On the contrary, Switzerland has an avid gun culture. I have a couple of friends there. It's as much of a gun culture country as the U.S. is, except with much lower violent crime rates. Plus you add in an assault rifle in most of the homes.

It's not the same. Similar, I'll grant, but it's not identical.

Why don't laws banning illegal drugs keep those drugs out of the countries who ban them?

There's an increase in VIOLENT crimes in Australia and England. Dead is dead. Doesn't matter if you were stabbed or shot. Getting raped, getting robbed, or getting assaulted aren't minor crimes either. Not sure how you're defining a "minor" crime.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Wrong assumptions on all counts, Wildbore. You presume that the cops can repo a criminal's weapons---how if they don't know about it? Most crimes aren't committed with registered weapons. Or another assumption is that they'll (sooner or later) lose it; your point being that the weapon becomes more difficult to replace. Now, don't tell me you've never heard of a thing called a black market? The perpetrator is already a criminal, and would likely know how to obtain a tool of his trade. Believe me, if they want it, they'll get it.

Basically, Wild, you proceed from the false assumption that passing laws will do what you expect, with no unintended consequences. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We have laws that outlaw certain drugs, and even have a "war" on them---as someone I know said, "what war on drugs? I can go down to the next street corner and get 'em!" We used to outlaw alcohol consumption---we see how that went. Most locales in America outlaws prostitution, yet if you want one, you can get one. In all cases, passing a law did little good that was envisioned, and each had unintended consequences that make matters worse.

The law wanted to outlaw certain drugs because the people high on them committed crimes of violence. This simply drove the market for them underground and turned it over to criminals, who made up their own rules, as well as gave us that street pusher trying to get young kids addicted to the stuff they sell, just so they can support their own habit.

The law wanted to outlaw alcohol consumption because of the same reason---drunks get nasty and violent. This had the same effect, it turned the market for alcohol over to criminals and criminal gangs. It gave us drive-by shootings, turf wars, and sometimes deadly home-made alcohol ("bathtub gin.")

The idea behind the law that outlaws prostitution is there because it allegedly causes the break-up of families. Well, just as before, it turned the market over to criminals, and forced women who are involved in the "trade" to turn to violent men ("pimps") to protect them from other violent men, instead of the cops.

Point is, the laws in each case failed to stop anything it was sold as stopping, and even aggrivated the problem. The law against certain drugs hasn't stopped the problem, in fact, it's worse. The laws against alcohol consumption didn't stop those who wanted to drink, and made our cities warzones. The law against prostitution hasn't stopped it from becoming rampant. When you outlaw something that isn't in and of itself violent or fraudulent, you get these unintended consequences.

The same will go if the advocates of banning handguns get their way---it'll disarm those it was intended to protect, yet won't deny those who want them as a "tool of the trade" what they want. A handgun requires much less physical ability to use, and much less time to learn proficiency with, especially in close quarters (less than 20 feet,) where you're most likely to have a run-in with a criminal. Women especially have an easier time with handguns than rifles or shotguns. They're lighter and more easily used in most situations where you'll be confronted with a criminal.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

Drugs are made secretly in peoples homes, this is difficult to stop or prevent. Guns are made in factories, if a country restricts handguns there will only be a few factories building a small amount of guns mainly for law enforcement personel or military. So its a relatively easy war to win, many countries have already done it.

I just refuted it.

So are you trying to say the US is a country that just can't handle guns, where the Swiss can?

True, but similar enough to be indistinguishable by anyone.

Because anyone can make drugs secretly in their home.

There is also a increase in violent crime in the US.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/crime.rate/index.html

Handgun ownership is increasing every year in the US, yet it doesen't seem to be working. Probably because criminals can simply buy or steal the handguns from the owners and use them in violent ways. Disarm everyone, and you take that option away from criminals.

[quote="4Liberty";p="286856"]Wrong assumptions on all counts, Wildbore. You presume that the cops can repo a criminal's weapons---how if they don't know about it? Most crimes aren't committed with registered weapons. Or another assumption is that they'll (sooner or later) lose it; your point being that the weapon becomes more difficult to replace. Now, don't tell me you've never heard of a thing called a black market? The perpetrator is already a criminal, and would likely know how to obtain a tool of his trade. Believe me, if they want it, they'll get it.

The black market exists because criminals simply steal guns from the law-abiding people. In Canada, the criminals don't have this option because very few people have handguns. So it makes obtaining a handgun much more difficult. Actually the abundance of handguns in the US is fueling the international black market, so if the US restricted handguns it increase safety in other countries as well.

If gun control doesen't work, why aren't other countries reducing it? Oh yea, you only have to look at the US, a country with no gun control and consequently high amounts of firearm violence.

