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

[ZorroFonzarelli]

I would do nothing, because nothing would happen. No one would even recognize such a law, including those who came to take my guns. The only action that would be taken would involve lawyers, judges, and eventually overturning. Few if any would turn in their guns.

At worst, States would nullify the laws, and the federal government such as it is would no longer exist.

Local authorities tried doing this in New Orleans during Katrina, and met with mixed results and massive prosecution afterwards.

 

[Ryotknife]

Societies make laws for the good of society, not the good of particular individuals. And I will once again remind you that regulating guns does not automatically equate to an endangerment of your, or anyone else's ass.

Except that it does endanger me.

Evidence please. Provide factual evidence that not carrying a gun in a society where guns are heavily regulated will automatically endanger you. Keep in mind that your evidence has to explain why there are so many societies in the world where people do not carry guns and that guns are well-regulated and violent crime rates are lower than the US, meaning that they are less endangered.

And I'll drop the strawmanning when the other side stops pretending that people can't die unless a firearm is involved.

Yeah, guess what: Not a single person said that. Ever.

Because to hear it, with no guns involved, I'll just get a bop on teh nose by criminals and nothing more than that.

Yeah, not a single person ever said that either. This conversation will be a whole lot more productive when you actually listen to the other side instead of just making shit up.

except in the US, the cities with strict gun control laws tend to be the ones with the worst crime, and the ones with lax gun control tend to have significantly lower crime. On average at least, obviously there are exceptions on both sides.

How gun control affects X country has absolutely zero bearing on the gun control issue inside the US IF the data inside the US shows that gun control leads to worse crime (or does nothing at all), which it does.

Now crime, in general, has been dropping across the board in the US for decades. This is likely because one of the causes for crime or violence has been lessened (racial/religious tensions). Note lessened, not removed.

NY has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and yet 4 out of 5 of its biggest cities have crimes rates comparable to Chicago, Detriot, and Baltimore (all cities, btw, with strict gun control).

Gun control, as it stands right now, does not work in the US. The data proves this. If you want to explore WHY it doesnt work and solve those issues so that it can work in the future, go for it. There are geological, economic, cultural, societal, and political issues that prevent gun control from working on the same level as other societies. Without eliminating or alleviating those issues, gun control is not only illogical but immoral as it will cost people their lives. Guns, as it stands right now, are a neccessary evil so to speak.

 

[HellbirdIV]

Make the difference - firearms aren't a solution, just a symptom of the problem.

And in the meantime?

In the meantime you can minimize the risk posed by firearms by not pretending they're anything other than weapons intended to destroy.

Though, reading your other posts, I sort of doubt that. Specifically?

I carry a pistol on my person anytime I can legally do so, and I am wary to go into any establishment that doesn't at least allow me to keep at least one or two forms of self defense (my handgun is just one. I carry a retractable utility knife and pepper spray as well) on my person.

This doesn't make you a responsible citizen. It makes you a paranoid fucking crazy.

When someone tells me they don't want to go leave their homes without a deadly weapon, that doesn't tell me their neighbourhood is dangerous, it tells me they shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects unsupervised, much less firearms.

If you're really paranoid about getting attacked, how about a brick in your handbag? Brass knuckles? A flippin' lighter and some non-fire safe deodorant spray? Why escalate things from "robbery and/or assault" to "firefight and/or knife murder"?

NY has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and yet 4 out of 5 of its biggest cities have crimes rates comparable to Chicago, Detriot, and Baltimore (all cities, btw, with strict gun control).

That might have something to do with population density, cultural diaspora (and the racism inherent in American society) and the fact it's the 'heart' of East coast America where most people going to the States will pass through at some point.

I'm no expert but I imagine you should compare per capita the gun crimes committed in a controlled region to a less restrictive one to get a clearer picture as to wether gun control works or not, yes?

 

[TornadoADV]

As for the rest, I take responsibility for my actions, even if I don't get called on the carpet for it.

Ah, but there's the catch. Not saying this about you personally, but is it generally "even if I don't" or is it "until I do"?

All in all, taking responsibility for your actions is something I respect. What galls me are the people who want their rights (in this case, AMENDMENT II, FUCK YEA!) without any responsibility that comes with it (in this case, keeping guns out of reach of people who are not fit to use them, and not using guns destructively). Every right should carry a responsibility, and often people forget about that.

Need a gun because your land is infested by vermin? Go ahead. For hunting? Sure. Target shooting? Sure, just keep it locked up at the range if that's the only thing you need it for. To look badass and gangsta? Fuck no, I'm, not letting you have a gun just for that.

Just some responsibility, that's what "my" kind of "pro-control" people want.

Sorry for the late response, heavy snowstorms played havoc with the internet.

Even if I don't, thought I cannot vouch for my fellow man.

