Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Faraja]

First I want to recommend a book "Deer hunting with Jesus" that I had to read in college. The author grew up in a very conservative home and is a "cultural defector" if you will. This book will give you an insight into the U.S gun culture, its also very funny.

With all the talk of guns and shootings recently I've read allot of posts from users oversees that suggest we simply make guns illegal in the U.S. The problem is it just wont work, guns have become an enormous part of america's culture and are apart of the nation's heritage/identity. I don't identify with the subculture that is obsessed with guns but I know people who are and if guns were made illegal there would be very large, very dangerous, armed riots all over the country.

Secondly there are huge, powerful lobbying groups that spend billions to maintain influence in Washington and they will not see the day when guns become illegal.

Gun laws and control might work but making guns completely illegal is not an option anymore.

glad you remmeber me, cha
here we go again.
americas culture is rooted with weapons. its a sad truth. but that does not mean we can just leave it be. make guns illegal. rioting? jail them. armed riots? let the army interviene. make a CLEAR message that guns are not welcome. its a decisive action, yes, but thats the only thing that works when your whole culture is rotten.

lobbying groups, well, thats why you dont have gun control and they wont let that, that us true, however we are speaking of what should be done and not what can be done if some criminals would say its ok.

Banning all guns in the US at one point will just make this point stand out more: http://www.donself.com/images/wonka-gun-laws.jpg

except that most of the shootings were done by non-criminals who had a perfect record all the way up to the time they opened fire.

You're clearly underestimating the amount of gun owners we have here who value their firearms more than their own lives.

remove them. whether its jail or death sentence, noone in the world need people like them.

1. Gun owners need compensation. Market value, as set out by constitution. America can't afford this.

2. Gun makers. They cant exist in a country with banned guns. They leave and look to other countries, taking every single prototype and project with them. Paid by tax payers. Also need compensation as well for their stock. Basically buy out the endless supply of defense contractors America employs in ADDITION to the gun owners.

The tally total for banning guns numbers in the trillions.

3. You need a search warrant. For every house in America. That and its also against the law in America for the government to just come in without probable cause. To search every house without cause, without warrant, and illegally is a tyrannical act. The populace WILL rebel.

Not only that, but the police would be STRETCHED TO THEIR LIMIT, and they cant stay in one house longer for an hour because they have a lot of shit to do. So you might not even get all the guns, crime goes uncontested, and we have all of our homes raided.

Any more questions?

gun owners dont need compensation. they made their own foolish choice when they decided to buy guns.
gun makers can GTFO the faster the better.
gun prototype contracts will stay, because army will still use them, and thier userbase wont change.
that can easily be changed. they will rebel? crush them with rain of thier own medicine - bullets. and then tell them that this is EXACTLY what they are fighting for. because thats what it is - a right to go on a shooting rampage.
hiring more police officers is always a good idea.

I'm borrowing your post, ArmyTanker.

Strazdas, everything you mentioned doing is pretty much why the second amendment has to exist. Not only that, you're basically proving you don't support liberties, and have no real clue about what you're talking about. The majority of the military would immediately turn against the government the second they tried to pull something like this, taking all of their equipment with them. It would be a civil war more devastating than any seen since the Second World War. If, that is, the entire military didn't turn against the government. They'd have to resort to the creation military drones far more advanced then what currently exists.

If the government somehow survived, they'd emerge as a true police state. Watching every citizen all the time. They'd raid homes on a constant basis, and destroy the Constitution.

Over the course of several years, you'd see a great number of cities in the US reduced to rubble, and more people killed then by all the gun crimes committed since the US's creation.

Arms producers would go bankrupt, including the ones who create weaponry for the military. Thousands of jobs would be lost over night.

You're also promoting arresting people for doing something they're guaranteed the right to do.

 

[the clockmaker]

words

YOu have the less understanding of modern conflicts than anyone that I have seen in a long time. It is just fucking mind boggling. You seriously think nothing has changed since world war 2? seriously? You know what me and my mates would say if you asked the question of what has changed, we would ask you what part of the war on terror you meant, because Afghan 10years ago is as differant from afghan today as vietnam was from the Indonesian war of independence. 'Nothing has changed' that statement is a fucking insult to the, I shit you not, millions of man hours in doctrine/capability/tactic/equipment/cultural development that occur with each warfare paradigm shift.

You seem to think that firing a weapon is all there is to warfighting, or that being a good shot is all that is required to be an effective combatant. False. YOu seem to think that all wars are total wars, False. Yo do not understand your own nations geopolitical weight or how that weight is maintained and so you are putting it into simple terms so that it makes sense through your lens of ignorance.

-Civilian combatants are not an asset in combat, they are unreliable, prone to atrocities, prone to panic, difficult to coordinate and liable to see themselves as rambo. They do more harm than good and provide no real asset to the defence of the realm. At most they can stand there and die as a distraction.

-Warfare between two first order powers cannot occur without instantly destroying both economies and the cost involved would be so crippling that both parties will wish to end the war as quickly as possible through the 'best acceptable peace' that is not total victory for either side, that is, perhaps, the US abandoning Taiwan or the PRC recognising it.

Seriously, stop trying to apply 'what you would do' to warfighting, because you clearly have fucking zero understanding of it.

Also, nice job ignoring the thing I origonally quoted you for, do you accept that your source was wrong or not?

and please preview your posts before posting, it is kind of annoying when your words are in my quote and vice versa.