There are a variety of reasons that those things were banned. I agree and disagree with each of those, but those should be discussed in different forums. I have already demonestrated there are no unintended consequences to restricting handguns.

It will deny criminals from acquiring handguns. This has been the desired effect in most of the countries that have implimented handgun restrictions. Obviously regular people will become disarmed, but most people are disarmed anyways because they don't want a handgun, or don't want concealed carry permits. But there are still 50 million or so handguns in American homes, this makes it pretty easy for criminals to steal one, or simply buy one off a person. Get rid of those 50 million handguns, and you make it close to impossible for criminals to acquire one, or reacquire one. And thus the reduction in firearms related crime comes.

Come to Canada and try obtaining a handgun, you will immidiately see how difficult it would be for criminals. You would have to find a gang, be forced to pay several thousand dollars, or sneak one in through the border yourself which is extremely risky.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

Here's the bottom line about guns. Criminals will get guns because they won't obey gun control laws. Moreover, although a totalitarian state would be needed for this to happen, what do you suppose would happen if all private gun ownership suddenly ended? "Success" in committing crimes such as burglary, rape and yes, murder would depend almost solely on physical strength and the element of surprise, meaning that the worst crimes- ones of genuine victimization- would be more rather than less common. I support registration primarily for the purposes of criminal investigations, but beyond that I oppose all regulation of non-military firearms. Not only does it disarm the innocent, moreover, but it also gives the state a disarmed populace, a necessity for democide. Finally, I think that the real reason some people want to regulate gun ownership so tightly is that they just don't like guns. Well, I don't like stupid fashion trends, either, but I'm not going to advocate the government banning them. Wildbore, if you're a liberal, you need to understand what that means. Liberalism stands for maximizing personal freedom, tolerating even things that we find offensive or distasteful. The very problem with the social conservative movement is that it turns to the government every time it doesn't like something. Well, as a liberal, you should recognize that gun regulation is ultimately part of the same mentality.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

This is completely false. The majority of drugs are flown, carried, trucked or otherwised smuggled into this country.

Have you seen some of the underground drug "factories"? They're pretty vast. The same thing would happen with guns if they were completely outlawed. People would either go underground or go to remote areas to start manufacturing them. Or people in the factories that produce them for police would be bribed by the mafia/organized crime to provide weapons for them.

LOL. You're delusional.

No, I'm trying to say the U.S. is a more aggressive country than Switzerland. We have more violence in our media outlets, a higher number of single-parent families, and a less effective education system, among other things. Compare our foreign policy also.

I don't think Canada is as aggressive. For one thing, look at your military actions around the world compared to ours.

Straw Man. How does that explain the increase violent crime in England and Australia?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ddcae41028.htm

And both had higher crime rates than the U.S.:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21902

And this is happening where in the U.S.? In the cities, which have stricter gun control laws than towns. And more in states that don't have concealed carry laws, states with more gun control.

All you're doing is disarming innocent people. You make women and the elderly more likely to be victims of larger, stronger criminals who might use other handheld weapons besides a gun.

Again, just use common sense - if you were a criminal, would you rather target an unarmed victim, or a victim that you knew was carrying a gun?


Disarm everyone, and you invite genocide, as has happened many times throughout history:

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com

You need to get control of your fear and your rage. The mental delusions you're suffering from are detailed here:

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I know criminals won't obey gun control. The point is that law-abiding people will, and the total amount of gun in society would go down, this would also create supply problems for the black market.

I also love guns. I greatly encourage the ownership of long guns. I want badly to reduce gun control. But at the current level of technology, and with the abundance of handguns in the US, any criminal can just steal a handgun and use it to commit crime. Why else are the handgun murder rates in the US abnormally high? I have seen technology where handguns will only work in the owners hands, until that is wide-spread, I can't see myself supporting mass handgun sales. I agree that gun registration is necessary, the program in Canada has received much praise from law enforcement. Unfortunately, the Conservative governments wants to disband it.

It depends on the drug. Some kinds are shipped in, some is made inside the US. US port/border security is pretty weak though, its not amazing the drug problem still exists. The key is moving the handgun business elsewhere would make it MORE difficult. For example if the US did nothing about drug manufacturing inside its borders, that problem would be much worse.

If gun factories could go underground, it would have happend and we would see examples from one of the countries with a ban. I doubt police can be bribed as well, it would be prevented by budget controls/audits. What you are suggesting is just not practical.

But look at how Americans are responding to the military actions. They are becoming less supportive by the day. If you look at media in Canada, its American dominated. So the exposure to violence in Canada is similar to the US.

I can't explain the increases. There could be a variety of reasons behind them. Perhaps, to use your arguement, they are becoming more aggressive?

Yes, localized gun control and regional gun control will always backfire. It must be on a national level to be effective. For example, a ban in Washington D.C. will do nothing if there are no inspections to enforce it. On the national level, customs will perform this task.

