a police officers) have guns and we the general public cannot.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 1:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

It did help in Australia but consider the factors that go into it. They issued a buy back program in which 20 percent of guns were returned. Australia only had 30 million guns in private ownership though. The US has around 300 million-360 million, this around 10 times the total gun count in Australia. Not to mention states like Alabama are 90 percent opposed to the idea.

There is a possibility it could work, but doubtful. The logical idea would be to ban high capacity magazines.

"Disarming" the American Population is impossible without relying on extreme actions. Even then.

The only way for the mass public in America to maintain superior firepower over criminal elements is to use combined strategies - these must include proper funding for law enforcement, infrastructure and preventing para-military groups from equipping themselves.

The weapons systems that could destabilize this balance are pseudo-military. It is reasonable that our military could somehow reserve them for its own use, and thereby deny them to these criminals. However, the act would also deny them to the civilian public.

This type of gun control is something that I could accept. Military prowess was always the justification for the Second Amendment - this seems a natural extension of that. The citizen that wants to play with these heavy weapons should be trained in their use.

In addition, since we want to limit the use of these weapons to criminal elements, background checks are in order.

"Military training as a prerequisite for military weapons, combined with denial of civilian access to military systems. This, with background checks, can help the citizenry maintain superior firepower over criminals."
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 2:08:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Disarming" the American Population is impossible without relying on extreme actions. Even then.

The only way for the mass public in America to maintain superior firepower over criminal elements is to use combined strategies - these must include proper funding for law enforcement, infrastructure and preventing para-military groups from equipping themselves.

The weapons systems that could destabilize this balance are pseudo-military. It is reasonable that our military could somehow reserve them for its own use, and thereby deny them to these criminals. However, the act would also deny them to the civilian public.

This type of gun control is something that I could accept. Military prowess was always the justification for the Second Amendment - this seems a natural extension of that. The citizen that wants to play with these heavy weapons should be trained in their use.

In addition, since we want to limit the use of these weapons to criminal elements, background checks are in order.

"Military training as a prerequisite for military weapons, combined with denial of civilian access to military systems. This, with background checks, can help the citizenry maintain superior firepower over criminals."

Entirely agree. If we are referring to auto and semi auto type guns with this as well, it would be futile. Considering that only under 1 percent of the total gun deaths in America are accounted for by fully automatic guns. I would even take the next stay and say that out of that minuscule amount only 1 percent of that number are on civilians. Most of automatic count are crimainls killing other criminals, which in a way I am kind of happy happens.

Granted it should not happen in the first place :/
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 2:26:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 1:49:47 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

It did help in Australia but consider the factors that go into it. They issued a buy back program in which 20 percent of guns were returned. Australia only had 30 million guns in private ownership though. The US has around 300 million-360 million, this around 10 times the total gun count in Australia. Not to mention states like Alabama are 90 percent opposed to the idea.

There is a possibility it could work, but doubtful. The logical idea would be to ban high capacity magazines.

"Disarming" the American Population is impossible without relying on extreme actions. Even then.

The only way for the mass public in America to maintain superior firepower over criminal elements is to use combined strategies - these must include proper funding for law enforcement, infrastructure and preventing para-military groups from equipping themselves.

The weapons systems that could destabilize this balance are pseudo-military. It is reasonable that our military could somehow reserve them for its own use, and thereby deny them to these criminals. However, the act would also deny them to the civilian public.

This type of gun control is something that I could accept. Military prowess was always the justification for the Second Amendment - this seems a natural extension of that. The citizen that wants to play with these heavy weapons should be trained in their use.

In addition, since we want to limit the use of these weapons to criminal elements, background checks are in order.

"Military training as a prerequisite for military weapons, combined with denial of civilian access to military systems. This, with background checks, can help the citizenry maintain superior firepower over criminals."

I agree with all of this. But as far as second amendment justification is concerned, self-defense is just as relevant as military prowess. Law enforcement is not obligated to come to our aid, even if they are already at the scene, and witnessing an assault. Personally I think that is complete horseshit, but search for articles about Joe Lozito, and you're bound to find articles related to that.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 2:48:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 2:26:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 7/21/2013 1:49:47 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

It did help in Australia but consider the factors that go into it. They issued a buy back program in which 20 percent of guns were returned. Australia only had 30 million guns in private ownership though. The US has around 300 million-360 million, this around 10 times the total gun count in Australia. Not to mention states like Alabama are 90 percent opposed to the idea.

There is a possibility it could work, but doubtful. The logical idea would be to ban high capacity magazines.

"Disarming" the American Population is impossible without relying on extreme actions. Even then.

