ercles on 22/2/2009 at 05:25
Quote Posted by dethtoll
And please, stop pretending that making something illegal means people won't find another way.
In fairness, he never claimed as much, but rather said that it would make acquiring said firearms tougher, and would reduce the chance of someone getting shot.
Also, as far as deaths per capita from firearms, I really don't think you can argue with the fact that it happens a lot (
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita) more in the US than other 1st world countries. Even ones like Canada or Australia who have a gun ban without mandatory military service.
Jason Moyer on 22/2/2009 at 08:33
And what are the statistics for firearm assaults committed with illegally acquired/possessed weapons?
Koki on 22/2/2009 at 09:25
Quote Posted by Kolya
Yeah but it also gets easier to catch El Salvador because due to the restrictions far less illegal guns exist
I am entering dethtoll mode here.
Vivian on 22/2/2009 at 12:05
Why? You get the kind of sitch we've got in the UK - guns are still about, but they're rare and generally unusual enough to be traced - they're either antiques (like ww1 old) some hoary old veteran stuffed away in his attic, really shitty re-activations or sawn-offs. Guns actually designed for killing people have to be smuggled in from overseas, which makes them a lot harder to obtain, more expensive, and generally limited to the more dangerous gangsters. Who, and I'm not suggesting this is great or anything, seem more inclined to use them on each other than on the general public.
I believe it is actually possible to buy a semi-automatic pistol in a shop in the US? Do you actually have to shove your head up your arse to not realise this makes them easier to obtain in general, whether you're 'allowed' one or not?
Fuck, I can't even believe this is a debate.
Muzman on 22/2/2009 at 12:50
Tocky is right though. The arguments typically trotted out against gun control are boneheaded (sez me, particularly), but arguments for getting rid of them in the States are thin on method and likely problematic.
Koki on 22/2/2009 at 13:08
Quote Posted by Vivian
Why?
Because his argument was "restriction means less
illegal guns in circulation", not "restriction means less guns in circulation".
Vivian on 22/2/2009 at 13:25
It means less of both. Thats the point.
Herr_Garrett on 22/2/2009 at 13:31
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
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.
We didn't. The revolution and the new government lasted for eleven days, when the traitor Kádár (a member or the government) called in, and back the Soviet troops. It wasn't an invasion, it was the beating down of the revolution. And the following 33 years weren't occupation, either.
And, you know, because we
won the revolution is why the same people are still in power.
Please don't try to teach me our history.
Quote:
Originally posted by KolyaDo not, however subtly try to connect me with nazis, because of the country I was born in. Seriously, you don't want to.
Ye gods...
And I thought I was a paranoid.
Disturbation on 22/2/2009 at 13:45
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
Because, it was meant to be a deterrent for the
government. A government is far less likely to instate a totalitarian dictatorship when its citizens have the firepower to bring it down. In fact, Jefferson said that he believed we should have an armed rebellion every twenty years so the government would know its place.
Can you point to any example of an armed popular uprising that successfully restored a free government from a tyranny?
Thirith on 22/2/2009 at 15:42
Quote Posted by Koki
Because his argument was "restriction means less
illegal guns in circulation", not "restriction means less guns in circulation".
Koki, quite honestly, do you have any idea of what the word 'correlation' means?
