Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[Single Shot]

i was posting a link as proof of worker conditions to support my arguement that they are more likely to snap. you have become unable to think of a rational counter-arguement to my posts and have thus begun trying to 'win' by making no sense at all.
Well done though, you are the perfect embodyment of the American dumn-ass stereotype the world hates. go on, just say "If i give up my gun the King of England will take my land." it'll suit you so well. you ARE afraid. you ARE very scared. and you don't want to give up your boomstick even if it will likely get you or someone you know killed.

if this is you signing off, goodbye Travis.

 

[Single Shot]

We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.

Nobody is trying to discuss that.

Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.

I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

Then you're a partisan. The rationality and logic of a proposal is not determined by the venue through which it is enacted, but by the content of the proposal. A good idea is a good idea, no matter who comes up with it.

So again, there is no middle.

You are simply wrong, and you are poisoning the debate.

This goes beyond gun control. Every debate Americans have tried to have in the last decade has been poisoned by hysterical people on the conservative side of the argument trying to twist the rational debate into an argument between the status quo and an extreme no one has asked for. Health care was twisted into "No health care vs. death panels". Tax increases got spun into "No taxes vs. communism." The debt ceiling got turned into "keep the current debt ceiling vs. unrestricted spending forever". Hell, I just watched a video from a hearing in the Louisiana Congress discussing opposition to their law that permits the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, and the conservative representative of the state tried to twist the argument into "allow intelligent design in science class vs. ban all mention of Christianity from any subject in school." This deceitful rhetoric of yours isn't just some game on some silly gaming message board- it's hurting America. Please stop hurting America with lies.

You know, some things are actually black and white. Sorry about that. But it's the truth.

Denying the fact that anti-gunners want ALL guns taken away, and the government is more than happy to oblige, well, that's deceit. Every anti-gunner KNOWS as much. There is no thing is an anti-gun lobbyist who believes owning a gun is acceptable in any way.

Black and white. That simple.

Yeah, because NOBODY wants to limit gun ownership so that responsable people can have them but tighten control so criminals and crazy people can't. grow up.

You are completely and utterly missing the point, and I know you are doing it on purpose. I'll reiterate very simply: any law or laws established to restrict citizens ability to acquire firearms or ammunition WILL expand to make it so that only the connected and the wealthy can own them. Fact. Don't believe me? Fine. Let's start a pool. I've always wanted a real vacation.

one last post. you do realize that it is the poorest people that commit most crimes due to the fact that they are poor so there is some merit in that. but no, that is not what i'm argueing for. i am argueing for a British or Australian style system where only people living in the country who might need a gun can own one. nad even then it must be under heavy security and be under a curtain power/clip size/range/ ect...
take off the tin foil hat Travis and inhail.

 

[Single Shot]

You're right. I am afraid. Really. I have no idea how on earth our race is going to survive this generation. I'm terrified.

And you know something? I'm being completely, 100% honest, no sarcasm whatsoever. I do not know how such lunacy can come to be without some form of mass brainwashing.

Ha, I'll probably end up in a tinfoil hat, and the cycle will be complete!

Get help. you seem (semi-)rational at times. the world has survived far more than is happening at the moment, just have some faith in humanity to want to survuve it. you have made it through the biggests "free" media properganda machine in the world and that has royaly f**ked up your view of the world.
stay away from the conspiracy sites for a bit, watch a bit of foreign news for balance, the BBC and CNN channels should provide quite a bit of mixed views.
not everything is the goverment trying to kill you, not every other person wants to kill you. just relax a bit and enjoy your brief time on this vast planet.

Oh, and if you really want to argue for or against something you really should take the time to look it up. once you have the facts both sides of the argument can be seen for what they are. People. often scared or greedy people, but still just People with the same basic wants and needs as you.

 

[Single Shot]

We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.

Nobody is trying to discuss that.

Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.

I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

Then you're a partisan. The rationality and logic of a proposal is not determined by the venue through which it is enacted, but by the content of the proposal. A good idea is a good idea, no matter who comes up with it.

So again, there is no middle.

You are simply wrong, and you are poisoning the debate.

This goes beyond gun control. Every debate Americans have tried to have in the last decade has been poisoned by hysterical people on the conservative side of the argument trying to twist the rational debate into an argument between the status quo and an extreme no one has asked for. Health care was twisted into "No health care vs. death panels". Tax increases got spun into "No taxes vs. communism." The debt ceiling got turned into "keep the current debt ceiling vs. unrestricted spending forever". Hell, I just watched a video from a hearing in the Louisiana Congress discussing opposition to their law that permits the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, and the conservative representative of the state tried to twist the argument into "allow intelligent design in science class vs. ban all mention of Christianity from any subject in school." This deceitful rhetoric of yours isn't just some game on some silly gaming message board- it's hurting America. Please stop hurting America with lies.