This image macro is telling the truth, convected criminals, violent offenders can care less what the laws say.

Please go back in the thread and read my response to this macro.

Yeah I have already read your post before I wrote my own, and I decided to disregard your short sighted opinions.

The fact of the matter is there are criminals who only laugh if you bring up the topic of gun control (if they do not try to kill you where you stand). As if you would bother to read my post, I pointed out the MS 13 gang who not just do not care if they become high profile, but will make it very obvious to law enforcement who they are and what they have just to rub it into there faces.

Mate, if you are going to decide to 'disregard' my post without actually refuting any of the points, you're having a laugh if you think I'm going to pay any respect to yours. MS 13 is an issue, one that requires a much more dedicated and determined law enforcement campaign than the one it is receiving, but mate, your gun isn't going to stop them either.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

Yes, and ignoring cultural differences makes SO much sense.

Ignoring the fact that the situations are COMPLETELY different makes SO much sense.

Your sarcasm detector is broken. You should fix it.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

The U.K. doesn't see gun ownership as a personal right, the U.S government does (Also, the UK doesn't ban guns. They do license guns out ya know). To ban all firearms, you'd first need to repeal the second amendment, which is just never going to happen. Not because there aren't anyone lobbying against though mind you, but because it just does not have enough support to make it through the house, let alone the senate and the states.

A ban on firearms is just not possible with among such a divided group of people.

 

[Faraja]

words

YOu have the less understanding of modern conflicts than anyone that I have seen in a long time. It is just fucking mind boggling. You seriously think nothing has changed since world war 2? seriously? You know what me and my mates would say if you asked the question of what has changed, we would ask you what part of the war on terror you meant, because Afghan 10years ago is as differant from afghan today as vietnam was from the Indonesian war of independence. 'Nothing has changed' that statement is a fucking insult to the, I shit you not, millions of man hours in doctrine/capability/tactic/equipment/cultural development that occur with each warfare paradigm shift.

In the end, what has really changed? Some of the toys got fancier, you traded forests for jungles, for deserts, and Christians for whatever the Vietnamese were, for Muslims. Beyond that, the goals remain the same. You might have to adjust for civilians, but that's about it.

You could make the arguments about the importance of electronic and cyber warfare, but jamming won't do you much good against hand signals, and cyber warfare won't mean much to someone who just wants to the invaders off their property.

You seem to think that firing a weapon is all there is to warfighting, or that being a good shot is all that is required to be an effective combatant. False. YOu seem to think that all wars are total wars, False. Yo do not understand your own nations geopolitical weight or how that weight is maintained and so you are putting it into simple terms so that it makes sense through your lens of ignorance.

Do I understand it all? No, not in it's entirety, but I'm talking about an all out invasion of the US, not some war over Taiwan or Tibet.

-Civilian combatants are not an asset in combat, they are unreliable, prone to atrocities, prone to panic, difficult to coordinate and liable to see themselves as rambo. They do more harm than good and provide no real asset to the defence of the realm. At most they can stand there and die as a distraction.

Certainly not one you'd want to go to first, but any military would be foolish to ignore their understanding of local terrain, or their abilities to provide support when the chips are down.

-Warfare between two first order powers cannot occur without instantly destroying both economies and the cost involved would be so crippling that both parties will wish to end the war as quickly as possible through the 'best acceptable peace' that is not total victory for either side, that is, perhaps, the US abandoning Taiwan or the PRC recognising it.

I don't disagree that it would be costly, but I still see no reason reason why the American people (or any people) should have to give up a means of defense if their militaries fail, or turn against them.

Seriously, stop trying to apply 'what you would do' to warfighting, because you clearly have fucking zero understanding of it.

Also, nice job ignoring the thing I origonally quoted you for, do you accept that your source was wrong or not?[/quote]

I think you have me confused with the guy who was talking about Australian violent crimes. Different guy.

and please preview your posts before posting, it is kind of annoying when your words are in my quote and vice versa.

Funny, I did, and saw nothing of the sort.

 

[Callate]

It has nothing to do with being hard. It has to do with politics and the personal beliefs of how gun control should work in this country.

It has to do with being hard to remove guns when there are so many out there already. It has to do with it being hard to face down those who harbor fantasies that they're the front line against tyranny, including well-funded lobbies. In the end, it's not about politics; it's about will.

Wait, wait, wait. You mean, the guy had no criminal record, then decided to go on a killing rampage? So, he crossed from one extreme to the other? If only there was some sort of metaphor for that. Crossing the river? Crossing the yard? No, those still require time spent crossing a large area. Oh! What about crossing the line!

That Wonka meme that keeps getting passed around on the pretense that over here there are law-abiding, responsible gun owners who make the right to own whatever firearm you choose so worthwhile, and over here there are criminals, who would get their weapons anyway as they blaze their trails of infamy, scurrilous knaves that they are with their long criminal records and their ties to the black market.

And then there are people like our shooter, who show that that view of the world is utter bullshit. Sometimes guns are used in crimes of passion by people who've never imagined they'd commit a crime. Sometimes legally owned weapons are used by their owners' crime-record-free but mentally ill children. Sometimes people get desperate. "We just need to keep the guns out of the hands of those outlaws" pretends that we always know the outlaws before they get their hands on guns and use them in the commission of crimes.

I've listed several reasons where an assault rifle would come in handy already.