The only way for the mass public in America to maintain superior firepower over criminal elements is to use combined strategies - these must include proper funding for law enforcement, infrastructure and preventing para-military groups from equipping themselves.

The weapons systems that could destabilize this balance are pseudo-military. It is reasonable that our military could somehow reserve them for its own use, and thereby deny them to these criminals. However, the act would also deny them to the civilian public.

This type of gun control is something that I could accept. Military prowess was always the justification for the Second Amendment - this seems a natural extension of that. The citizen that wants to play with these heavy weapons should be trained in their use.

In addition, since we want to limit the use of these weapons to criminal elements, background checks are in order.

"Military training as a prerequisite for military weapons, combined with denial of civilian access to military systems. This, with background checks, can help the citizenry maintain superior firepower over criminals."

I agree with all of this. But as far as second amendment justification is concerned, self-defense is just as relevant as military prowess. Law enforcement is not obligated to come to our aid, even if they are already at the scene, and witnessing an assault. Personally I think that is complete horseshit, but search for articles about Joe Lozito, and you're bound to find articles related to that.

I had understood that citizen-level policing (such as home defense) would have been considered a form of 'military' action by the authors of the Constitution. Any martial act might have been covered by such sweeping language. The Second Amendment is not worded very well, which sets it apart somewhat in our founding document.

Yet, in describing martial actions of defense as 'inalienable' the documents that compose and justify the Second Amendment seem to make a logically sound case. Self-defense cannot be successfully prevented from happening by law - it can only be punished after the fact. This is a common denominator among the 'inalienable' rights that our Founders considered important; that they will happen whether or not they are legal.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 3:33:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Air max is ticked, I believe He or She (duno really never met em) is a Jew. YHWH is convicting Him the Maschiach is here and He will have none of it. I will be back after a while. In the mean-time Seek truth in Scripture, YHWH may close this door the the seed He has planted through His servant Sower For the Good Sheppard can grow, I will be back before Ya'acob's Trouble (Tribulation) takes full hold to Reap the Harvest. Shalom.

Look the Father's name, your Creator and His Son are ONE.
YHWH means "Set apart" ok? Not from this Earth. He Created it and you and everything. Simple. Yet He is Awesome. BYE

That is why people cannot comprehend him and demand proof First, well it does not work that way. Trust first, make a decision, then Blessings. Salvation and the whole Whammy follow.

See you all around, As the Governor of Cali said once "I'll be back" For Intellectuals you sure are a rowdy bunch. If YHWH was not convicting the socks off of you then you would all of actually found me quite funny and likable. But it is not about me, now is it. My name is Yohanan. It means John in English and YHWH is Gracious. Bye you guys....hahaha I had some good laughs.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 3:33:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 1:43:29 PM, wordy wrote:
Is gun-control an answer to gun related crimes? By applying "an answer", I mean response. NOT the solution. I used the article "an" instead of "The".

Air max is ticked, I believe He or She (duno really never met em) is a Jew. YHWH is convicting Him the Maschiach is here and He will have none of it. I will be back after a while. In the mean-time Seek truth in Scripture, YHWH may close this door the the seed He has planted through His servant Sower For the Good Sheppard can grow, I will be back before Ya'acob's Trouble (Tribulation) takes full hold to Reap the Harvest. Shalom.

Look the Father's name, your Creator and His Son are ONE.
YHWH means "Set apart" ok? Not from this Earth. He Created it and you and everything. Simple. Yet He is Awesome.

That is why people cannot comprehend him and demand proof First, well it does not work that way. Trust first, make a decision, then Blessings. Salvation and the whole Whammy follow.

See you all around, As the Governor of Cali said once "I'll be back" For Intellectuals you sure are a rowdy bunch. If YHWH was not convicting the socks off of you then you would all of actually found me quite funny and likable. But it is not about me, now is it. My name is Yohanan. It means John in English and YHWH is Gracious. Bye you guys....hahaha I had some good laughs.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:53:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

It did help in Australia but consider the factors that go into it. They issued a buy back program in which 20 percent of guns were returned. Australia only had 30 million guns in private ownership though. The US has around 300 million-360 million, this around 10 times the total gun count in Australia. Not to mention states like Alabama are 90 percent opposed to the idea.

There is a possibility it could work, but doubtful. The logical idea would be to ban high capacity magazines.

Hows that the logical solution? The vast majority of gun murders aren't mass shootings.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 10:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

You'd first have to establish that free health care in Canada actually works effectively for the Canadian citizens.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:56:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:01:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

You'd first have to establish that free health care in Canada actually works effectively for the Canadian citizens.

Yeah, but he is saying that the number of firearms that exist in the US make it much harder to regulate them, especially with the pro-gun culture we already have.

