Political Crossfire Forums

[Green]

If every honest and law abbiding person that wanted one had a nice assault rifle, the world would be a lot safer.

Gun control is used to keep guns out of the hands of people that would murder others, witch is illegal. If murderers can get away with doing one thing illegal that is killing, they can get away with another thing that is illegal that is getting an illegal weapon.

Gun control does not keep murderers from getting guns.

Gun control keep honest and law abbiding citizens from saving themselves and the lives of other innocent people

[Wolverine]

But guns are evil, and they influence people to do bad things.

[lilwolf]

I suppose i should get a priest to bless my guns before they possess me and make me do evil and dirty bad nasty things.
Does that mean that we can't keep things like this?
[/img]

[Blinky]

Quote: If we outlaw guns, criminals will have them. No difference.

Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.

Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves?

[Blinky]

Seriously, you gun-nuts like it when an anti-gunner takes the bait and posts something, don't you?
Otherwise the threads around here would go for about 5 posts. There's only so many ways to say "I agree". :wink: :-D

[lilwolf]

Think about why there will always be guns. It's called MONEY. With all of the gun makers there are and most of them owned by corporations outside of the US - do you really believe they are going to stop making guns? Or, do you really believe they are going to give up all the MONEY they are making?

Fat chance. The MONEY is the main thing why there are makers of guns and that is a pretty powerful motivator these days.

Besides we as legal gun owners are not going to give up what we like to do. maily thses things: hunt, target shoot, protect our families and our homes, defend ourselves, and about a dozen other reasons, all of which seems to escape the anti-gun peoples thought process.

[airo]

Blinky wrote: Quote: If we outlaw guns, criminals will have them. No difference.

Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.

Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves?

Most firearms used illegally are illegally possesed by the owner. That is to say, the gun was stolen, imported illegally, or illegally modified in some way. This is just further proof that criminals really don't give a flying f**k about laws regarding firearms.

Their firearms are already illegal, how is making them more illegal going to solve anything? It's not, it's only going to take firearms out of the average law abiding citizen's hands, because we're the only ones who give a damn about the law.

And police seizures? So, not only are you against the 2nd amendment, but you're wanting to gut the 4th as well now?

[wyldejackyl]

Guns won't cease to exist when they are taken out of circulation - arms will continue to pour in illegally just like drugs and every other kind of contraband does. Sure, there will be no more gun stores where honest people can get guns for their own uses..but there will always be a guy who you can buy one from wrapped in an oily T-shirt on the street.

Also, you mentioned "seized by police." What happens when the government decides that the little freedom you retain, is too much? What are you going to do..fight back? Good luck without firearms. Don't think it can't happen either; people say that a lot these days. "$3.35 gallon gas? That can't happen." (1998) "Our air travel system is pretty safe." (9/10/2001) "North Korea is many years from developing a nuke." (2002) "Of course you're guaranteed a trial..you can't be held against your will indefinitely." (Pre-Patriot Act, 2001) "dot coms are all the rage these days!" (1999)

See what I'm getting at? Murphy's Law seems to be popping up more and more these days. Better to be prepared than not, don't you think? I don't expect to hammer nails all the time, but I DO own a hammer.

[micfranklin]

Green wrote: If every honest and law abbiding person that wanted one had a nice assault rifle, the world would be a lot safer.

Gun control is used to keep guns out of the hands of people that would murder others, witch is illegal. If murderers can get away with doing one thing illegal that is killing, they can get away with another thing that is illegal that is getting an illegal weapon.

Gun control does not keep murderers from getting guns.

Gun control keep honest and law abbiding citizens from saving themselves and the lives of other innocent people

Gun control really doesn't keep normal, everyday citizens like you and me from getting guns, either. Besides, with gun control laws, more people would wanna go out and get guns, anyway, so its really not doing anything for anybody.

[airo]

"Hey guys! I got a great idea on how to stop domestic violence, and all of America's woes! Let's ban alcohol!"

[Green]

Blinky wrote: Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.
I say that we should peoduce more legal guns so that people can shoot back at people using legal guns for illegal activities.

[Green]

airo wrote: "Hey guys! I got a great idea on how to stop domestic violence, and all of America's woes! Let's ban alcohol!"

That made more violence, remember.

[Blinky]

airo wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: If we outlaw guns, criminals will have them. No difference.

Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.

Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves?

Most firearms used illegally are illegally possesed by the owner. That is to say, the gun was stolen, imported illegally, or illegally modified in some way. This is just further proof that criminals really don't give a flying f**k about laws regarding firearms.

Their firearms are already illegal, how is making them more illegal going to solve anything? It's not, it's only going to take firearms out of the average law abiding citizen's hands, because we're the only ones who give a damn about the law.


Read again airo. The thread title was "If we Outlaw guns criminals will still have them. No Difference. "
To which I said:
blinky wrote: Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

The title of the thread is untrue - if private citizens stopped buying guns tomorrow the supply of illegal firearms would cease because ALL illegal firearms were once legal firearms which were lost, stolen, sold by their legal owners.
As the remaining firearms in the hands of criminals broke, were destroyed, and confiscated by police, there would be no guns to replace them (unless they were aquired by other means like being smuggled - but thats a border security issue).
Its what we did in Australia and it has worked.


airo wrote: And police seizures? So, not only are you against the 2nd amendment, but you're wanting to gut the 4th as well now?


