This is the shit I'm talking about

[Bajaratt]

Because, because, because, because... I do not agree with average civilians having access to most ALL guns. Period. No other explanation needed. This thread was 1 example of why I feel the way I do. This thread that I created was strictly based on my opinion, not asking for the opinion of others (but always open to it). Therefore I'm allowing myself personal bias... because because because. Black and white. The laws 'should' have be amended at the turn of the century, and every few decades since to match the advancement of weapon capability and requirement for property defense. However, you can not turn back the clocks. To say that the #1 reason behind keeping these sorts of weapons in circulation available to the general public is because they're not the cause of crime or the main means behind many crimes, or because it's your god given right is a moot point in my eyes. I personally don't care. I still think, believe strongly, that people should not own most all types of guns. If you're not in the police force, work a security job that grants you liberation to a license, in the military etc.. you.don't.need.them.

I get that you don't think that people should have these guns, what I don't get, and what you still haven't explained, is why. Why shouldn't I be able to own an AR-15, that will spend 99% of it's time unloaded in my safe? Where is the harm in it, what is so wrong? Laws generally don't get created (or if they do, they get struck down by the courts usually) just because you don't like something; you have to have valid reasons and prove why it's good that X isn't going to be legally buyable.

You're okay with some guns, but not others. Why? That's what I can't figure out.

One thing that I want to point out, is that your average civilian can't own a a lot of things. There is already plenty of weapons that would make the ATF shit a brick if they found out a civilian owned; so again, I don't see why you're focusing on something that's not a problem.

Guns are not just -goods-. They are means to destroy. Means that are unnecessary. Fun, sure...whatever, I guess for some. I don't care. Unnecessary and dangerous. I don't care to discuss statistics, they are just numbers supporters hide behind to defend their precious rights, rights to own weapons that are incredibly dangerous. There was a huge controversy here behind Sikhs carrying around ceremonial daggers. They argued that it was a religious right. They lost. There is not enough logic behind their argument.

Were they banned from walking around with them or just having them, period?

I actually thought about this but my last post was long enough as it was, but do you feel the same about sword ownership? It's just as deadly as a gun can be, it's sole purpose is to destroy, so should sword ownership be banned?

Just one question though.. how is it "careless" to establish a ban on gun ownership (before trying other avenues)? How could it possibly be careless to pass laws requiring all those with registered arms to hand them in within 12 months or face serious fines/jail time should they get caught with them after the end date?

It is careless. The pertinent issue isn't the fact that people can own guns, it's that the wrong people can own guns. 99.9% of legal gun owners don't go on killing sprees or hurt anyone with their guns; the problem is that damn 0.1% are crazy people. Your idea is careless because it's not going to fix the true problem, because those crazy people will still be able to get other the guns that you're not banning. So now instead of an AR-15, which never gets used in crimes anyways, they'll use a handgun, which they use all the time. They'll still commit a crime, still kill people, but they'll use a different gun which YOU said it was okay for them to get, just because it wasn't an AR-15.

You're actually using the same kind of argument as the anti-video game politicians are. You're proclaiming a good is the problem rather than that the individual who committed the crime is to blame, just because the individual used that good at some point.

 

[Bajaratt]

Hand guns are among the types I think need to be banned. And if you're not allowed to conceal weapons, they're not bloody good for defense either.

You can conceal weapons, it requires a class for training and a permit, but most states allow people to carry concealed weapons. There are places where even if you're licensed, you're not allowed to carry, like on schools or in hospitals and such; but most public places you can carry a concealed weapon in. The license also allows you to leave your gun in your car, so it's still somewhat accessible if you're in a place where you can't take it in the building.

Crime rates will go up... what are the REAL reasons behind that? As I said in my last post, are criminals assuming those who would have had a gun to match their own for defense purposes no longer do? And if so, the argument that only criminals will have those weapons etc, would include those that didn't see themselves as the 'problem'.

To be honest, I'm not sure why it does, but historically it happens in almost every country that completely bans guns. The amount of legal gun violence drops to nearly zero, because now there's no such thing as a legal gun, but the amount of illegal gun violence skyrockets; largely for the same reason.

 

[Thelona]

To be honest, I'm not sure why it does, but historically it happens in almost every country that completely bans guns. The amount of legal gun violence drops to nearly zero, because now there's no such thing as a legal gun, but the amount of illegal gun violence skyrockets; largely for the same reason.

heck, they knew this 250 years ago

Thomas Jefferson copied into his book of favorite quotes an observation by Cesare Beccaria, the founder of the science of criminology:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

 

[Raesvelg]

To be honest, I'm not sure why it does, but historically it happens in almost every country that completely bans guns. The amount of legal gun violence drops to nearly zero, because now there's no such thing as a legal gun, but the amount of illegal gun violence skyrockets; largely for the same reason.

Now this, is not true.

When the UK and Australia banned firearms, and practiced a confiscatory policy towards them, gun violence did indeed decrease.

In Australia, that simply meant that other means took up the slack. Murder remained on the same downward trend it had been previously, while other violent crimes saw a 20-40% increase over the period from say, 1990-2005 or so.

In the UK, of course, murder rates steadily increased for over a decade as their gun laws steadily tightened, before starting back downward around 2005. It's just now hit the same levels that it was before the major gun bans began to be enacted. Again, however, gun violence did decrease, just other forms picked up the slack and then some. Britain's violent crime rates have also been steadily on the rise.

The UK and Australia proved that, in an island nation with all the inherent control over smuggling that that gives you, it's possible to significantly decrease the amount of gun violence by controlling access to firearms. They also proved that that does fuck all to murder rates, and they both raise the question of whether the gun right advocates are correct in their assertion that "more guns = less crime".

Violent crime rates for things such as assault, rape, mugging and the like are significantly higher in the UK and Australia than the US, incidentally. To the level of two to three times as high. Murder rates are substantially lower, of course, but their enactment of gun control had nothing to do with that; it's a cultural issue.

 

[Thelona]

but the problem(well not PROBLEM in my mind, but problem for someone trying to institute gun control)
is that the size or those countries gun markets were miniscule compared to what it is in the US.

Most estimates say we have over 310 million guns in this country, thats more guns then people.

Just from January thru November of 2012, there were 16.5 Million background checks preformed for new gun purchases, and background checks aren't even required for private transactions and that makes up 40% of sales

All other countrys are measured in how many guns Per 100 people, next highest countries are around high 50's, lol we are 100+

You can't really draw a comparison from anywhere else, it would take a generation or more to get most the guns out of civilian hands here, if its even possible, and if you could do it without starting a war.

 

[Raesvelg]

We're at like 80 guns per 100 people, yet (legal) gun ownership has been dropping steadily for years.

Basically, we have fewer people buying more guns. A consolidation of the arsenal, so to speak. Pushed along by the fact that every decade or so, people try to (and occasionally succeed) ban a whole category of weapons, so people buy up a ton of them beforehand, and after the ban lapses.

The fact remains is that there's never been any valid proof of a link between guns and murder, positive or negative.

 

[Bajaratt]

Now this, is not true.

I remember always hearing about the illegal gun violence actually going up, but maybe it was just violence.

 

[Thelona]

Hmm. Seen closer 100 in several somewhat recent studies. But then again all those "studies" are merely estimates.but I've always figured those studies underestimate if anything tho.

But that may due to my own bias on the issue and the fact I grewup in the south. Guns are alot more commen down here I'm sure, hell we have so many guns down here people turn them into decorations XD