(and it didn't actually work in Australia... if you use a proper control variable -- most economists have suggested NZ -- you see that their laws had no effect. Here is a study on it, if you are interested: http://papers.ssrn.com...).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:58:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:56:13 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:01:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

You'd first have to establish that free health care in Canada actually works effectively for the Canadian citizens.

Yeah, but he is saying that the number of firearms that exist in the US make it much harder to regulate them, especially with the pro-gun culture we already have.

(and it didn't actually work in Australia... if you use a proper control variable -- most economists have suggested NZ -- you see that their laws had no effect. Here is a study on it, if you are interested: http://papers.ssrn.com...).

Lol. I know what he was saying. I was merely necroposting to Mikal's first ever forum post due to his recent activity.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:00:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:58:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:56:13 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:01:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/21/2013 1:38:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.


This is the same discussion I had with a previous guy. People apply the logic because it worked in X it will work here. I don't think that is a logical assumption. That would be like saying how they have free health care in Canada would work here.

You'd first have to establish that free health care in Canada actually works effectively for the Canadian citizens.

Yeah, but he is saying that the number of firearms that exist in the US make it much harder to regulate them, especially with the pro-gun culture we already have.

(and it didn't actually work in Australia... if you use a proper control variable -- most economists have suggested NZ -- you see that their laws had no effect. Here is a study on it, if you are interested: http://papers.ssrn.com...).

Lol. I know what he was saying. I was merely necroposting to Mikal's first ever forum post due to his recent activity.

gg m8
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:39:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2013 9:22:13 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Gun control worked in Australia.

"In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn't been a single mass shooting since Port Arthur."

http://abcnews.go.com...

The reason the USA has such little gun control is so people can live in fantasy doomsday prepper-land and dream of one day being Rambo and saving the country from a hostile evil Government take over.

The gun ban in Australia did not work, lol. The most similar country "New Zealand" had no increased gun laws and is similar in a lot of ways to Australia and it's crime rates saw similar declines.

And evil government takeovers isn't something to laugh at. People always assume bad things can't happen to them. I'm sure Nazi Germany prior to Hitler's takeover thought it couldn't happen to them. I bet a lot of people in the killing fields of Cambodia thought the same thing, I'm sure people in Russia and China before the communist uprisings thought that 100 million people slaughtered, wouldn't happen there.

Look, governments aren't some benevolent all loving entity, bad things can happen, and that's why you want to limit the government as much as possible.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 9:39:06 AM, Wylted wrote:
The gun ban in Australia did not work, lol. The most similar country "New Zealand" had no increased gun laws and is similar in a lot of ways to Australia and it's crime rates saw similar declines.

Actually, the gun ban in Australia did work. In 2012, Australia saw only 40 gun homicides (a five year high) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...).
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:05:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:01:24 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 7/29/2015 9:39:06 AM, Wylted wrote:
The gun ban in Australia did not work, lol. The most similar country "New Zealand" had no increased gun laws and is similar in a lot of ways to Australia and it's crime rates saw similar declines.

Actually, the gun ban in Australia did work. In 2012, Australia saw only 40 gun homicides (a five year high) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...).

Read my response again. I didn't say a drop in gun violence didn't happen. I said other factors were the reason why. New Zealand saw the same drop and they instituted no be major gun laws.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 8:03:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As with most things, a moderate and intelligent approach to gun control can be beneficial.

I think most of us would agree that there are certain people who should not be able to buy firearms. Ex-cons and the mentally ill both come to mind. And so a gun control system that focused on screening people and not firearms could be very effective. Background checks or licensing comes to mind.

But historically gun control has not bee focused on that. Its been focused on the firearms themselves. Certain classes are banned, length restrictions implemented, magazine sizes limited, registries set up, etc. These types of controls are not effective.

There is a right and a wrong way to do it, and much of the gun legislation in Canada at least has been the result of knee-jerk emotional reactions and not fact based. This has left us with very confusing and ineffective laws that do more to entrap unknowing innocents than stop actual crime.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:46:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. It will be just like drugs. When the U.S. government overpoliced drugs, Mexican cartels became the new provider of the product. Every time they make a product that people want hard to make or get, Cartels and gangs become the supplier. We will have unregistered guns in mass making gun murder impossible to prove in cases where the gun's known owner would prove guilt. Unregistered guns will flood the nation. Think of this. People all over the country will be making trades involving guns in their hands. Normal citizens are forced into gang and cartel-like activity to get a firearm. Besides it's Unconstitutional. Right to Bare arms right? Of course drug testing Welfare applicants violated the 4th Amendment, but the U.S. citizens sat there. And once step further. We have the right to arm ourselves to protect ourselves against the goverment who obviously aren't on our side.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.