Maybe you misunderstood? I meant when police confiscate guns from criminals they have caught.

Also, you didn't address the question:
Quote: Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves?

[Blinky]

Green wrote: Blinky wrote: Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.
I say that we should peoduce more legal guns so that people can shoot back at people using legal guns for illegal activities.

I know.

[RooK]

Blinky wrote: The title of the thread is untrue - if private citizens stopped buying guns tomorrow the supply of illegal firearms would cease because ALL illegal firearms were once legal firearms which were lost, stolen, sold by their legal owners.
As the remaining firearms in the hands of criminals broke, were destroyed, and confiscated by police, there would be no guns to replace them (unless they were aquired by other means like being smuggled - but thats a border security issue).
Its what we did in Australia and it has worked.

Two things:
-Australia doesn't border a gun-friendly country.
-Guns can be manufactured.

Ok, lets address the first one. Australia will have success, much like the UK, due to the water that surrounds them. It makes smuggling harder and we have a much larger border than either country to secure. This is why we can't keep illegal immigrants out as it is.

Second, people can make firearms that were simplified designs for mass production during war. Namedly SMGs of WWII and the AK47. I lost the article when my computer crashed, but there was a group of people in Australia caught manufacturing full-auto Sten guns, some with suppressors, in their house. An M3 grease gun would be just as simple. Even the most basic of milling machines can make the bolt and mechanism off blueprints from the internet. The rest is just welded tubing. You don't even need rifled barrels for it to work. The hardest part would be getting the ammunition, but raiding police supplies or corrupt workers could assist in that. All this from the interior, no outside involvement. We need not even go into crude guns like the .45 Liberator used in WWII. Cheap, easy to make, but it works.

Banning guns will reduce murders, but it will not reduce crime.

[micfranklin]

airo wrote: "Hey guys! I got a great idea on how to stop domestic violence, and all of America's woes! Let's ban alcohol!"

By doing that, then that's putting blame on society again and not on the people. And plus, people will still use alcohol regardless.

[wyldejackyl]

Just like they will own and use guns, regardless of laws, and use drugs just the same. I'm not for legalization of the latter, but it draws a nice parallel of how government intervention only increases violence instead of letting society balance itself out.

[RooK]

micfranklin wrote: airo wrote: "Hey guys! I got a great idea on how to stop domestic violence, and all of America's woes! Let's ban alcohol!"

By doing that, then that's putting blame on society again and not on the people. And plus, people will still use alcohol regardless.

airo was showing sarcasm. We banned alcohol once, prohibition led to some of the most violent crime we've seen. People still drank their liquor and crime bosses started making loads of cash off bootlegging.

[airo]

Blinky wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: If we outlaw guns, criminals will have them. No difference.

Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.

Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves?

Most firearms used illegally are illegally possesed by the owner. That is to say, the gun was stolen, imported illegally, or illegally modified in some way. This is just further proof that criminals really don't give a flying f**k about laws regarding firearms.

Their firearms are already illegal, how is making them more illegal going to solve anything? It's not, it's only going to take firearms out of the average law abiding citizen's hands, because we're the only ones who give a damn about the law.


Read again airo. The thread title was "If we Outlaw guns criminals will still have them. No Difference. "
To which I said:
blinky wrote: Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

The title of the thread is untrue - if private citizens stopped buying guns tomorrow the supply of illegal firearms would cease because ALL illegal firearms were once legal firearms which were lost, stolen, sold by their legal owners.
As the remaining firearms in the hands of criminals broke, were destroyed, and confiscated by police, there would be no guns to replace them (unless they were aquired by other means like being smuggled - but thats a border security issue).
Its what we did in Australia and it has worked.

That's not true. Illegal firearms are smuggled into this country as well. And an illegal firearm is an illegal firearm, whether or not a ban is in place. Basically, if a person is going to pack an illegal gun, he's going to do it, and no silly law you pass will stop him.

Perhaps you should look up the prohibition. The idea to ban a deeply enrooted facet of American culture is nothing new, and it's even been attempted before! The only thing it accomplished? It made a lot of criminals very, very, VERY rich. A firearms ban would do no better.

And border security IS an issue. Did you know we currently stop less then 12 percent of all illegally smuggled goods? Can you imagine if people had to resort to smuggling firearms?

And as far as "Well, if everyone just stopped buying them, and turned them in!" That's very Utopian of you, but no one is going to. If drug dealers start turning their firearms in, i might consider it briefly before i say "no.", but i will never deprive myself of a means to defend my life, and my rights.

Quote:
airo wrote: And police seizures? So, not only are you against the 2nd amendment, but you're wanting to gut the 4th as well now?


Maybe you misunderstood? I meant when police confiscate guns from criminals they have caught.

