If banning guns works.....

[dirtysix]

Thing that most people in other countries don't understand is the guns here that are registered are rarely used in crimes. People that go through licensing requirements don't do so so that they can shoot up a rival dealer. It's the back lot sales that end up being used in crimes, and those are already illegal.

It is entirely the same situation here. The possible difference being that we just dont have that many guns available so black market guns are more difficult to come by.


Thing is, you cant get shot of gun law simply because a minority of people dont abide by it. By that reckoning you could dismiss most law.

[slammin.e28]

Thing that most people in other countries don't understand is the guns here that are registered are rarely used in crimes. People that go through licensing requirements don't do so so that they can shoot up a rival dealer. It's the back lot sales that end up being used in crimes, and those are already illegal.

X1000.

Gun legislation won't, and doesn't, stop illegal use or trafficking of firearms. End story. This is why the law abiding citizen needs to be able to defend himself and others from the illicit traders and users of firearms.

Sure, nut jobs do get their hands on guns the legit way, but if, in most cases, someone did their job properly, there would be no nut jobs toting guns. Most of the people who have shot up some place recently have had a mental/criminal record already. Since they seem to slip through the crack so easily, we the people need to be able to protect ourselves when, not if, one of the nut jobs goes nuts.

[frankenbeemer]

I don't normally post in these threads because hoplophobia gets in the way of the facts.

Fixed it for you.

[e30e]

It is entirely the same situation here. The possible difference being that we just dont have that many guns available so black market guns are more difficult to come by.

Lets be honest, EVERYTHING in your country aside from sheep are hard to come by. If this country had the isolation and size of your country , we would also have less places for criminals and fewer opportunities to acquire illegal or legal weapons.

[immajackuup]

Guns don't kill people,people kill people.

[mrsleeve]

It is entirely the same situation here. The possible difference being that we just dont have that many guns available so black market guns are more difficult to come by.


Thing is, you cant get shot of gun law simply because a minority of people dont abide by it. By that reckoning you could dismiss most law.

Mr Jefferson thinks your full of shit and hopelessly misguided

Gun laws Only disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most scarred laws of humanity the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. These laws are not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts and not by thoughtful consideration- Thomas Jefferson 1764

[dirtysix]

Mr Jefferson thinks your full of shit and hopelessly misguided

Really?
Hows that?

[mrsleeve]

I guess you dont read that good, If you dont get the plain kings English then I cant help you either

[z31maniac]

Did you read?

"These laws are not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts and not by thoughtful consideration"

[dirtysix]

So where did I say that banning guns would eradicate gun homicide?

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here

Even so, I still dont like the idea that randoms in the street might be carrying a gun.

and here

Thing is, I dont trust people to operate guns properly. Retards cant drive properly let alone operate guns properly in populated are

your implications and intentions are clear in these 2 statements


Ok lets try this one more time in a more modern vernacular.

Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.



The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.



When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.



By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced

Its old too but the point still remains the good Major just completes connecting the dots for you, since the other version is a bit past your pay grade


From My Sig lines as well
No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist, or killer, like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended victim- W. Emerson wright

[dirtysix]

I disagree with him.
Or am I not allowed to do that on my 'pay grade'?
Or am I just supposed to agree because you say it's so.

Oh you've edited, how nice.
Neither liking the idea or trusting people to use guns with skill mean that I think gun crime will disappear with the banning of firearms.
You assume too much.

[Vedubin01]

I think gun crime will disappear with the banning of firearms.

Have you ever fired a firearm?

[mrsleeve]

Dub, why do we keep doing this, its getting more and more like beating my head against a wall every time.



Dirty:Why do you dissagree


Your arguments hinge on the assumption that human nature is not a variable. And that ALL people act Civilized, moral, and Just, ALL THE TIME. We know this is a fantasy land, and that someone who wants to infringe on your right to freedom of human endeavors, can and will do so if they are given the chance to do so.

We are a violent species, the strong prey on the weak to gain money, power, stuff, or just plain for kicks. It has been going on since the birth of our species Why the fuck you think its going to end now.

Taking away my ability to defend my self from those that would try infringe on my freedom and life, is just as criminal as those acts them selves.

You dont agree thats fine no biggie, you continue to live in the magic Forrest full of fluffy puppies and rainbows, happy land with your head in the sand with the "it will never happen to me attitude.

I will stay here in reality.

[dirtysix]

To Vdubbin
Yes I have. Good fun.
But your selective quoting leaves much to be desired.