Right... Because we're so like Syria. Or pre-Hitler Europe. I haven't seen a lot of "facing down tyranny" on the news lately, possibly because they're too busy with the people shooting innocents. In places like Syria and Libya, it's pretty damn clear that assault weapons weren't going to do the rebels a whole lot of good against a modern mechanized military and/or weapons of mass destruction unless a larger power was willing to intervene to prevent those much more powerful weapons from being brought to bear.

 

[CAMDAWG]

I've linked it a half dozen times already throughout this thread as people have asked, but here it is again:http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

hahahahaha. Your article draws its source from a department called "Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research." I have a shirt from a place similiar to that, it reads "F.B.I: Federal Bikini Inspector", but i've been assured by many people now that no such branch of the American government actually exists.

Funny thing, the Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research doesn't exist either.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Here's mine, care to show me yours?

*double facepalm of justice*

Your what? What you've shown us doesn't back your statement. Its not a study, its just someone saying "here are some numbers."

Here is a website about a toxic chemical called Dihydrogen Monoxide & why you should be worried about it. http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

An trust me, there is more validity to the Dihydrogen Monoxide claim, then in your linked article. End of the day you are talking shit.

THANK YOU. I was hoping someone else would call him out and I wouldn't have to. Despite everything you said, it should also be noted that the source is an american right-wing think-tank, and they themselves took their information from an article in the washington examiner, a right-wing newspaper claiming something about a killing spree of 135 people in australia, and doesn't mention any kind of stats, AND the link to the article that I assume actually contains anything 404's.

Yeah. Talking shit.

And ultimately, even if his statistics WERE correct, and I highly doubt they are, they are not relevant. No one expects gun control laws to change an entire country overnight. You need to think longer term with these things.

 

[Strazdas]

With the way you want to take out the 5th amendment, yes they will riot. Especially since you can't take guns (2nd amendment) without taking out the 5th amendment.

That's an amendment you don't touch, ever.

And soldiers have families, they will rebel too when they are ordered to shoot their own families.

and secondly, in the event that police aren't around or cant help you, you are on your own.

There was even a court case where the police are not legally required to protect you. Only if you are in their charge such as a inmate. Hell, they aren't even required to answer 9/11 calls.

The police aren't everywhere. They are busy trying to react to gangs and drugs. One of the issues I already told you in a different thread. The police are stretched to their limit as it is because again, unlike Europe, they have actual shit to do.

i dont want to take away 5th amendment, although the system of due process as is in US is strange to me. i do however want to take out 2nd amendment, or at least change it drastically, as frankly it is ridiculous for current times.
Gangs and drugs are both the fault of free gun policy and failed war on drugs. while thats not the right topic, most of the "police got shit to do" is because your ridiculously strict privacy laws. msot criminals cant get put into jail because their privacy would need to be changed while they can go around removing other peoples privacy all they want. the whole system of law in US needs a massive overhaul if you want to mend the situation and while you may be the most "Free" country that is very far from being the "Best" country.

It likely would have nothing to do with the NRA, I have pointed out that if soldiers came to my door to take my weapons, there would be a few less soldiers after the interaction, and I have nothing to do with the NRA.

And who knows, they may well use that rhetoric to convince the sheep that "guns ar badz" yelling "ERMAGERD, DEM GUN OWNAZ DUN WANT PEOPLE SAFE, DEY TERRORITZ!"

And it would be better to wait several months to even consider any gun-law changing, all that would happen right now is that retard politicians would be gung ho while emotions are riding high and wouldnt think properly in trying to look good and secure their next election. Better to let emotions cool for a while and come at things rationally instead of emotionally.

if your response to taking away your guns is shooting people then you had no right to have guns in the first place. now please and go live rest of your life without hurting anyone and stop making stupid points.
election security should not even be a concorn. politics shoudl be there to do whats right for the country, not to secure a seat in next 4 years. sadly this political game is why democracy doesnt work. people who are elected dont what whats good but what ensures them votes.
if people thought rationally there would be no privately owned guns in america.

Oh and to the UK people that keep saying we never had a school shooting, unfortunately we did. In 1996 a nutter walked into a primary school carrying several handguns and gunned down 17 people, 16 of them where children. This was another failure of existing legislation but led to a ban of handguns and tougher enforcement of existing laws.

wait, your using an example of how a shooting lead to a legislation that prevented any further shooting for 16 years as an example of how the same legislation doesnt work?
logic? where has it gone?

Okay, let's just round up all "evil people" and dump them on an island somewhere, problem solved.

they already tried, the island was called Australia.
ok bad joke.
Actually we already dump evil people someplace. we call that place prisons.

By the way, you might not realize this, but Europeans have really pulled out their own teeth. At this point, you only have as much power as your governments say you have. They do something you don't like? Sure, you can protest, but what are you going to do if the government goes ahead and decides to keep doing it anyways? Protest more? In the end, you hold no real power. Your governments have to reason to fear you as a group.

the largest damage possible to do in the world right now is economic. and protests without guns can do that just as easily. sure we may nto be albe to march in and shoot the government because we didnt like something. but then we shouldn't be able to do that to begin with.

A lot has been changed by protesting. It led to the Civil Rights laws, women's suffrage, and a number of other great things.

were those armed riots that went killing the opposition? no? your point is moot.

The European nations (by which I mean France, England, and Germany) used to ready for a fight. Now it seems like you've all gone limp.

because arms race certainly shows how smart nation is.....

