Ban all guns (part 2)

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by LiberalActivist, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. LiberalActivist

    LiberalActivist Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    First maxed, making second.

    As I stated in the OP:
    Not ONE good argument brought to me. Come on, cons, let's see you argue.
     
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Our non-gun murder rate is about half of our gun murder rate, and that is still much higher than other countries. Heck, our non-gun murder rate dwarfs those countries. We are a violent country, and for that reason, we need guns. When gun laws are liberalized (meaning lessened) in the U.S., no increase in crime is noted. Hence, gun laws do nothing to decrease crime. Other laws, like Florida's 10-20-Life, do more to stop crime.

    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html
     
  3. Chariot

    Chariot Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whats this? Finland, a country that allows its citizens to own handguns and semi-automatic rifles has less gun crime then Felony Island and Imperial England which have both effectivly banned guns? How can that be if less guns equals less crime?
     
  4. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oops, you forgot the 15,237 gang related in deaths in Mexico just last year. Gang thugs are all armed with illegal weapons.

    Mexico has all the wonderful gun restrictions you demand.

    Narcotics are illegal as well, they are all banned here and in Mexico, yet the flow continues. Banning guns just as useless of an idea.

    Why are all the countries on your list predominantly Western/white? You don't attempt to add any data from the violent and corrupt places in Africa, Central and South America. As if one would get an honest answer on crime statistics in most any of these places.

    I haven't heard one worthwhile solution to crime from any gun-grabbers such as yourself.
     
    SpotsCat and (deleted member) like this.
  5. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1) Do you honestly believe that the overthrow of Col. Muammar Khadaffi in Libya would ever have happened if the rebels didn't have weapons? "Please Col. Khadaffi, step aside and let us live in western-style debauchery." And, do you honestly believe that another revolution could never, ever, under any circumstances, happen again in this country?

    2) Given that Prohibition was not only an abject failure, but also gave rise to organized crime, also given that the "War on Drugs" is a tremendous waste of government money and resources - why on Earth would you think that outlawing private possession of firearms would stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding?

    3) Economic impact surveys by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agencies (Southwick Associates), The National Shooting Sports Foundation and others indicate that the hunting and shooting sports market generates in excess of $30.9 billion of economic activity annually. This activity supports more than 986,000 jobs. These 986,000 jobs account for less than 1 percent of all U.S. Employment, but represent more people than are employed in Wyoming and West Virginia combined. More people are "employed by the shooting sports" than work in cities such as San Francisco, Kansas City, Portland, Orlando, or Fort Worth.

    There are more than 1,100 manufacturers, 100 distributors and 14,000 retailers in the United States whose business is totally or largely dependent on the hunting or recreational shooting market, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

    The sporting and firearms ammunition industry proposed, and actively supported, enactment of an 11 percent excise tax on sporting long arms and ammunition to fund wildlife conservation programs. These taxes currently raise in excess of $155 million annually for wildlife management and habitat acquisition and improvement programs. More than $3 billion has been raised for conservation since these taxes were enacted.

    Given the current economic situation, do you think that curtailing $30.9B in economic activity, eliminating almost 1M jobs, and removing over $150M annually from wildlife programs is a wise idea?
     
  6. Foghlai

    Foghlai New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OP, how exactly do you suggest this be accomplished, from a Constitutional standpoint?

    Here is my argument:

    Your position is unsupportable. Any form of law you could suggest that would in effect be a ban on firearms would be in violation of the Constitutional.

    Please feel free to attempt to argue this point. I believe it would be quite amusing. That is, of course, assuming you are not simply trolling this forum and can actually make a reasoned argument. Good luck.
     
  7. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe Liberal Activist, 1. abandoned the thread, and 2. failed to read all of the posts regarding more sensible approaches to the issue.

    Banning all guns is an extreme position, I don't buy into it.
    Removing all gun laws is an extreme position, I don't buy into it.
    Both are just as bad as each other.

    To take the homicide rates, with includes the deaths of gang members and other ultimately worthless human being, and jump and down saying all guns should be banned is a bit ridiculous. They are not all going to be banned, even if they were guns would still be persistent in society for many years to come.

    That is a concept that you will just have to accept. What makes more sense to look at the rights that were solidified by the Supreme Court and look at ways to prevent crime from being committed with firearms, without taking extremist position that will not even make it out of committee.

    No one is suggesting legalizing nuclear weapons, its a non-point, irrelevant.
     
  8. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think that an irrational and extremist position is any more appealing when presented by the left as when the right does it. I'm also not fond of OPs that are intended to be abandoned as soon as they are written.
     
    SpotsCat and (deleted member) like this.
  9. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm centre left and I like guns. I own a paintball marker (classified as a firearm here in Australia) so no, I don't want guns banned, just kept out of the hands of those who can't be trusted, such as people who have shown that they can't use them responsibly, criminals, etc. The same as we take cars off of people who drive like morons.
     