You know, some things are actually black and white. Sorry about that. But it's the truth.

Denying the fact that anti-gunners want ALL guns taken away, and the government is more than happy to oblige, well, that's deceit. Every anti-gunner KNOWS as much. There is no thing is an anti-gun lobbyist who believes owning a gun is acceptable in any way.

Black and white. That simple.

Yeah, because NOBODY wants to limit gun ownership so that responsable people can have them but tighten control so criminals and crazy people can't. grow up.

You are completely and utterly missing the point, and I know you are doing it on purpose. I'll reiterate very simply: any law or laws established to restrict citizens ability to acquire firearms or ammunition WILL expand to make it so that only the connected and the wealthy can own them. Fact. Don't believe me? Fine. Let's start a pool. I've always wanted a real vacation.

one last post. you do realize that it is the poorest people that commit most crimes due to the fact that they are poor so there is some merit in that. but no, that is not what i'm argueing for. i am argueing for a British or Australian style system where only people living in the country who might need a gun can own one. nad even then it must be under heavy security and be under a curtain power/clip size/range/ ect...
take off the tin foil hat Travis and inhail.

You say you're "arguing" for the UK's lovely system. More like flailing, sputtering incoherently, and failing to make relevant points. Please, people, realize this IS the anti-gun debate. This is their defense. It's no defense. It's indefensible. It's utter gibberish they can't bother to explain, and couldn't if you put their head in a vice to get a coherent explanation. They don't even know WHY they're anti-gun most of the time.

Think before we let nonsense like this guide the course of a nation.

okay. look. get's get this straight. i have provided FACTS that SHOW gun crime is a lot LOWER in places WITCH GUN CONTROL. either you SHOW SOME EVIDENCE that disproves that or go home. read a book, and learn the truth.

 

[Generic4me]

Being a 'Murrican that doesn't own a gun (Well, technically I do have my great-great-grandfather's Civil War bolt-action shit rifle, but I doubt it even works, so they can have that.

I honestly wouldn't give a shit. Take ma' gauns away, I've never been in a situation where I felt I'd need one, and don't think I'll ever be in one.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

"Oh no I'm so affected by this mneh mneh mneh".
That's sarcasm, by the way.
Look at all the fucks I give. I.E. None.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

I would be pretty pissed off to see my collection of WW2 firearms thrown into the smelter. If such a law were passed there is no way anyone would be getting any compensation, I would expect $3000 alone. I would probably get them all deactivated before I would let the mounties take them, history deserves to be preserved. However, collecting these old relics would be far less interesting if I couldn't take them to range once in a while.

there is a difference between historical collections and having 10 brand new guns "because someone else who also has 10 bran new guns may try to shoot me"

I am not really sure if I understand your point. Do you mean that people who collect many old firearms are more justified to do so than those who own many modern models? In terms of some sort of potential danger to the public there is objectively little difference between a "historical collection" of old guns vs an "arsenal" of new guns.

I don't think any government can presume to know a gun owner's intentions or predispositions (sounds pretty Orwellian to me). On a population basis, a history buff is probably just as likely to snap as a mall ninja w/ a dozen AR-15s at home or anyone else in the population for that matter. Old surplus firearms are often cheaper to purchase than modern models, the ammunition is often sold in larger quantities (military surplus) for far less than modern commercial ammo and many of the calibres in which these old firearms are chambered for are far more powerful than that of say an AR-15 (eg. 7.62x54r > 5.56x45 in terms of stopping power, penetration of hardened material, etc). Many old guns on the market are semi-automatic and capable of using a high capacity magazine (ie. 20-30 rounds) with little to no modification (ie. M1 Carbine, developed in 1941, is semi-auto and can use readily available 30 round mags).

I have no real problem with people who are opposed to firearms ownership as opposing points of view are a natural part of any democratic society. However, I find the anti-gun crowd are often misinformed or looking at an issue with a lack of objectivity. Just because a gun looks scary and militarist does not make it any more dangerous than many other mundane hunting models. Rather than seeking to ban "high powered assualt weapons", a term I find to be emotionally charged and manipulative, the antis should be seeking to ban "semi-automatic firearms" as the potential for crime and mass shootings is largely the same for all S-A models (regardless of whether it has a wood stock and long barrel or if it has a black polymer stock, with foregrip, flashlight, laser, acog sight, blah blah blah.)