In america, banning guns NEVER WAS a option. In our first few amendments, the basic tenets of the country it states, "All men shall have the right to bare arms." That is a indisputable ground rule.

Thread done.

not quote so. just because you draw your defence on an outdated document that is completely not fit for modern world does not mean all other arguments are null.

I've listed several reasons where an assault rifle would come in handy already.

no such reasons exist.

Before any of this has to happen the Constitution would have to be destroyed because you ran through almost every single thing that has to do with search and seizure, limiting the military's involvement in any of this. Most of the ground forces(Army and Marines) would be defending the rights of the guns. The military swears to protect the Constitution not whomever sits in the White House or in Congress. If that person/people in power think that they military will blindly follow them they better expect to face those same people who are trained and willing to fight for what they stand for.

to the military, US president is the supreme commander. His word is final.
Those who think otherwise are not fit for military. military does not need you to think, just follow orders.

Yeah I have already read your post before I wrote my own, and I decided to disregard your short sighted opinions.

talking about short signed opinions. sigh. and you still dear to post willy wonka....

There would have to be a land invasion of the pushed back power. If one's navy slinks off, they'll either rebuild it, stronger this time, or go for broke and launch the missiles. Assuming neither side wants to literally wiped off the face of the map, I'm going to go with the first one.

no, sinking, say, chinas navy and destroying their aircrafts would give them such huge economical setback that they would likely not catch up within 100 years unless US would completely stop any military progress, which it wont. economical damage is the most important one. and invading with land troops into foreign territory give economical advantage to you. for a good example look at money spent on afghan war and what it accomplished.

 

[J Tyran]

Oh and to the UK people that keep saying we never had a school shooting, unfortunately we did. In 1996 a nutter walked into a primary school carrying several handguns and gunned down 17 people, 16 of them where children. This was another failure of existing legislation but led to a ban of handguns and tougher enforcement of existing laws.

wait, your using an example of how a shooting lead to a legislation that prevented any further shooting for 16 years as an example of how the same legislation doesnt work?
logic? where has it gone?

Yes indeed, where has the logic gone? Because frankly your post makes no sense. The Dunblane shooting was a failure in legislation because according to the law the gunman should have never been able to hoard the guns and ammunition, yet somehow he did and it wasn't picked up on. Where did I say the same legislation doesn't work? Nope cant read that in my post, you must be making that up I guess. Not uncommon in threads like this I suppose.

 

[Hargrimm]

The amount of circlejerking in this thread is amazing, really.

I don't care about gun legislation either way, but let's ,just for a little while, look at some real statitics and analysis of them, shall we?(And make it hard to ingore with lots of big pictures)

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The first two deal with the Australian gun ban and it's results (or lack thereof, as we will see shortly).
The last deals with several US states' gun legislation and the homicide rate within them.

Let's look at Australia's murder and sucide statistics first.

Now, what we can clearly see is that any trend that was occuring before the buyback and legislation, positive or negative, was continuing after it as well, with no clear impact on any of them.

That means that more gun legislation in Australia has neither resulted in an increase, nor a decrease in deaths that wasn't already occuring beforehand.

Now let's look at the second link.

Note that some statements under the statistics like "Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect[...]", while true, don't give us any useful information, since they ignore trends entirely in favor of a binary "before-after" interpretation, without even indicating whether or not the gun legislation itself caused this or if it occured independently of it.

While some these graphs, like DC, show massive spikes in murder rates, they don't seem to be affected by gun legislation at all. Again, trends that occured before gun legislation continued pretty much same as before and spikes that occured after leveled out again without any new laws or repeals of old ones.

Of course, the question remains what caused these massive spikes in murder rates to begin with.

In conclusion:
Similar to Australia, gun legislation doesn't seem to have any effect on murder rates at all, positive or negative. Trends that were already occuring before the legislation was enacted and carried out, continued after.

So, what have we learned?
Gun legislation doesn't seem to have any effect at all on number of deaths, positive or negative.
That means that murder and suicide rates could be affected by different factors, probably poverty and income inequality.

Still, Gun nuts really have no reason to celebrate, since the United States homicide rate remains high and there is no clear cut remedy for this in sight. Higher than Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Greece, Vietnam, Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, India, Argentina and Yemen, just to name a few.
(And before you say "just fix the income inequality and poverty, duh", think about what that entails. That means not only fixing the economy, but also causing a shift in wealth distribution or redistributing it outright. Not an easy solution and the US government hasn't displayed much competence in addressing either of those.)

 

[wolf thing]

all you people are right,bad guys are going to kill people any way so lets let them have guns, may as well make it easy for them.

let not talk bull shit shall we, lets get are heads away from brain washing shit from childhoods, people will commit crimes but it is are job as members of the human race to make it are hard as we can for them to do it. you can't just say "they'll just do it any way" because they wont, dont fucking lie and tell me mass murders of children will happen without guns. sure murders will happen, people will murder other people but without automatic weapons or conseld arms or rifes you are making it hard for them to kill, very hard. the difference between kill 20 with a knife and killing 20 with a gun of any kind is so huge it isnt even worth bring up.

all you gun supports just boggle my mind, children have died, children, and you dont see guns as a problem, it just shocks me that some of you sit there and think a country full of guns isnt a problem or is okay.

The murders were committed by a disturbed man. Let's round 'em all up and get rid of them! After all, schizoids and sociopaths have no real concept of the value of human life, either, so let's just get rid of them!