  10. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A firearm to me is a tool. We have coyotes, foxes, coons, and wild dogs. I have a small farm and I need a way to protect my livestock and also a cheap and humane way to put them down when suffering or butcher.

    To take away my gun would be like taking the hammer away from the carpenter.
     
    SpotsCat and (deleted member) like this.
  11. LiberalActivist

    LiberalActivist Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    lol

    the 2nd amendment says the militias can have guns, not the people
     
  12. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officals." George Mason 1788. Look here:


    www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

    The Militia Act of 1792 also gives an education on what the Founding Fathers meant by the term "Militia." Liberals such as yourself morph the term into whatever they dream it to be to suit their current ideology.
     
  13. LiberalActivist

    LiberalActivist Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    :bored:

    some neocon saying what the founders "meant"

    Guess what?

    The Liberal agenda is what's WRITTEN DOWN.

    Oh snap.
     
  14. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  15. devilsadvocate

    devilsadvocate New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. Chariot

    Chariot Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know this is off topic but, has anyone else noticed that this guy(L.A.) fires off a few posts in quick succession and then leaves for a long time?
     
  17. TheGreatSatan

    TheGreatSatan Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    21,269
    Likes Received:
    21,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what a joke. Whats next on your list to BAN? I think all the countrys in your list, if you added up all there populations, wouldn't be close to the US population.
     
  18. Cubdriver_451

    Cubdriver_451 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, the 2nd Amendment does protect the right of the people, the individual specifically, not the militia. This was recently confirmed by a unanimous decision by the Supreme court. If that isn't good enough for you, here is a link to a grammatical analysis of the language of the 2nd amendment. http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html

    You are certainly welcome to argue with whatever view you disagree with, but I think that the sources shown here are probably a more reliable source of information than a blind assertion of your beliefs and feelings. Here is an interesting quote from the page linked.

    With regard to banning gun...I do not argue that guns are frequently used for an alarming number of violent purposes within the United States, however, simply banning guns, does not provide for a cure, and could very well increase the problem. Consider the actions of gun owners, both legal and illegal, if such a ban were enacted.

    Some legal gun owners, maybe even most, would abide by the law and relinquish their arms. Criminals would not. Why would they? For the sake of argument, let's assume an 80% turn in rate for legal owners. Personally, I think this is quite optimistic, but that is only speculation. According to the FBI and BATFE there are an estimated 310,000,000 guns in private hands. If 80% of them were turned in, there would still be over 6,000,000 million guns within the general populace. This does not include those in possession by such groups as law enforcement agencies.

    Now we have a populace in which the vast majority of law abiding citizens are without arms, yet we have done nothing to decrease the number of criminals with arms. The one positive that it has accomplished at this point is that it has reduced the number of guns available to said criminals, but is it reasonable to think that there would not be another source that opens up, much in the same way that illicit drugs are not exactly hard to find? All that we would have accomplished is the creation of a new "black market" demand that offers the lucrative criminal a means of making a lot of money through illicit trade of arms.

    Violent criminals will always seek out guns. We cannot un-invent them. We cannot un-invent the technology required to make more. We cannot control the black market importing of said guns. All we have really done is give the violent criminals a significant advantage when it comes to confronting the average citizen. The citizen would no longer have the legal right to posses what is arguably the most effective means of self defense. The criminal, not being bound by a moral imperative to abide by laws, would have all advantages and almost no deterrent to his illegal actions. The criminal is presented with a target rich, and largely defenseless, prey environment.

    There is a raging debate about the number of defensive uses of firearms, and I wont address that debate in this post, but the numbers range from 80,000 to 2.5 million depending on the source you prefer. The Dept. of Justice puts the number at an estimated 500,000 defensive gun uses per year. Now, I willingly acknowledge that a defensive use of a gun does not equate to a life saved, but it would be hard to argue that rate of successful criminal actions would somehow decrease as a result of your idea of banning guns. It is actually more likely that such instances would increase in frequency and severity.

    The idea that banning guns will somehow disarm violent criminals is about like thinking that making drugs illegal will somehow solve the problem of drug addiction.

    JW
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that there is a tendency of taking a very small sample and pretending that it can be used to derive an aggregated estimate. For example, figures like 1.5 million are often used in pro-gun commentary. They often forget to mention that the original figure was an estimate based on 19 respondents.
     
  20. LiberalActivist

    LiberalActivist Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
  21. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    However, they make the law of the land. So whether you like it or not, at this time, the Second Amendment is an individual right that applies to the states as well.
     
  22. LiberalActivist

    LiberalActivist Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    and they should be banned.
     
  23. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then pass a constitutional amendment to do so. Currently, that is the only way to ban guns in the U.S.
     
  24. Chariot

    Chariot Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, like when they ruled on abortion.
     
  25. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How does one ban all guns? Hasn't that horse already left the barn? It is ridiculous to assume it can be done in the first place. Classic example of the mental disorder that is liberal-socialism.
     

Share This Page