I know what my weapon can do, I am aware of of it capabilities and risks of use, I use the proper ammunition for home defense, though I do have ammunition should my assailant be wearing body armor. I do subscribe to the Uncle Ben school of thought, that with great power comes great responsibility. I keep my firearms in perfect working order, the ammunition stored in the correct conditions and my non-home defense firearms secured in a firearms safe and the ammunition in a seperate room and smaller portable fire-safe.

I train diligently with my firearms so I know them like the back of my hand, I know their ranges, what they can puncture and what they deflect off of. I am also aware of the area around my house so if I DO need to defend my house from a break in, I don't endanger others should a round pierce the outer wall of my house and into the street/area.

I also have a functional gas mask, first responder tramua bag and body armor. I'm just as ready and willing to defend others in my local area as I am myself.

 

[TornadoADV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

You were saying?

Anyway, suicide fighters do not equal american citizens, much less US home bases do not equal combat bases and FOBs in the field. But while we're talking about hunting rifles, many that a US Citizen can legal purchase can defeat any known body armor. (Remington 700 being one) You know who make the best shots in the US Military? Farm and Hunting boys from rural america. You know who has the most weapons per household in the US? Rural America.

That was a bunch of veterans against a local sheriff's office. Want to know what happens when a group of "farm and hunting boys from rural America" decide to take on the FEDERAL government? This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege].

By the way, if you're really worried about the feds taking over, giving every yokel with an attitude problem a semi-auto rifle is counterproductive because it weakens the strongest REAL defense we have: the fact that the people who would hypothetically be ordered to become the new Gestapo don't want to[footnote]Yes, I'm sure there are a few exceptions, given the sheer number of soldiers we have. But MOST people who join the US armed forces do so because they think freedom is a good thing[/footnote]. Imagine you're, say, a drone operator. Which of the following would you be more likely to refuse to blow away?
1. A crowd of unarmed protesters.
2. A farm house full of lunatics taking potshots at US soldiers.

As a drone operator, or to be more specific, a soldier/airman/marine/sailor in the employ of the American people, my sworn oath does not allow me to fire upon US citizens. Also, I love the loaded langauge in your two choices, get real.

Also WACO is nothing like the Battle of Athens, it consisted of a bunch of religious fanatics sitting inside a compound, shooting a couple of federal agents and then burning to death when a breaching vehicle somehow caused a fire. I'm not sure people know this or not, but it is completely legal for a US citizen to own fully operational combat aircraft, naval vessels, armored vehicles, along with man portable anti air missile launchers and anti tank missile launchers, not to forget 12.7mm caliber sniper rifle with anything from normal Ball ammunition all the way up to Armor Piercing Incinderary or High Explosive rounds.

Technically the only thing a citizen can't own is a fully automatic small arm built after 1986.

 

[Tyelcapilu]

yes, you made it pretty clear that your paranoia is of medical condition level.

How is it paranoid? You think I don't read the news?

You do realise that the news organisations in the US have probably been the biggest fear-mongering organisations since the Cold War, correct?
Not that I completely blame them- fear is what sells.

 

[DataSnake]

As a drone operator, or to be more specific, a soldier/airman/marine/sailor in the employ of the American people, my sworn oath does not allow me to fire upon US citizens.

Bingo. That being the case, why do private citizens need to arm themselves against a possible takeover by a government whose soldiers have all sworn not to attack them?

Also WACO is nothing like the Battle of Athens, it consisted of a bunch of religious fanatics sitting inside a compound, shooting a couple of federal agents and then burning to death when a breaching vehicle somehow caused a fire.

That was kind of my point. The only example you can cite of "second amendment remedies" not ending in disaster was when the oppressive government consisted of a single backwoods county. When it comes to fighting off the federal government, aka the one the libertarians are always bitching about, it's less Athens and more Waco.

I'm not sure people know this or not, but it is completely legal for a US citizen to own fully operational combat aircraft, naval vessels, armored vehicles, along with man portable anti air missile launchers and anti tank missile launchers, not to forget 12.7mm caliber sniper rifle with anything from normal Ball ammunition all the way up to Armor Piercing Incinderary or High Explosive rounds.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Do you really think private citizens could arm themselves nearly well enough to take on the US Military if they somehow did have to (ignoring for the moment that, as mentioned above, that would never happen)?

Technically the only thing a citizen can't own is a fully automatic small arm built after 1986.

That's the ONLY thing? OK, here's a fun experiment: go out, try to purchase some enriched uranium, and see what happens.

 

[TornadoADV]

As a drone operator, or to be more specific, a soldier/airman/marine/sailor in the employ of the American people, my sworn oath does not allow me to fire upon US citizens.

Bingo. That being the case, why do private citizens need to arm themselves against a possible takeover by a government whose soldiers have all sworn not to attack them?