Your "think of the children" argument is sad and pathetic. Far more kids are going to die tonight from very easy to solve issues then will at the hands of guns. I don't see you doing anything to fix those problems.

friend let never push aside the defend the children argumnet, if this was about video games or rap music sure you would have a point, but it is not this is about gun and children died, there is nothing wrong with valuing the lives of children and there will never be something wrong with valuing the lives of children, so let move away from the "wont someone think of the children" counter okay.

you know there is a difference between remove gun and just getting ride of mentally ill people so let just ingore that part. just because children are going to die, and they will, they will die in accidents, beaten to death by family member, sickness, starvation, does not mean we should find away of reduce those death, not to mention all the other deaths gun cause to adult and teenages.

i know full well that some not all desterbed people will go out and kill and the USs health care for those people will need to be looked at but lets not full are selve the problem is more complex and gun need to be looked at, of course it not as easy as "all guns gone everything is okay" my first statement was some what exaggerate during a stressful night, but if didnt have guns there would be less gun crime.

for your last comment, of course you don't see me doing anything, you don't know me, please don't assume anything about me as it has no place in this argumnet.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

Why must you deal with absolutes? Ban all the guns or have all the guns!

Australia's been mentioned (and incorrectly mind) we have pretty strict gun laws, but you can still get a gun for hunting and sports.

I'm an Australian gun owner. I've got a Catergory A+B license. That means I can own bolt/lever/pump action centrefire/rimfire rifles and singlebarrel/doublebarrel/lever action shotguns. I use those to hunt introduced pests on my land and state parks.

It was pretty easy to get too. Little bit of waiting that's all.

While it's true that Australia's gun laws are represented incorrectly sometimes, it's not just a "little bit of waiting" for most people. You still need to have a valid reason to own a firearm, especially to keep one at home, and personal protection is not considered one. I'm assuming the land you own is in a rural area and your reason for keeping a gun on the property pest control, people who own houses in the suburbs can't just go to a gun shop and load up.

As a security worker I'm not allowed to carry a firearm unless I'm working cash in transit (i.e. riding around in an armoured van transporting bank/ATM money), even if I'm fully licensed to carry. This is a GOOD thing, it stops clumsy patrolmen with small armouries around their belts from being smacked over the back of their head and having their gun stolen by crooks.

Lessened gun laws would be a NIGHTMARE for security officers, who already have it hard enough especially when it comes to club work. Imagine if you're working crowd control at a nightclub or concert and you have to worry that the drunken yobbo starting a ruckus might be packing heat at well. People can be perfectly rational, clam human beings when sober, but alcohol can turn people incredibly nasty and violent, to the point where they might lose their common sense and pull a gun on someone they're arguing with. Sure, you could set up checkpoints at the doors and treat everyone like a criminal as the TSA does in the US, but look at how ineffective that is at actually stopping things from getting through, all it does is piss off legitimate customers and the club owners will likely refuse to even try such a thing.

No.
Fucking.
Thanks.

 

[Faraja]

With the way you want to take out the 5th amendment, yes they will riot. Especially since you can't take guns (2nd amendment) without taking out the 5th amendment.

That's an amendment you don't touch, ever.

And soldiers have families, they will rebel too when they are ordered to shoot their own families.

and secondly, in the event that police aren't around or cant help you, you are on your own.

There was even a court case where the police are not legally required to protect you. Only if you are in their charge such as a inmate. Hell, they aren't even required to answer 9/11 calls.

The police aren't everywhere. They are busy trying to react to gangs and drugs. One of the issues I already told you in a different thread. The police are stretched to their limit as it is because again, unlike Europe, they have actual shit to do.

i dont want to take away 5th amendment, although the system of due process as is in US is strange to me. i do however want to take out 2nd amendment, or at least change it drastically, as frankly it is ridiculous for current times.
Gangs and drugs are both the fault of free gun policy and failed war on drugs. while thats not the right topic, most of the "police got shit to do" is because your ridiculously strict privacy laws. msot criminals cant get put into jail because their privacy would need to be changed while they can go around removing other peoples privacy all they want. the whole system of law in US needs a massive overhaul if you want to mend the situation and while you may be the most "Free" country that is very far from being the "Best" country.

So, you clearly have no clue how the American system works. We have more people in prisons than China. We don't trust the police, or the government, any more than our founding fathers did. Our gang and drug problems aren't the result of a free gun policy, no such policy exists. The gang problem is the problem of people who simply don't want to do anything else. Some of them actually started for very good reasons, and devolved into terrible things.

I'll take living in a country that gives me the right to defend myself with lethal force over a country that won't any day of the week.

It likely would have nothing to do with the NRA, I have pointed out that if soldiers came to my door to take my weapons, there would be a few less soldiers after the interaction, and I have nothing to do with the NRA.

And who knows, they may well use that rhetoric to convince the sheep that "guns ar badz" yelling "ERMAGERD, DEM GUN OWNAZ DUN WANT PEOPLE SAFE, DEY TERRORITZ!"

And it would be better to wait several months to even consider any gun-law changing, all that would happen right now is that retard politicians would be gung ho while emotions are riding high and wouldnt think properly in trying to look good and secure their next election. Better to let emotions cool for a while and come at things rationally instead of emotionally.

if your response to taking away your guns is shooting people then you had no right to have guns in the first place. now please and go live rest of your life without hurting anyone and stop making stupid points.
election security should not even be a concorn. politics shoudl be there to do whats right for the country, not to secure a seat in next 4 years. sadly this political game is why democracy doesnt work. people who are elected dont what whats good but what ensures them votes.
if people thought rationally there would be no privately owned guns in america.

