Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

This whole discussion is insane.
What happen when you ban gun? Well, less death by gunwound.

All gun bans do is make owning a gun illegal. If a criminal is committing a crime, why not also bring a gun anyway?

First of all, I point a fact. Look at the death by gun wound rate in Belgium, Italy, UK, ... lot less violence.

Of course, the socio-economic context has his importance, but it's pretty clear that having a lot of firearm available only make things worse.

"If a criminal is committing a crime, why not also bring a gun anyway?" Rethink about it, ok?

So, let's say, you're in Blegium.
Few firearm here, and the most you can get for breaking and entrering is a bit of time in prison.
You're fed up of living with the minimal unemployment fee (750 Euro, about 1000$) and decide to rob an house.
Shall you A) purchase an expensive firearm, knowing that you then would be charged for armed robery if you get caught, and then be facing years instead of month in prison.
B) go rob the house and get the hell out if there is someone inside.

If you choose A congratulation, not only did you have to bought it on the black market, so it's really expensive, but now, if the owner of the house kill you by any means (such has actually having a firearm permit, or stabbing you or ...) he will be in his right.
Oh yes, and if your house is shearched, you're in big trouble.

[Kogan Loloklam]

First of all, I point a fact. Look at the death by gun wound rate in Belgium, Italy, UK, ... lot less violence.

Don't forget Finland!

Of course, the socio-economic context has his importance, but it's pretty clear that having a lot of firearm available only make things worse.

Yep. Because a criminal who has access to legal firearms will ALWAYS bring a gun, unlike those who don't. Assault and robbery is always funner when it becomes felony menacing!

"If a criminal is committing a crime, why not also bring a gun anyway?" Rethink about it, ok?

So, let's say, you're in Blegium. You want to rob a house.
Few firearm here, and the most you can get for breaking and entrering is a bit of time in prison.
You're fed up of living with the minimal unemployment fee (750 Euro, about 1000$) and decide to rob an house.
Shall you A) purchase an expensive firearm, knowing that you then would be charged for armed robery if you get caught, and then be facing years instead of month in prison.
B) go rob the house and get the hell out if there is someone inside.

If you choose A congratulation, not only did you have to bought it on the black market, so it's really expensive, but now, if the owner of the house kill you by any means (such has actually having a firearm permit, or stabbing you or ...) he will be in his right.

Exactly! You decide you need a firearm so when you are seen and you shoot him because he recognized you, you now committed MURDER and are subject to much harsher penalties!
Also, don't even bother bringing a firearm because the person you plan on robbing already has one. Silly criminals, will they never learn? In lands of strict gun control only registered owners will have them, and they all own the houses you are going to rob!

Oh yes, and if your house is shearched, you're in big trouble.

Yes, because like a dumbass you were caught robbing someone's house and didn't know how to hide things from common searches that occur every time someone is arrested after robbing another person's house. That is what happens when you own guns, you become incapable of thinking!


See that, Guns don't pay, people pay!

[andrea]

Exactly! You decide you need a firearm so when you are seen and you shoot him because he recognized you, you now committed MURDER and are subject to much harsher penalties!
Also, don't even bother bringing a firearm because the person you plan on robbing already has one. Silly criminals, will they never learn? In lands of strict gun control only registered owners will have them, and they all own the houses you are going to rob!

uh? I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

[Heron TSG]

This whole discussion is insane.
What happen when you ban gun? Well, less death by gunwound.

All gun bans do is make owning a gun illegal. If a criminal is committing a crime, why not also bring a gun anyway?

I find this argument annoying, I'm not saying I agree with Phmcw's post but if you're going to commit a crime why not rape someone anyway? After all you're already committing a crime, it's not like adding extra crimes on top will in anyway be worse for you if you're caught. Hell you might as well kidnap and kill them too.

Congratulations, you may be the first person to convince someone else of something on the internet. It would make no sense to bring a gun if it added years to a sentence. If it were a smaller penalty, then maybe.