Also, you didn't address the question:
Quote: Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves? [/quote]

Simple, to enforce traffic codes, and clean up after Citizen's are done defending themselves.

I've said it before, response time in my area is horrible. I've actually made 911 calls, had no one report, and called back and the dispatcher told me there was no record of my call. If someone invades my home intent on causing me harm, the police WILL NOT be there to protect me. I am the only one capable of protecting myself.

You seem happy living under your false sense of security, where a bobby is always on you back, fending off the swarms of dregs who would wish to take you wallet, but nothing more!, and that's's good for you! I think it's nice some people can view the world through rose tinted glasses.

I, however, am more realistic than you.

[Blinky]

airo wrote: Blinky wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: If we outlaw guns, criminals will have them. No difference.

Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.

Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves?

Most firearms used illegally are illegally possesed by the owner. That is to say, the gun was stolen, imported illegally, or illegally modified in some way. This is just further proof that criminals really don't give a flying f**k about laws regarding firearms.

Their firearms are already illegal, how is making them more illegal going to solve anything? It's not, it's only going to take firearms out of the average law abiding citizen's hands, because we're the only ones who give a damn about the law.


Read again airo. The thread title was "If we Outlaw guns criminals will still have them. No Difference. "
To which I said:
blinky wrote: Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

The title of the thread is untrue - if private citizens stopped buying guns tomorrow the supply of illegal firearms would cease because ALL illegal firearms were once legal firearms which were lost, stolen, sold by their legal owners.
As the remaining firearms in the hands of criminals broke, were destroyed, and confiscated by police, there would be no guns to replace them (unless they were aquired by other means like being smuggled - but thats a border security issue).
Its what we did in Australia and it has worked.

That's not true. Illegal firearms are smuggled into this country as well.

Thanks for reiterating EXACTLY what I just said.
blinky wrote: unless they were aquired by other means like being smuggled - but thats a border security issue).


airo wrote: And an illegal firearm is an illegal firearm, whether or not a ban is in place. Basically, if a person is going to pack an illegal gun, he's going to do it, and no silly law you pass will stop him.

Those hardened, organised criminals that truely want a gun will still have access to them no doubt. But since when are organised criminals interested in mugging old ladies and breaking into houses for your TV?
The point is that the vast majority of everyday criminals will no longer be able to get a gun. They'll become a rare and precious commodity on the black market sending the cost of them skyrocketing - where's a crack addict going to get a few thousand dollars to buy a less than reliable second-hand pistol?
The current system ensures almost an overflow of readily available firearms - they're available at Walmart for god's sake, aren't they?


airo wrote: Perhaps you should look up the prohibition. The idea to ban a deeply enrooted facet of American culture is nothing new, and it's even been attempted before! The only thing it accomplished? It made a lot of criminals very, very, VERY rich. A firearms ban would do no better.

And border security IS an issue. Did you know we currently stop less then 12 percent of all illegally smuggled goods? Can you imagine if people had to resort to smuggling firearms?

The answer to why you only stop 12% of smuggled good lies in your government's spending priorities:
http://www.federalbudget.com/


airo wrote: And as far as "Well, if everyone just stopped buying them, and turned them in!" That's very Utopian of you, but no one is going to. If drug dealers start turning their firearms in, i might consider it briefly before i say "no.", but i will never deprive myself of a means to defend my life, and my rights.

Utopian implies that it wouldn't happen, but it has here. And has worked well.
Please airo, for the last time stop insisting that you need firearms to defend your rights. Its getting ridiculous now. The whole world saw what gun owners do when their government infringes on their rights - they co-operate. Its not a theory of anti-gunners. We saw it happen. Thrilla has since done his best to distinguish the gun owners of New Orleans from the other gun owners in America, but it just doesn't wash.

airo wrote: Simple, to enforce traffic codes, and clean up after Citizen's are done defending themselves.

You have a very low opinion of the work police officers do. I bet you wouldn't say that to a cop's face.


airo wrote: I've said it before, response time in my area is horrible. I've actually made 911 calls, had no one report, and called back and the dispatcher told me there was no record of my call. If someone invades my home intent on causing me harm, the police WILL NOT be there to protect me. I am the only one capable of protecting myself.

Care to elaborate? What were you calling them for?
Because I've got news for you - your prisons are literally bursting at the seems. So the cops must be arresting people, yet you alone are the ONLY person who can protect yourself.


airp wrote: You seem happy living under your false sense of security, where a bobby is always on you back, fending off the swarms of dregs who would wish to take you wallet, but nothing more!, and that's's good for you! I think it's nice some people can view the world through rose tinted glasses.

I, however, am more realistic than you.

Its not a false sense of secuirty airo. It a real sense of security. I sleep easy at night knowing that theres next to zero chance I'll get shot tommorrow. Whereas you and your friends carry holsters not only out of the house but at home while cooking dinner and watching TV, remember? You said that putting on a holster with your belt and taking it off before getting into bed was routine for your CCW friends.
Literally the biggest worry I have is someone wanting to take my wallet airo. What can I say? Its great.
Its not rose tinted glasses for me, my friend. It is reality.