Democracy does work, it works quite well. The alternatives have proven to be far worse. That's part of the reason why we have the second amendment; to insure that no government officials can take away our right to have a voice in who runs our country. Can you name a single non-democratic country that wasn't run by an ultimately cruel and ruthless dictator.

Oh and to the UK people that keep saying we never had a school shooting, unfortunately we did. In 1996 a nutter walked into a primary school carrying several handguns and gunned down 17 people, 16 of them where children. This was another failure of existing legislation but led to a ban of handguns and tougher enforcement of existing laws.

wait, your using an example of how a shooting lead to a legislation that prevented any further shooting for 16 years as an example of how the same legislation doesnt work?
logic? where has it gone?

You never had any to begin with.

Okay, let's just round up all "evil people" and dump them on an island somewhere, problem solved.

they already tried, the island was called Australia.
ok bad joke.
Actually we already dump evil people someplace. we call that place prisons.

Yup.

By the way, you might not realize this, but Europeans have really pulled out their own teeth. At this point, you only have as much power as your governments say you have. They do something you don't like? Sure, you can protest, but what are you going to do if the government goes ahead and decides to keep doing it anyways? Protest more? In the end, you hold no real power. Your governments have to reason to fear you as a group.

the largest damage possible to do in the world right now is economic. and protests without guns can do that just as easily. sure we may nto be albe to march in and shoot the government because we didnt like something. but then we shouldn't be able to do that to begin with.

Why not? Why shouldn't have you have the right to remove your government by force if it threatens to tear your civil liberties asunder, and destroy your respective democracies? Clearly you don't think the US should even exists. Where I stand, that makes you my enemy.

A lot has been changed by protesting. It led to the Civil Rights laws, women's suffrage, and a number of other great things.

were those armed riots that went killing the opposition? no? your point is moot.

It was in response to someone saying that protests are bad, and don't change anything.

The European nations (by which I mean France, England, and Germany) used to ready for a fight. Now it seems like you've all gone limp.

because arms race certainly shows how smart nation is.....

Well, building bigger and better weapons does take a lot of technological know-how, not that I ever said it correlated in any way to a nation's overall intelligence. I stated that the European people really have no teeth to back up their words, they're relying on the government to always be benevolent bodies. Based on past history, not the smartest move.

In america, banning guns NEVER WAS a option. In our first few amendments, the basic tenets of the country it states, "All men shall have the right to bare arms." That is a indisputable ground rule.

Thread done.

not quote so. just because you draw your defence on an outdated document that is completely not fit for modern world does not mean all other arguments are null.

You're wrong, but whatever.

I've listed several reasons where an assault rifle would come in handy already.

no such reasons exist.

None that you'd see, but you're a sheep. You're just fodder for your own government.

Before any of this has to happen the Constitution would have to be destroyed because you ran through almost every single thing that has to do with search and seizure, limiting the military's involvement in any of this. Most of the ground forces(Army and Marines) would be defending the rights of the guns. The military swears to protect the Constitution not whomever sits in the White House or in Congress. If that person/people in power think that they military will blindly follow them they better expect to face those same people who are trained and willing to fight for what they stand for.

to the military, US president is the supreme commander. His word is final.
Those who think otherwise are not fit for military. military does not need you to think, just follow orders.

So, you know nothing of the US military, either. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines owe their loyalty to the constitution. The President maybe be Commander in Chief, but the thought "do as your ordered, always and without exception", went out with the Nuremberg Trials. Hell, even in the 1860's American servicemen were beginning to show that their orders were less important than their loyalties.

Yeah I have already read your post before I wrote my own, and I decided to disregard your short sighted opinions.

talking about short signed opinions. sigh. and you still dear to post willy wonka....

Says the blind sheep...

There would have to be a land invasion of the pushed back power. If one's navy slinks off, they'll either rebuild it, stronger this time, or go for broke and launch the missiles. Assuming neither side wants to literally wiped off the face of the map, I'm going to go with the first one.

no, sinking, say, chinas navy and destroying their aircrafts would give them such huge economical setback that they would likely not catch up within 100 years unless US would completely stop any military progress, which it wont. economical damage is the most important one. and invading with land troops into foreign territory give economical advantage to you. for a good example look at money spent on afghan war and what it accomplished.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and several other island bases caused immense damage to the US Navy. We recovered very quickly. With the PRC's lack of concern for it's people, large pools of manpower, and raw materials, they could recover very quickly. It'd probably even be a boon. The only reason the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be so costly was because of their timing.

Looking back on it, war has always been a great thing for the American economy. Hell, it drug us out of the Great Depression.

 

[wolf thing]

all you people are right,bad guys are going to kill people any way so lets let them have guns, may as well make it easy for them.

let not talk bull shit shall we, lets get are heads away from brain washing shit from childhoods, people will commit crimes but it is are job as members of the human race to make it are hard as we can for them to do it. you can't just say "they'll just do it any way" because they wont, dont fucking lie and tell me mass murders of children will happen without guns. sure murders will happen, people will murder other people but without automatic weapons or conseld arms or rifes you are making it hard for them to kill, very hard. the difference between kill 20 with a knife and killing 20 with a gun of any kind is so huge it isnt even worth bring up.

all you gun supports just boggle my mind, children have died, children, and you dont see guns as a problem, it just shocks me that some of you sit there and think a country full of guns isnt a problem or is okay.