[Phmcw]

Well, if you know that, when you enter his house, the house owner have the right to shoot you, you'd better have a fireamr and shoot first. If he doesn't don't bother bringing one.

Of course, not all assult including firearm come from hardened criminal (it's not that easy to find someone who can sell you one here)
and not all firearm related injuries are intended.
Those two kind of firearm related problem will be severly reduced by a ban on firearm.

Yes, because like a dumbass you were caught robbing someone's house and didn't know how to hide things from common searches that occur every time someone is arrested after robbing another person's house. That is what happens when you own guns, you become incapable of thinking!

Because every criminal can fool the police so easily. They don't have to find a gun, they just have to find powder residute and they will know what to search.

You decide you need a firearm so when you are seen and you shoot him because he recognized you

So you know how to hide your gun from the police but you didn't hide your face. You're a fricking genius.

Well, let's stop here. House robber usually aren't bringing gun along when they act, in belgium, and when they do, they usually don't use them. Fact.

Of course, an hardened criminal will have access to gun. But it won't use them as readily, because that would make no sense. And madman don't have access to gun, because you have to know a gun dealer, and that's hard. When we have gun related trouble , it's usually a 22 long carabine that is involved (amateurs) or a assault rilfe (armored fund transport robery).

Finland is rich, have a stong social care (free school for everyone, even those who are not citizen), have a low population density, and low criminality. Yes, when every thing else is perfect you can allow firearm. But right now the US, thank to your stupid firearm policy, have a death by gunwound count worthy of a third world country.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Dunno why you don't just make it compulsary to join the national gard to own a weapon. Its a win win win. NG gets more people, people get actual training on how to use their guns, and a third win which for some reason i can't remember 30 seconds after thinking of it. But i'm sure it was good.

That sounds like it works in theory, but believe me when I say an all-volunteer force is better. Sure it's nice if everyone has military training, but the lack of military training also creates a tactical flexibility that cannot be beat. For example, colonials adopted the Native American hit-and-run while the trained British stood in lines firing. If we were to fight like they fought, our revolution wouldn't have been successful. We would have fought like that if everyone was trained. Now look at how wars are fought. See, untrained can be of great benefit, especially if backed up by trained groups.

"Untrained dumbass with gun" is not a valid military strategy. (In fact, it more closely matches the contemporary british tactics: stand in the open and shoot vaguely in the direction of your target)

Especially considering that modern military training consists of desensitization to combat and programming automatic reactions to otherwise problematic situations, along with weapon maintenance and physical training.

Of course, I'm also not sure what the fuck situation you think would lead to civilians taking up their cheap hunting rifles and handguns and forming a resistance movement, as in that would, at best, end up getting them all killed, and if it was an invasion, their families and friends too.

It's not like in a country as massively decentralized as the US a civilian militia could effect meaningful damage.  They could, at best, topple the local government (which wouldn't really make much sense, since, unless they were in an extreme minority, they would, in all likelihood, have elected people that agree with them), and then they'd be slaughtered by a SWAT team or, failing that, the national guard. And they'd serve as an example that would dissuade others from trying the same.

Even were the government toppled by the people (which isn't a possibility: before dissent reached the point of armed conflict, you'd get a disintegration of the union, leaving states that either end up dictatorships, or pander more closely to their populace, both of which nullify the possibility of armed revolt), it wouldn't result in some anarcho-libertarian wet-dream, you'd just get warlords and mafia organizations, and then probably foreign invasion or a nuclear holocaust.

...Or they decide the legal system would be much easier without the fifth amendment...

And instead it will be replaced by a system of agreeing to things you didn't commit at the threat of being tossed in jail for a much longer time if you don't agree... wait a second...

I can't tell if you're missing the fact that he was employing a slippery slope fallacy, or if you're alluding to plea bargains.


Now, there are valid arguments for allowing people to own guns, and carry concealed handguns, so long as that's also regulated so that criminals and the mentally unstable can't legally purchase them. "We's gonna overtrow dem tyrants!" is not one of them, and honestly is a pretty good indicator that the individual in question isn't mentally sound enough to own firearms (or sharp objects) in the first place.

