Kolya on 21/2/2009 at 22:41
dethy... I never would yell at you my lil sunshine. You told me I was stupid, if I may remind you. And I still answered you in a friendly way. So no yellin here. Now for the record: A general gun ban doesn't mean guns stop existing. They can still be bought eg for sports, but then you need a license, must never have been involved in violent crime and are only allowed to shoot that gun in special shooting ranges. NIMBY, you read me?
I don't see what mandatory military service has to do with that, which you can avoid by doing alternative civilian service. I'm still not a big fan of the whole mandatory thing, but anyway, what was your connection here?
Lastly, could you plz send me that glock from your cereals? I have some friends to take care of here. I'll send it back, big promise!
RavynousHunter on 21/2/2009 at 23:13
Quote Posted by Kolya
A general gun ban makes it harder for everyone to acquire weapons, hence also for criminals.
I realize you're talking to dethtoll here on this comment, but allow me to interject on this point for a wee bit. A gun ban doesn't make it harder for criminals to get guns, just private citizens. Criminals don't obey the laws against killing, stealing, and other shit, so why in the hell should they obey gun control laws? They would get guns the same way they get everything else,
by breaking the bloody law. Then again, I may be rambling a bit...
Thirith on 21/2/2009 at 23:16
It's not about criminals obeying gun laws. It's about simple correlation. Quite a lot of guns obtained by criminals were bought legally at some point. The more difficult it is to obtain guns legally, the fewer guns are out there, the more difficult it is for criminals to get guns on average.
Kolya on 21/2/2009 at 23:20
RavynousHunter: Because a gun ban
1) decreases the overall number of guns in circulation
2) guns are registered and only sold in special restricted circumstances
It's not like you could say: "Hey I'm a criminal, the laws aren't affecting me!" when the facts created by these laws do affect your ability to get a gun.
Now of course big criminal organisations will still find ways, eg by importing guns from other countries, but your average smalltime criminal who feels the need to rob the liquor shop or gas station will have a lot harder time doing so.
RavynousHunter on 21/2/2009 at 23:27
Granted, it may stop a many of the lower-echelon criminals from getting easy guns, but the craftier and altogether more dangerous criminals are only slightly perturbed by higher gun prices because they're getting them from El Salvador instead of Salvador who works out of the old, abandoned warehouse near the port.
Kolya on 21/2/2009 at 23:31
Yeah but it also gets easier to catch El Salvador because due to the restrictions far less illegal guns exist and it's easier to backtrack them to him. Overall the situation is easier to control when there are less guns around.
Swiss Mercenary on 21/2/2009 at 23:31
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
Granted, it may stop a many of the lower-echelon criminals from getting easy guns, but the craftier and altogether more dangerous criminals are only slightly perturbed by higher gun prices because they're getting them from El Salvador instead of Salvador who works out of the old, abandoned warehouse near the port.
And the average person is far less likely to have a run-in with those more dangerous criminals, than with the smallfry committing robberies to fuel their crack addiction. The bigshots are far more interested in... Selling drugs to the smallfry.
On Mary Jane vs Guns - Any idiot can grow some pot in his basement. Manufacturing a (semi-)automatic weapon that won't explode in your hands, on the other hand, requires a bit more then a guy with a welder working in a shack out in the woods. Not to mention that he won't be cranking them out on an assembly line.
Quote Posted by Herr_Garrett
The Hungarian revolution in 1956? You know, when Budapest was trampled into ruins by Soviet tanks.
You're an idiot for missing the point. The Hungarian people won that revolution. They OVERTHREW THEIR GOVERNMENT. They pushed the Soviet troops that were in the country out. All in a country that banned civilians from access to guns.
What followed was nothing short of an invasion by the USSR, a much larger FOREIGN COUNTRY.
In fact, Europe's demonstrated pretty well that you don't need gun ownership to overthrow an opressive government. As soon as the Soviets said that they will no longer intervene with the Red Army, the totalitarians running their respective Warsaw Pact states were overthrown.
RavynousHunter on 22/2/2009 at 00:02
Quote Posted by Kolya
Yeah but it also gets easier to catch El Salvador because due to the restrictions far less illegal guns exist and it's easier to backtrack them to him. Overall the situation is easier to control when there are less guns around.
On that note, I will concede.
fett on 22/2/2009 at 01:48
Quote Posted by Kolya
Yeah but it also gets easier to catch El Salvador because due to the restrictions far less illegal guns exist and it's easier to backtrack them to him. Overall the situation is easier to control when there are less guns around.
Ok -that's something I have to admit I've never really considered either, though it seems obvious, huh? Good point.
Tocky on 22/2/2009 at 05:11
First let me preface this by saying if a gun ban would work I would turn in mine tommorow. I would just for the chance of it. Like any southerner I have all of those capable of downing all sorts of creatures. But the history of this country is sadly misrepresented.
History. Cause and effect. Guns were needed not just for protection from outlaws and natives but food. When Europeans settled here they wanted and needed land for sustinance. They couldn't take from those (former europeans) already here but they well remembered the value of land denied them in thier home countries. They carved out a piece from the natives who naturally took offense and killed them right back. They needed them more than just for starting wars. They needed food. The lessons of Roanoke and the pilgrims were those not to be ignored at pain of starvation.
That is our legacy. Live off the land. Hunt. Fish. Farm. Protect. Protection from a government overstepping it's bounds was an afterthought of the more idle wealthy. The people were more concerned with more immediate concerns.
Screw this idea that wars were a thing to distract the violent gun owning masses. That is fallacy. But you can have my gun if you take all the rest. Nasty thing death. It would be a hard thing in a country with as many as ours to take them. But remember that here it is a thing rooted in simple survival and not some high minded or low minded principle.