See my earlier posts with links to statistics. Australia banned guns, and always gets used as an example of how banning guns helps reduce gun crimes. In the 5 years following the ban, murder rates fell at a similar rate to that of the US during the same 5 year period. But violent crime in general went up 42.2%, likely because criminals were no longer afraid of being killed by their victims. Rape went up 29.9%. Assault went up almost 50%. So it boggles my mind why people with knee jerk "for the children" reactions whenever something bad happens discount some pretty glaring statistics.

You can't disarm a massive, largely drug funded, criminal base by passing a law about it, just as you can't get rid of drugs by making them illegal. All you do is gimp the people using the items legally. I used to live in Baltimore, where I frequenly feared for my life, unable to legally defend myself, and put up with shit like my neighbor being mugged at knifepoint twice on her front steps. I was used to the news almost making a game out of seeing how long it took for the number of murders to outnumber the days in the year every new years. Normally it took about the first weekend. And this was a place with fairly restrictive gun laws, and no concealed carry option (at the time). Now that I live in Houston, I live in an area where you can leave your garage open, and I've gotten used to seeing news reports of a store or homeowner foiling a robbery or home invasion by gunning down the criminals. It's far from perfect, but I'd rather live in a place where the criminal has to be just as afraid for their life as their intended victim. Do you HONESTLY think if a law was passed for everyone to turn in their guns overnight, or else be in violation of a law, things would get better?

my statement was a reaction to people saying "crime will happen any way so why bother" which is a balls argumnet and much of the charge is my statement was due to a sleepless night.

your statistics are interesting and something i must look into, but every country is different, i feel there are still factor which should be a accounted for: assults and rape done by people with gun would they stop or just change to other means, and is the soul threat against crime the fear of weather or not a person is armed because in place were they have guns crime still happens. of course removing guns wont stop crime and if gun were to be remove thing would have to be done to prevent a crime rise. America is a big country and i asume not all the city would react the same so perhaps we should look at the state of each city then deside what would happen instead of other country.

let never push aside the protection of children, this is not computer games or rock music, this is gun crime and children were just murder at there school, so they must be brought into the argumnet.

of course people wont give up there gun willingly i never said they would, in my eyes the only thing that has stopped gun being removed by know is all the riots and crime that will come of it. but as far as i can see most people who have gun have never used them in self defense so remove guns will have no effect on them beside any paranoia or fear of the crime they may have, which means having a gun is about feeling safe but we can see those who feel safe with them dont need them and those with them who should not are capable of mass murder. i dont feel drugs are a suitable comparison to guns

as for you past you felt the need to include: that happens all over the world, in country with gun and without gun, people will get mugged, murder, gangs will run muck and people will not feel safe in there own homes. that is life. without guns we would not have gun crime, more or less. the issue of the crime you felt is more than just "no gun so people arnt scare of doing wrong', there are so many more factor, people do bad thing with or without guns and we should try to stop both and rempve gun i feel is a way of stopping it, better police would help, but place with a lot a crime will have a lot of crime weather or not guns are involved.

 

[the clockmaker]

In the end, what has really changed? Some of the toys got fancier, you traded forests for jungles, for deserts, and Christians for whatever the Vietnamese were, for Muslims. Beyond that, the goals remain the same. You might have to adjust for civilians, but that's about it.

You could make the arguments about the importance of electronic and cyber warfare, but jamming won't do you much good against hand signals, and cyber warfare won't mean much to someone who just wants to the invaders off their property.

-Doctrine, how the war is fought- The shock and awe doctrine is the one currently in vogue and if you cannot understand the difference between shock and awe, blitzkrieg, set piece and insurgent/counter insurgent warfare, well...
The currant system is based around breaking the enemy into small, disorganised chunks and destroying those chunks.
Blitzkrieg and other, older forms of manuver warfare were based around penetrating the enemy lines and seizing/ holding their vital assets, whereas newer forms of war are more comfortable just destroying them.
Even older forms of warfare were based around bringing your force where it was strongest to where their force was strongest to destroy their main element. So how does this relate to a civilian combatant, well up until the point that convent fighting ends, a civilian will likely only see the enemy as they pass through, and when the enemy settles into COIN ops, then there will be no convent military force to save you.

-Public perception, the fact that an actrocity in Afghan today is reported in America tomorrow has given rise to strategic private, so instead of a dickhead grunt who shoots shit for a living, you have someone who needs to understand the requirements and grievances of the community that he is engaged in.

-Tech, individual radios, rapid transportation, IEDs, light support weapons, drone tech etc etc are just some of the ways that tech has changed warfare, I mean, when you fail to adapt your warfighting to new tech, it leads to shit like the somme.

-Geopolitical overview, we saw a shift, early this century from imperial wars of conquest to nationalist wars for territory to political power blocks and now to non-territorially restricted wars of ideology. My arse the goals haven't changed.

Do I understand it all? No, not in it's entirety, but I'm talking about an all out invasion of the US, not some war over Taiwan or Tibet.

And what I am saying is that there will not be a convent invasion of the United states, perhaps if you told me who you thought was going to invade I would be able to argue a bit better against it, but trust me, there is no non-batshit insane convent threat against the territorial integrity of the US.