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

I actually don't oppose a better NICS system, but what I do oppose are people who don't understand guns or mental health throwing out emotional pleas

Guns are simple - They kill people, in any civilized and well policed country you do not need them other than agricultural use. And perhaps well controlled club use for range shooting etc.

Live in inner-city Chicago, a city with the epitome of US gun control advocates' ideals for a couple of years, then, THEN you can come on here and tell people who've experienced it that they don't need firearms.

There are >200,000,000 million firearms in the US, and have been ~250k firearm thefts per year since 1993 (per ATF and US Justice Dept.). It is unfeasible to outright ban, and even if it happened, there are millions of criminals who will remain the only ones armed. I don't want every urban area in the nation to turn into Chicago/Detroit/Baltimore, I quite like being able to stroll around my city at night without looking over my shoulder as I used to have to when I lived in east Baltimore.

It wouldn't be like, "okay guys from thruday privately owned pistols, shot guns (without an agricultural or hunting need) semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal".

In the UK it was a gradual shift over about 80 years, from essentially having what you want, to very controlled.

Your logic is, allowing everyone to have guns has created a gun culture where people need them, lets do nothing and allow this cycle of death to continue where by my own admission some areas are literally hell.

You would start by ceasing the introduction of more firearms to the system and very very heavily restricting and regulating the flow of ammunition. Ceasing all together the sale to private citizens rounds for assault rifles. Perhaps even changing the law so that the now "legal" weapons only take a specialist shape of ammunition and so on. There by making so weapons out there are eventually useless. Then when things are not at the same level, gun amnesty where the government pays the metal value of the weapons. Introduction of new laws that make it clear if you are found in possession of an illegal firearm your life will be over. when your talking in the scope of 50 years to secure a safer future slowly, it could very easily be done. That it can't is just propaganda spread by people who don't want to listen.

I'll be honest, I'd be totally for a long-term wind-down as you mentioned, as long as other things are being done, societally, to tackle the crime issue. I made a pretty extensive post a month or so ago about ending the expensive and ineffectual war on drugs which would kill off the underground drug trade, one of the major things fueling inner city violence, whilst also cutting the hundreds of millions wasted per year, and generating new revenue in taxes which could be used for treatment programs/mental health care/urban renewal.

The problem is, and the reason so many are (god I hate to use this phrase) up in arms about this, is that the politicians are not interested in the draw down you've laid out, but rather want a knee jerk arbitrary ban-stuff-that-looks-scary and begin a federal registry (which, interestingly enough, is illegal under the recently passed healthcare reform bill).

Agreed then, an yer there are obviously going to be allot of knock on issues. An I'm 100% agreed with the politicians most of them are only interested in drastic changes that will get them instant results in terms of votes. ie here immigration policy needs to be reformed. Will anyone touch it, no, because it will take 10 odd years before positive results come in an they might not be in power by then.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

If the law was passed, I would sell them before they got a chance to take them.

To who? who would buy guns that are not legal to own?

That.......... Is a rather good point.

I would probably hide most of my firearms, simply because I'm not willing to give away that much money.

If the government was offering some kind of compensation, I would stick to my "Hide 1 pistol, sell the rest" plan.

 

[Sansha]

It's not feasible to ban guns in the United States. Gun ownership is too deeply ingrained in your culture and hundreds of years of history and society.
To ban guns would mean going door to door taking firearms away from people. As in, every goddamned house. People will lock up, hide, bury or escape off the grid with their guns to protect them, and some will actively fight back against the confiscators. There's your Civil War; where the first shot from that is fired it'll do nothing but escalate.

Gun control in my country is very tight and works well. Criminals simply don't have guns except the select few in the tip-top of organized crime.
Criminals here use bats, knives and their bare fists, and violent crime is very high. So taking away guns to prevent violence is not a practical solution, because as long as there's hate or insanity, people will find ways to kill one another.

If you want to stop the violence, you have to stop people wanting to kill each other, and that comes from health and education.

Crimes here are very, very rarely committed by the mentally unstable because mental issues are detected and diagnosed quickly and the issue treated or, in the case of the dangerous, removed from society so they can do no harm.

That, I think, is America's failing. Treat the cause, not the symptom.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

1. you are going to have to back up your claim that you do ahve the same problems. Show me proof.

2.since we can not stop or even stem the flow of illegal goods, banning guns or heavily restricting them is pointless. All it will do is insure that the criminals will be armed with maximum force while the law abiding citizens will be completely defenseless. Hell Mexico is getting a wee bit pissed at us for this, especially when a government operation was botched and they essentially gave illegal guns to...undesirables...in Mexico in an effort to pinpoint where the illegal guns were flowing from. Then we lost track of our own weapons that we gave them...