[Phmcw]

You forgot to mention that the only thing that would happen in the us if someone tryed to topple the governmen is a very fun civil war in the country with most weapon per inhabitant in the world.
Something that everybody want, I'm sure. 

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You forgot to mention that the only thing that would happen in the us if someone tryed to topple the governmen is a very fun civil war in the country with most weapon per inhabitant in the world.
Something that everybody want, I'm sure. 

I consider that very unlikely, actually. That would imply that anyone could topple the government, who was not also powerful enough to instill order afterward.


Personally, I believe that arming the relatively sane individuals in a society is a good idea, and serves as a good deterrent to crime. I do not, however, believe either in giving every lunatic with some cash a gun, nor this bizarre anarcho-libertarian fantasy of popular revolt by untrained, poorly armed civilians. The idea that gun ownership would not only cause a large enough movement to actually threaten the government, but also lead to this movement being united and organized enough to actually accomplish anything (without, say, a cult of personality driving it, which would undermine the whole point by ultimately instilling a dictator into power). In fact, I'd think widespread gun ownership would lead to such a movement being summarily put down, were it to have any impact at all (it would, after all, be much harder to seize strategic targets if there were armed dissidents hidden in the civilian populace, in addition to actual paramilitary resistance by the legitimate government).

[lumin]

This topic and a lot of the misunderstanding with the 2nd Amendment reminds me of the misunderstanding with the 1st Amendment as well:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The part about "make no law respecting the establishment of religion" has become translated by many to mean a "separation of church and state".  Contrary to popular belief, there is no such phrase in the Constitution.  This always comes up when a religion supports a political campaign, monetarily or not.  The Constitution only separates the government from the religion, not the religion from the government. 

Any private institution, including private business or church, per "the right of [We] the people peaceably to assemble", is protected by the Constitution to support any political campaign.

The Judiciary has ceased to enforce the Constitution for so many decades now that the Law has been relegated to a historical artifact of commentary and nothing more. The DISCLOSE act, passed a few days ago in the House (or did anyone else notice?) was unconstitutional and a perfect example of this because it is a law explicitly "abridging the freedom of speech" by forcing private business (peacefully assembling people) to publicly disclose all political expenditures.

The 5 to 4 victory for the 2nd Amendment is only a small bump in the path of total erosion of the Law of the United States of America.

[Heron TSG]

The 5 to 4 victory for the 2nd Amendment is only a small bump in the path of total erosion of the Law of the United States of America.

No, the erosion of law is mainly due to people complaining about how their interpretations are the only correct ones.

[Phmcw]

Lumin, your constitution is not an holly text that will last forever.
I won't answer to your second paragraph, because that would be too much of a derail, but to the first it's easy : the constitution doesn't says de facto anything aboput modern firearm because those didn't exist at the time.

[Nikov]

As for Fort Knox: They would shoot you on site if shit hit the fan. Sneaking into Fort Knox with the intention of stealing a tank is a plan doomed to failure. Convincing them to let you in and add a flamethrower system to an old tank is even more doomed to faliure.

You clearly are unaware of my level of understanding with the museum staff and the military officers who run it, or those officer's level of sympathy for my point of view.

(offensive imagery removed - tt)

[Kadzar]

From your illustration it looks less like you wish to immolate the protesters and more like you wish to apply suntan lotion en masse.

[Phmcw]

If shit hit the fan, they will have weapon too, and as you're using a ww2 tank full of gaz in an hostile urban area, you're pretty sure to be the one that get cooked. A coktail molotov in the motor fence and bye bye (copyright Polish secret army, used with much sucess on the very tank you're drawing).

And if shit hit the fan, you'll really regret the idiocy that made you all have weapon. So much.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am somewhat disturbed that you wish to steal a tank used by Nazi Germany and use it to burn protesters.