Certainly not one you'd want to go to first, but any military would be foolish to ignore their understanding of local terrain, or their abilities to provide support when the chips are down.

So you shanghai local guides, you do not attempt to use them for direct action because you cannot predict what they will do under pressure and you cannot control them. Another example, I am setting up an ambush at the road and for whatever reason (probably because I am stupid) I have a group of local militia with me, these are just some of the ways they can fuck things up for me
-Open fire too early
-Rat me out because they weren't vetted properly
-panic and fail to open fire
-Negligently discharge their weapon, resulting in injury or death to one of my men
-Flee
-Attempt to use equipment they don't understand leading to its damage or, in the worst case, damage to me or my men
-fail to hold position, leading to gaps in my line
-fail to follow orders, leading to my losing men attempting to coral them back into shape
-fail to keep pace, leading to my element being slowed down
-fail to obey light discipline, leading to my position being comprised
-fail to obey noise discipline, leading to same
-wander home without orders, leading to me having to detail men to locate them
-become ill due to not understanding the requirements of living on patrol
-attempt to seize command because 'they know better'
-refuse to eat rations they don't like

An untrained person in combat is not just useless, they are a liability and can result in damage to equipment or death to trained personel, no matter how well meaning they are, they don't belong there.

I don't disagree that it would be costly, but I still see no reason reason why the American people (or any people) should have to give up a means of defense if their militaries fail, or turn against them.

because they can, in the end, do no good and can and are doing a great deal of harm.
No foreign nation is going to invade the US, there is no benefit to it, any war that did occur would end almost status quo ante bellum with minor shifts in geopolitical weight. And if any well trained, motivated and organised force did occupy your home, any attempt that you made to dislodge them would be met with a bitchslap of godly force.

I think you have me confused with the guy who was talking about Australian violent crimes. Different guy.

Yeah shit mate, that's my bad on that one, sorry and please disregard that part of my post. Unless you agree with him, in which case grrrrrr......

Funny, I did, and saw nothing of the sort.

yeah mate, it's still happening, I think it is part of your process when you cut up my post to quote it.

 

[Vegosiux]

More than a hundred people die every ten minutes from car crashes in the US alone but you don't stop letting people drive cars.

No, but you do make them jump through more hoops if they want to be eligible to drive than they have to deal with if they want to own a gun. And you make them jump through said hoops precisely because you realize cars are a dangerous thing, and that you can't let everyone and their grandmother drive one, unless they can prove they won't be a liability. Doesn't stop all car crashes, but it sure does cut down on them.

-snip-

Considering the note on which we parted last time when engaged in a discussion, I must say I'm glad we seem to be similar minds about this one. But I'm still staying away from R&P for now ^^

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and several other island bases caused immense damage to the US Navy. We recovered very quickly. With the PRC's lack of concern for it's people, large pools of manpower, and raw materials, they could recover very quickly. It'd probably even be a boon. The only reason the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be so costly was because of their timing.

Had the Japanese taken out your carriers as they planned I doubt it'd have gone as quickly. Another huge error they made was let you decode their stuff so you could shoot down guys like Yamamoto.

Maxim 35: That which does not kill you has made a tactical error.

Do excuse me if I stay back from our back-and-forth for a while, at least until I feel I can bring something new to the table tho.

 

[Your Gaffer]

Don't forget that the right to bear arms is is not only guaranteed in the constitution, it is one of the first 10 original articles, typically called the "Bill of Rights". The chance of getting the political will and consensus to change the Bill of Rights is slim to none.

Basically, we MAY see another "assault weapons" ban, like the one that expired a few years ago, but guns will continue to be legal and citizens will continue to have the right to own them for my lifetime at least.

I work right next door to a gun shop though and feel perfectly safe at work. I am not convinced restricting gun ownership is going to make anyone safer and I KNOW that restricting ownership of certain types of guns is not going to do one damn thing.

 

[the clockmaker]

words

I do hope that I didn't come across as too hostile there mate. If I did, sorry old boy I do get over passionate sometimes.

 

[Vegosiux]

words

I do hope that I didn't come across as too hostile there mate. If I did, sorry old boy I do get over passionate sometimes.

Oh no no, am the same myself. I just need a break from R&P in general, 'specially after so many people got banned or self-exiled there.

 

[Strazdas]

Oh and to the UK people that keep saying we never had a school shooting, unfortunately we did. In 1996 a nutter walked into a primary school carrying several handguns and gunned down 17 people, 16 of them where children. This was another failure of existing legislation but led to a ban of handguns and tougher enforcement of existing laws.

wait, your using an example of how a shooting lead to a legislation that prevented any further shooting for 16 years as an example of how the same legislation doesnt work?
logic? where has it gone?

Yes indeed, where has the logic gone? Because frankly your post makes no sense. The Dunblane shooting was a failure in legislation because according to the law the gunman should have never been able to hoard the guns and ammunition, yet somehow he did and it wasn't picked up on. Where did I say the same legislation doesn't work? Nope cant read that in my post, you must be making that up I guess. Not uncommon in threads like this I suppose.

you blame a legislation that was created as a response for event as failure to prevent the event, when such legislation didnt exist during or before the event. and my post is the one that makes no sense. really.

a lot of quotes

Ill end this discussion here before mods have to get to work and lets leave it at that.