Also WACO is nothing like the Battle of Athens, it consisted of a bunch of religious fanatics sitting inside a compound, shooting a couple of federal agents and then burning to death when a breaching vehicle somehow caused a fire.

That was kind of my point. The only example you can cite of "second amendment remedies" not ending in disaster was when the oppressive government consisted of a single backwoods county. When it comes to fighting off the federal government, aka the one the libertarians are always bitching about, it's less Athens and more Waco.

I'm not sure people know this or not, but it is completely legal for a US citizen to own fully operational combat aircraft, naval vessels, armored vehicles, along with man portable anti air missile launchers and anti tank missile launchers, not to forget 12.7mm caliber sniper rifle with anything from normal Ball ammunition all the way up to Armor Piercing Incinderary or High Explosive rounds.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Do you really think private citizens could arm themselves nearly well enough to take on the US Military if they somehow did have to (ignoring for the moment that, as mentioned above, that would never happen)?

Technically the only thing a citizen can't own is a fully automatic small arm built after 1986.

That's the ONLY thing? OK, here's a fun experiment: go out, try to purchase some enriched uranium, and see what happens.

Enriched Uranium is an internationally controlled material with two uses, nuclear power or nuclear weapon, both which are outside the scope of a private owner.

My point is, is that being worried about scary looking semi automatics used in only 3% of gun related deathes is pretty funny when compared to the fact that I can go out and buy a fully functional T-72 for around 80K or MiG-21bis for 120K and all I have to do is pay the destructive device tax.

Also, Waco =/= Athens, Waco was religious fanatics with no plan, Athens was trained, armed citizens with a plan.

 

[HellbirdIV]

Also, Waco =/= Athens, Waco was religious fanatics with no plan, Athens was trained, armed citizens with a plan.

Actually to me it seemed they were both cases of fanatics with no plan. The Athens riots was basically First Blood if Rambo had more vets on his side.

 

[TornadoADV]

Also, Waco =/= Athens, Waco was religious fanatics with no plan, Athens was trained, armed citizens with a plan.

Actually to me it seemed they were both cases of fanatics with no plan. The Athens riots was basically First Blood if Rambo had more vets on his side.

I see by your loaded language and skewed perspective that discussion with you is like talking to a brick wall. What happened at Athens wasen't a "riot", it was an uprising, a rebellion again the corrupt local government by veterans of WW2 that spent time putting a plan together and acting on it. It wasen't no G8 anti-capitalist anarchist riot or the 99% riots of 2010.

 

[chadachada123]

That might have something to do with population density, cultural diaspora (and the racism inherent in American society) and the fact it's the 'heart' of East coast America where most people going to the States will pass through at some point.

I'm no expert but I imagine you should compare per capita the gun crimes committed in a controlled region to a less restrictive one to get a clearer picture as to wether gun control works or not, yes?

I'll show you one better:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down-2/

Edit: After following the paper trail, I discovered that this journalist was exaggerating a bit in regards to Chicago. The Chicago aspects can be ignored, but the DC part stands.

Spoiler

Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated - they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. ...

In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year - back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago's murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982. Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent.

Similarly, in the year after the 2008 "Heller" decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.

It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington's size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall.

If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court?s late June ?Heller? decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent.

Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes.

Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%.

Washington DC's murder rate SKYROCKETED after the 1976 gun ban (tripling within two decades), and massive police missions meant to collect even a tiny chunk of the illegal guns failed miserably. Following 2008's Supreme Court ruling declaring the ban unconstitutional, murders have plummeted, and gun crime has fallen.

Small excerpt:

Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454. ...

Spoiler

The Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department also waged a war on firearms by creating a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. The campaign meant that officers were obliged to spend time searching otherwise law-abiding citizens. That same year, the department launched a crackdown called Operation Cease Fire to rid the District of illegal firearms. But after four months, officers had confiscated only 282 guns out of the many thousands in the city.

Civil liberties were endangered. Legislative changes empowered judges to hold gun suspects in pretrial detention without bond for up to 100 days, and efforts were made to enact curfews and seize automobiles found to contain firearms. In 1997, Police Chief Charles Ramsey disbanded the unit so that he could assign more uniformed officers to patrol the streets instead, but the police periodically tried other gun crackdowns over the next decade?with little effect.

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[Ryotknife]

As a drone operator, or to be more specific, a soldier/airman/marine/sailor in the employ of the American people, my sworn oath does not allow me to fire upon US citizens.

Bingo. That being the case, why do private citizens need to arm themselves against a possible takeover by a government whose soldiers have all sworn not to attack them?

Because you have no idea how many soldiers (or anyone else for that matter) will choose their oath/morals over what is easy when presented with a hard choice. Armed citizens is merely a tool (not a silver bullet) against a tyranical government. nothing more, nothing less.

Military oath is also a tool, as is the sovereignity of states.

Removing a tool simply because it can not solve a problem by itself is folly.