A handgun restriction will hardly affect seniors and women, they aren't the gun carrying demographic. Its mostly young to middle-aged men, and thats the demographic thats typically violent.

I would rather target an unarmed victom. But why do most people choose not to own firearms if this is the case? Probably because firearms offer little deterrance against crime. Plus if their handgun was ever used improperly, as is often the case, it would do more harm than good.

Agreed, but I was referring to handguns only. There would still be an ample supply of long guns to satisfy the militia needs of the country. Plus I also said I would support handguns if they had safeguards against misuse.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

Wildbore, your lack of foresight boggles the mind. The only reason that "underground handgun factories" wouldn't exist is because they wouldn't have to. You ever heard of a "Saturday night special?" It's a handgun not made by a licensed gunsmith or manufacturer. The problem with your assertion that it would have already happened in nations with gun control are 2:

1) That there didn't already exist a large number of manufacturers there that made weapons for the population at large, like here in the US; and

2) With US manufacturers still in existence, they don't have to.

In the US, there are a fairly large number of people with the ready knowledge of how to make a handgun, or can sell the plans to someone with the proper equipment (a metal lathe, being the primary piece, and can be found in many home workshops. My step-father used to have one in his.)

The fact remains, if there's a market for it, it will be satisfied. If it's illegal, it will only make it more expensive, not impossible to get. I've noticed you make another wrong assumption in that "law-abiding" citizens will all give up their weapons. Many may follow a long-standing American tradition---and civilly disobey, or find a way around the law (like if it's registered, like mine is [for my concealed carry permit,] to claim it has been disposed of or destroyed, or lost---I'd think the latter would be easiest, like claim it had been stolen, and file a police report saying so. It would be most difficult for the government to prove it hadn't been.)

And that last paragraph tells me something about you personally and your knowledge of firearms, Wildbore. No offense, but you don't know much about them, do you? A "long gun?" Not exactly a phrase used by anyone knowledgable about firearms.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

Hence the handgun has nothing to do with the violence of the demographic.

Proof that private ownership of handguns in particular reduces violent crime:

Journal of Law & Economics Article

__________________
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~Thomas Paine

Here is my point: One cannot significantly decrease the number of guns except among the innocent unless one adopts totalitarian methods. Then the government itself becomes the greatest danger. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Gun control is seemingly effective in certain countries simply because those countries aren't as "gun crazy" as the United States, and the more the American government tries to regulate gun ownership, the more Americans will cling to their guns.

This is an issue on which so-called conservatives are actually the liberals. The first gun control laws in America were racist Jim Crow laws designed to disarm African-Americans. Then came the peace intellectuals in the 1960's. They were right to oppose the Vietnam War, but in their opposition to all things that they associated with violence, they made it, in popular discourse, "liberal" or "progressive" to support disarming the populace. Sadly, this is no different from what social conservatives do. Progressive 1960's intellectuals had a goal of personal pacifism. That was fine. They wanted the government to enforce it. That was wrong. In the same way, Fundamentalists are free to preach their message but they don't have a right to put their beliefs into law. They want discipline, while liberals want a less aggressive culture. Neither can be mandated through government action, nor is government coercion justifiable in attempting to reach either goal. I would attend an NRA rally, but I would probably seem a bit out of place if I discussed my opposition to the war in Iraq, opposition to banning flag burning and my rather liberal social ideas. I'm not part of the "law and order" crowd either. I oppose the death penalty and most mandatory sentencing. It is unfortunate that liberals have a blind spot on this issue. It is indeed sad, moreover, to see white supremacist reactionaries arguing against gun control. They might as well be getting money from gun control lobbies. If I could travel back in time, though, and discuss the issue with 19th century liberals, I would bet money that they would oppose gun control- much as John Stuart Mill was the first person to suggest school vouchers.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Its quite clear that when restrictions are in place the black market is crippled. Ahh yes, the Saturday night special. It might become more popular when restrictions are in place, but its relatively crude, so how popular is up for debate.

The question is will those become popular. My answer is no, criminals typically aren't patient, skilled or resourceful, they would rather use a knife, or by a crossbow at a store. Either way, the handgun which is much more dangerous is out of their hands.

Most law-abiding citizens would give up their weapons. No one would consider implimenting handgun restrictions unless they had public approval anyways. This is why I am not expecting the US to do anything I say. Its not my country so I could care less, I am just debating based on my experiences in a country with the restrictions in place.

Long gun is short for rifle and/or shotgun. I don't see how you are amazed by that term, its widely used and popular term for discussing that type of firearm. If anything this shows you are il-informed. I never claimed to be an expert on firearms, but the practice of gun control is relatively simple concept to grasp.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill