Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[ultrabiome]

What is an untrained civilian popolous going to do against a fucking TANK
Most people in the US are reasoned enough to give up something at gun point.

tell that to the Al Queda who go against the strongest military in the world with a bunch of household suppplies turned into bombs.

For the love of.....

The vast, vast vast majority of old AQ is dead, so dead in fact that you never hear of the old organisation anymore, it is AQ in the arabian peninsula, a splinter faction with a fraction of the power and influence. As it turns out, fighting an insurgency like that has an insanely high casualty rate that relies soley on the enemies culture being less able to absorb casualties (so big hint, IT DOESN'T WORK AGAINST THE SAME CULTURE)

On top of that, AQ spent a long time and a lot of money training, funding and coordinating its fighters into something like a fighting force, a level of cohesion and training that all you in your head insurgents don't have.

On top of that, AQ was never the main threat in Iraq and it certaintly isn't in Afghanistan (Mahdi army and Taliban/Narco insurgents/local warlord blend respectively)

On top of that, AQ sourced its fighters from cultures that A- place a lot less value on 'me and my rights' and B- are used to a lot more hardship than your average yank and therefore could last longer out in the field, take greater personal risks and show a lot more willingness to continue the fight after setbacks.

On top of that, before AQ was effectively destroyed as a fighting force (and the majority of its fighters killed or absorbed into other organisations) it failed to complete a single one of its long term goals. There is safe haven for it and groups like it in afghanistan, Iraq's government did not fall, there is no caliphate taking hold. AQ failed in every way that it is possible to fail and it begs the question of why you would use them as an example.

On top of that, in the Mid east, the Nato forces are the outsider, they are the interloper with a limited understanding of local culture, traditions and desires, so one of the insurgents largest advantages vanishes when Nato is fighting on its own turf.

Can we have a moratorium on using war on terror anecdotes until people educate themselves a bit more?

Wow, I meant that comment as a bit of hyperbole, but instead you blow up at me.

And since you used 'yanks,' I assume you aren't American, but assuming that we Americans would just cower and roll over at an invading force on our homeland, a threat internal or external, is insulting.

You know, we had our bloodiest war only 150 years ago, and we killed our own brothers to fight for our rights. Assuming that nothing will ever incite a revolution again implies historical short sightedness.

 

[ultrabiome]

You're missing the point - that gun ownership is a right - just like voting and not like driving. With voting, you can't be denied the right to vote, even if you can't read or you might be senile. Rights are things that you have, as a legal adult, legally given to you by the Constitution in America, and the whole philosophy behind it is that Americans don't want social status or education to be a limiting factor with rights - and annual checkups for gun ownership are like a reading test for voting. Gun ownership is a right, and although I'm all for a ban on assault weapons, and you have to realize it's of a higher priority in legal terms in the US than the privilege to drive.

So in America, "rights" are something that should carry no "responsibility"?

Am I glad I don't live over there.

Not at all, but since its a 'right' means there needs to be overwhelming reason to deny it (like being a felon).

This is in contrast to the privilege to drive, where there are many, many reasons why you might be denied the privilege to drive, some criminal but others not criminal.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I'm astounded that there are actually people advocating using military force to take people's firearms away from them. You people need to stop whining and go live in North Korea for a few months if you love a military police-state so much.

More to the point, anyone suggesting we just "ban all guns" in the United States is truly deluded. You know why that worked in the UK and Australia? Because there aren't anywhere near the number of firearms in those countries to begin with. The US, however, has almost as many guns as people. Good luck getting all those back. Even if it wasn't a huge violation of personal freedom (and it is, if you'd like to debate that point, I'm here all day), it would still be nearly impossible to do.

Bottom line, banning firearms doesn't make them turn into fairy dust. This is reality, not your fantasy world.

EDIT: Also, I didn't want to make this a national issue (since patriotism is one of the most foolish ideals ever propagated), but there seem to be a few non-Americans on this forum who pretty smugly believe that makes them superior to Americans, so I guess I can return the favor (and to those of you who are not, I apologize): if you do not, or have never, lived in the United States for any significant period of time (let's call it at least a few months), you're probably not qualified to talk about the firearms situation as it pertains to this country. Stop comparing it to the firearms situation in the United Kingdom, Australia, or any other country with relatively few privately owned firearms. Those countries have far fewer firearms to begin with and the two situations are not at all comparable.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm astounded that there are actually people advocating using military force to take people's firearms away from them.

Actually, I think most people were more saying "If the man really does come for you, you think your peashoters will stop him?" And then stating, repeatedly that USA simply isn't North Korea, or if I may borrow the last part of your, post...

This is reality, not your fantasy world.

Same thing could be said about the US government suddenly turning into Nazicommielibruls overnight and trying to oppress people by military force being just a wet dream of some people who fantasize about being Guy Fawkes when (when, not if) it happens or something.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I'm astounded that there are actually people advocating using military force to take people's firearms away from them.

Actually, I think most people were more saying "If the man really does come for you, you think your peashoters will stop him?" And then stating, repeatedly that USA simply isn't North Korea, or if I may borrow the last part of your, post...

I was more referring to one of the posts on the first page that was actually advocating that, though I'm sure there are others...

This is reality, not your fantasy world.

Same thing could be said about the US government suddenly turning into Nazicommielibruls overnight and trying to oppress people by military force being just a wet dream of some people who fantasize about being Guy Fawkes when (when, not if) it happens or something.

As much as I completely agree that the United States government is pretty damn authoritarian, they can't really be compared to North Korea. Like, at all. I'm about as distrustful as they come, but as gross a violation of freedom as things like the NDAA and Patriot Act are, stories of people being unlawfully abducted by our government are still pretty rare, and I don't buy into most of those things like the FEMA camps or whatever. Plus, if nothing else, the government is still pretty good about respecting the whole freedom of speech thing (most of the time, anyway), and I actually approve of what the Supreme Court has been doing lately. We're certainly not a 100% free country, but we're by no means North Korea.

 

[ultrabiome]

And since you used 'yanks,' I assume you aren't American, but assuming that we Americans would just cower and roll over at an invading force on our homeland, a threat internal or external, is insulting.

um, you do get that your military budget is actually greater then the rest of the globes military budget combined... Yet America also has rampant poverty, plummeting social standards & a school system that pump out students with predominately no future.

Yet Americans are still completely paranoid about some mythical boogey man they think is going to come & get them in the night.

You just tried to counter my statement by mentioning a bunch of unrelated general trends, all of which I know way too well.

You know, we had our bloodiest war only 150 years ago, and we killed our own brothers to fight for our rights. Assuming that nothing will ever incite a revolution again implies historical short sightedness.

An you somehow think idiot civilians having guns is going to make a bit of difference? Dude, if your government turned on you today, you'd be dead by dawn. You have a military industrial complex well in excess of its purpose. Just to put this in perspective for you: The entire budget of NASA from start to finish (including all staffing, overhead, research & development, engineering, etc etc) was less then America's budget for just the army, for a single month.

Personally i think this boogey man Americans are afraid of is themselves. How does that old chesnut go "You see in others the traits you hate in yourself." Americas populace's knee jerk reaction to everything is scorched earth style violence... So you expect that that must be everyone elses go to answer as well.

But if you want to talk about historical short sightedness you need go no further then the cold war. america seems destined to keep on duplicating the errors of the cold war on a personal level when it ocmes to guns.

I don't think you know American's outside of your convoluted stereotypes from wherever in the world you are, or know enough American history to make the kind of statements you do.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

I'm astounded that there are actually people advocating using military force to take people's firearms away from them.

Actually, I think most people were more saying "If the man really does come for you, you think your peashoters will stop him?" And then stating, repeatedly that USA simply isn't North Korea, or if I may borrow the last part of your, post...

This is reality, not your fantasy world.

Same thing could be said about the US government suddenly turning into Nazicommielibruls overnight and trying to oppress people by military force being just a wet dream of some people who fantasize about being Guy Fawkes when (when, not if) it happens or something.

No some of them actually are saying take by force. America isn't turning Nazicommieliburl over night, it is going a totetelirian state. Since 9/11 America got caught spying on it's own country, was caught handing out shadow bailouts to companies, and now have the power to lock you up with out due process or trial, but don't worry about the last one. Obama said he won't use it and even did a sign statement. Brought to you by Congress, can't solve the economic issue, but sure as hell will team up taking your rights/

Actions speak louder than words. How many times I ask you has this been used to lock up an American citizen without due process?
Also, people also seem to forget the communist hysteria of the cold war. We used to live in a country where writing anything REMOTELY pro-communism, or hell even having a finger pointed at you for being a "sympathizer" could completely ruin your life.

 

[karamazovnew]

Coming from a country where even air-rifles require a special permit, I'm having a hard time sympathizing with 'murikans and their love for guns. After an argument with a 'murikan who explained to me that I was an imbecile because I had no idea that the Civilian Assault Rifles did not have selective firing (that is... full auto), unlike their military counterparts, so in his mind they were perfectly normal to buy at the local grocery store... I completely gave up trying to make any sense of this or even caring. So congrats 'Murika, with 20 children dead, you've just sank lower than I expected. Quite a feat really...

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Making guns illegal is retarded, a ban on assault weapons is a good idea, and they look to be trying to reinstate that, in Canada guns are legal, there are a few restrictions on them, but you can get a semi-auto handgun legally in some provinces, and you don't see constant mass shootings, and stuff here, because we also have a healthcare system which tries(albiet sometimes a lot less hard than they should) to provide mental health care as well as physical health care, also our society is a bit different, but yeah, as has been stated above, mass murders account for a very small percentage of overall killings in the states anyway.

Not trivializing the recent event, just saying, there are a ton of steps they could take to prevent things, but it's not something a single overnight change will solve.

 

[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.

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.

How can legislation that didn't exist fail? I Never said that at all... I said the existing legislation at that time failed. As a result of the shooting new legislation was introduced and the existing laws where better enforced. Its really quite simple, a bit like you so let me break it down with some bullet points.

-Existing legislation failed
-Gunman murders kids
-New legislation and better enforcement of existing legislation introduced

Now is there anything else I can clear up for you?

 

[Proeliator]

I don't mind if people want to own handguns for protection and Rifles/shotguns for shooting ranges or hunting. But I don't think there is any good reason for someone to own any kind of automatic weapon.

Well, its already pretty hard to get automatic weapons in the US, and it wouldn't have done much to stop the shooting, considering the gunman had a semi-automatic rifle.

This thread, like every other of its kind, prooves that gun owning is woven too deep into the American culture for people to even consider taking an opposite view of the problem.

For better or for worse I guess.

 

[TheOneBearded]

It goes like this. Take a man's gun, he'll just get a bow and arrow to kill you. Take away his bow, he will use a knife. Take away his knife, he use a fork. Take away his fork, he will use a spoon. Take away his spoon, he use his fists. Take away his fists, he kill you with his prosthetic claw hands.

You can't stop crazed people from killing. Whether or not a stricter gun control law is put into place, the situation stays the same.

 

[the clockmaker]

Wow, I meant that comment as a bit of hyperbole, but instead you blow up at me.

And since you used 'yanks,' I assume you aren't American, but assuming that we Americans would just cower and roll over at an invading force on our homeland, a threat internal or external, is insulting.

You know, we had our bloodiest war only 150 years ago, and we killed our own brothers to fight for our rights. Assuming that nothing will ever incite a revolution again implies historical short sightedness.

you don't want people to call your comparisons stupid, then don't make stupid comparisons.

I never said that yanks would role over and die, what I said was western nations (The US being the focus of the currant discussion) would be unable or unwilling to carry on an effective insurgency in the long term. People adapt to their environment over the years and we in the west have become very accustomed to war being something that happens elsewhere, our skills are based around those that are required to survive in a first world nation, which are good things, it shows that we have good lives, but it also shows that the mentality that is required to conduct an insurgency against an occupying force is not one that has been fostered within ours and our parents lifetime. There would be sporadic and disorganised attacks to be sure, but nothing as effective as the other famous insurgencies of modern history.

You did nothing, your ancestors fought for their rights and your trying to claim reflected glory from that is an insult to their memory. none of the skills or attributes that they held automatically fall to you, which is why a lot of militaries spend a lot of time instilling traditional values. Claiming that because your ancestors fought you are also able to is similar to claiming that, as my family is rural Irish, I am good at farming.

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is no conventional threat to the territorial integrity or independence of the US, and if you wish to point out who you think will invade I can discuss this further, but until then, your entire point is moot as there is no one with the will and ability to invade.

Finally, I never said that there would never be another revolution, the fact that you are claiming that says volumes about you. There will not be a revolution in the foreseeable future (which, in broad trends is roughly out to 2050), similarly, there is every possibility that in 2229 after the great cheese war the Malaysian empire will invade the independent state of columbia, as trying to predict anything out that far is a fools errand, but it does raise the question of what the everloving hell it has to do with today.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Making guns illegal is retarded, a ban on assault weapons is a good idea, and they look to be trying to reinstate that, in Canada guns are legal, there are a few restrictions on them, but you can get a semi-auto handgun legally in some provinces, and you don't see constant mass shootings, and stuff here, because we also have a healthcare system which tries(albiet sometimes a lot less hard than they should) to provide mental health care as well as physical health care, also our society is a bit different, but yeah, as has been stated above, mass murders account for a very small percentage of overall killings in the states anyway.

Not trivializing the recent event, just saying, there are a ton of steps they could take to prevent things, but it's not something a single overnight change will solve.

Assault weapon is nothing more than a buzz word that means scary. For fuck sakes they banned a pistol grip. If it looks tactical, is black, and look military, it is banned. Gun control laws are not made by people who actually know what the fuck a gun is, but by reactionary fucktards who nothing of current gun laws. Pro-tip CT has a AWB in place.

I always took "Assault weapon" to be "Gun specifically for killing people" meaning any gun with a fully automatic or burst firing setting, but I guess I should stop thinking of the people who organize or put together laws, as generally intelligent enough to grasp a basic understanding of things.

meh.

 

[jboking]

2 years mandatory military service. Those who have served keep a militia firearm after they leave. I guarantee you will see a drop in violent crime rates.