Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should firearms be outlawed in the US?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    No firearms should not be banned. the end.
    Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

    Comment


    • #17
      "The fact is that these are the only weapons suitable for opposing a government hypothetically gone tyrannical. "

      Umm, how do you figure?

      Comment


      • #18
        No, never under any circumstance.
        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

        Comment


        • #19
          On what basis should arms not be banned?

          That is, justify the "no!".
          at

          Comment


          • #20
            It leads to lower crime rate, protects against government tyranny and genocide.

            By the way IT DOES lead to lower crime rate.

            How you can blame a few pounds of metal for the obvious ineptitude of a few pounds of grey matter is beyond me.

            People like to point to Japan because of their restrictive gun laws, but they fail to point out that JAPANESE AMERICANS have a 3 times lower crime rate then that of Japan.

            They also forgot the fact that the 31 States that have concealed weapons permits have had their crimerate drop(murders fell an average of 8 percent, rapes 5 percent and aggravated assaults 7 percent). During the same time the national murder rate increased 24 percent, and rapes 71 percent.

            Oh and that minor little detail that only 12% of the guns used in crime are purchased legally.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Praxus
              It leads to lower crime rate, protects against government tyranny and genocide.


              You keep saying that. Perhaps Goebel's was right. - If you repeat something often enough it becomes truth.

              How you can blame a few pounds of metal for the obvious ineptitude of a few pounds of grey matter is beyond me.
              To an extent i fully agree. However when the person at the other end might be innocent of any wrong doing (and we have all seen and read instances of this happening) i will leave it to you to explain to the next of kin.

              People like to point to Japan because of their restrictive gun laws, but they fail to point out that JAPANESE AMERICANS have a 3 times lower crime rate then that of Japan.
              Surely Japenese Americans are a small minority in America? Therefore they are less likely to encounter situations that involve gunplay than an entire nation. (Think of it like Leukemia clusters. Staggeringly rare, therefore two people within 50 miles of each other is a hotspot).

              They also forgot the fact that the 31 States that have concealed weapons permits have had their crimerate drop(murders fell an average of 8 percent, rapes 5 percent and aggravated assaults 7 percent). During the same time the national murder rate increased 24 percent, and rapes 71 percent.
              I will defer to you on this one, based on my lack of knowledge on these states. But to clarify, are you saying that as a direct consequence of the states allowing people to legally walk around "discreetly tooled up" that there is now less crime because of that?

              Oh and that minor little detail that only 12% of the guns used in crime are purchased legally.
              Is that an argument for or against banning them? Hard drugs and child prostitutes could be argued to be made legal as i am sure a very small percentage of either trade is currently legal in the US.
              at

              Comment


              • #22
                In Britian are most of the guns used in crimes legally purchased (impossible I belive) or are they brought off the black market? Also rural folk need guns for protection as well as farm work, law enforcement in rural areas is welll .. bad, as the average sheriff's office has only 25 sworn officers thus there is a lower coverage and guns are needed to protect untill law enforcement can arrive.

                PS: Incase nobody noticed, law enforcement is my other specialty besides military lol

                Comment


                • #23
                  You notice how since gun bans have been increased in Great Britian their crime rate is getting closer and closer to being about even with the US.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Crime rate drops because you don't know if the guy you want to mug is carrying a gun and will shoot you. Besides, I'd rather have guns then be like England, "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!!!"
                    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I am not purporting the UK to be the model of Gun Control. I thought we were talking about the US?

                      The UK is a very different culture. It is true the police are unarmed on their beats, but an Armed Response Unit will hit an incident about as quick as a normal squad car if it is needed.

                      Regarding crime levels. Some crimes are more prevelent in the UK than in the US. Of that the statistics are quite clear. However gun related crime is a lot lower in the UK.

                      The personal protection argument is, i believe a different argument from the "tyrannical govnerment" argument. The second one is fairly facile as that government would either have or not have the backing of the US military and in either case it would be the US military that held sway, or it would split and there would be another civil war. I do not believe Joe public and his hand gun will make a significant impact "this time round".

                      However the personal one is an interesting arguement. Again, rural communities in the UK and US are quite different. The local sheriff may be a lot further away in the US than the local bobby is in the UK.
                      at

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        "I will defer to you on this one, based on my lack of knowledge on these states. But to clarify, are you saying that as a direct consequence of the states allowing people to legally walk around "discreetly tooled up" that there is now less crime because of that? "

                        Yep. That is a fact.

                        "The personal protection argument is, i believe a different argument from the "tyrannical govnerment" argument. The second one is fairly facile as that government would either have or not have the backing of the US military and in either case it would be the US military that held sway, or it would split and there would be another civil war. I do not believe Joe public and his hand gun will make a significant impact "this time round"."

                        Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

                        Ask me why.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Even though I personally don't own any firearms, i believe guns should not be outlawed at all.

                          If the gov takes away a person's right to own firearms, what's next?


                          Why is it Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What's next?

                            Anything they want.......that's what's next.

                            That would only happen over my dead body.

                            You can add about 80 million(20 million plus of whom are US military veterans- experienced soldiers) US gun owners to that list.

                            BTW, if a guerilla rebellion were to break out in the US, the US military would be outnumbered by better than 25:1.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The personal protection argument is, i believe a different argument from the "tyrannical govnerment" argument. The second one is fairly facile as that government would either have or not have the backing of the US military and in either case it would be the US military that held sway, or it would split and there would be another civil war.
                              Tell that to Burgoyne's Army when they surrendured to the US after being worn down by armed Citizens.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Whilst i like the historical parallels i thought we were talking about banning - i.e. a future act?

                                If the US military went bad it would go bad on a scale no one has seen before. If it split it would be a civil war of enormous proportions.

                                I can understand a resistance movement forming, but it would only be sporadically effective. As with any such movement, it would take years of guerilla tactics to achieve anything. 20 million people storming washington would lead to air strikes from the military and a slaughter. And that assumes that all 20m are united. Which is unlikely because other factions would start to grab for power.

                                I don't think that the situation of an 18th century US government going bad and being faced with armed farmers is the same as a 21st century government going bad?

                                Several battles in WWI are more apt, IMHO When the 19th century tactics were pitched against the 20th century war machines it was a massacre. Would you not envisage the same thing in this scenario?

                                Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

                                Ask me why.
                                Go on Snipe, i'll bite. Why?
                                at

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X