3. because of population density and economy, this has a big impact on police response times

4. because of the culture of distrust towards law enforcement and economy, any attempt to vastly increase the police force will be met with stiff resistence both because of the cost and because some people will see it as a method to persecute minorities.

I also justify the availability of arms as it is the only thing proven to work around these problems inside the US. If you want to point out that as a general rule of thumb getting rid of or heavily restricting guns reduces crime in first world countries reduces crime, I would actually agree. UNFORTUNATELY, it does not work in the US. Look at the crime statistics for the cities with strict gun control, then look at the cities of dallas or Austin, well reknown for their lax gun laws.

I WISH we had a silver bullet for crime. I WISH that banning guns would work in the US. unfortunately, gun control does NOT in the US. The data shows the exact opposite.

If we could solve general poverity, especially among certain ethnic groups, if we could get better police response times, if we could stop illegal goods from flowing, if we could spread out our population in a more controlled manner, then maybe gun control would work.

unfortunately, most of those problems are simply beyond our reach without implementing a police state.

Why is it okay for you to tell us how things are in america, but we have to provide you with proof? I live here and I've lived in various locations throughout the country, there's very few reports that are going to tell you what its like on the street. You look up stats and try and disprove it if you don't believe me. I'm not an encyclopedia, why on earth am I going to trawl through stats when I live here and know what its like, why would I lie?

I can't agree with you that in a supposedly civilized 1st world country the only solution is to allow everyone to arm themselves and defend themselves "wild west" style. Some of the descriptions on here I think have been over hyped, but essentially come to "we live in mad max world, theres next to no police, if you don't have a gun you die, if you do have a gun, you maybe won't".

"only thing proven to work around these problems inside the US" the US has never even tried tried a different system so how is it proven?

"most of those problems are simply beyond our reach without implementing a police state." see my post about scaling down over 50 odd years, it could be done, we're not talking about a "ALL GUNS FROM TUESDAY ARE ILLEGAL, DEAL WITH IT BITCHES!!!" kind of address.

"poverty" I read stats the other day that said the poorest 5% of Americans are richer than 85% of all Indian's. Americans don't know what true poverty is.

".since we can not stop or even stem the flow of illegal goods, banning guns or heavily restricting them is pointless" I simply CANNOT understand this kind of attitude for justifying everyone being armed. I'm just repeating myself over and over to different people. Admittedly there needs to be a whole host of changes to numerous attitudes laws and policing techniques. But america is no different than any other country. If you look at the European Union as a whole there is every single issue america has. Borders almost impossible to fully monitor, wide ethnic differences, stark differences in wealth. Religious tensions, drug and gang problems, people trafficking. And on top of that we have 2000 years of history of killing each other in various wars, the last one being within living memory. But gun violence is kept low, by a different policing attitude and strong regulated gun control.

I think we will just have to disagree, because frankly anybody who thinks the widespread ownership of guns is the way forward rather than anything but an outdated stagnate view from a bygone age, is not going to be convinced by reason. An unfortuantly its probably going to take allot more innocent people and children to die before action is done. The reasons everyone gets so up on the US for their gun control is because they have the power and the means to end the cycle, at some point someone is going to have to accept that the average american gun owners attitude to weapons is unhealthy and many people do not give them the respect they deserve. Arming everyone to the teeth and making it so very easy for criminals and those who should not own weapons, can not be justified that the police from the sounds of it are unable to protect individuals, vote for change, petition your politicians, restructure etc, there will never ever been any moving forward under the current system.

 

[HellbirdIV]

Since the only reason I want to own a gun is for decoration (The H&K SL-8 and FN Herstal F2000 both look great!) I'd look into wether or not they could be mechanically disabled (removing a number of the internal parts to prevent them ever being used) and thus not constitute weapons under the gun law. If that doesn't cut it (like, the ban includes disabled guns for extra-extra safety) I'd be sad and turn them in.

 

[Zenn3k]

It cannot happen without an amendment to the Constitution.

They can restrict some things here and there (clip sizes is a great idea), but they cannot outlaw guns without repealing the 2nd Amendment, and good luck ever getting that through.

So really, the question is entirely moot.

 

[Gentleman Adventurer]

My family only owns one gun, a Karabiner 1888 that has been in my family since something like 1914. I don't even own any bullets for it and the breech would probably explode if I even tried to fire it. But I would be very loathe to give it up. So I assume I would try the hide it under my floorboards.

 

[Benny Blanco]

I live in the UK so this has pretty much already happened: rifles and shotguns are legal, but not pistols.

Given that I live in an urban area and there's not much dangerous wildlife, I don't really need a gun anyway. Plus I have more than enough non-gun weapons for any eventuality that requires them.