Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[Jedi-Hunter4]

Frankly, your ignorance of the reality we face astounds me, and I will no longer engage you in this dialogue. Enjoy the fairy world you choose to live in. I hope to whatever deity you place your faith in you don't see it crash down around you.

Well if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black!

You seem to be backing the occupy movement and have the front to say someone else is naive! To put it bluntly if what they did in america was anything similar to the shit people had to put up with here, they deserve a good beating and to be arrested. Bunch of privileged tossers with 0 appreciation for what they have.

All you are spouting off is pure opinion. Your view on your own military is appalling. And in general you seem to have some views bordering on paranoia.

"I will no longer engage you in this dialogue" as ever the stand of those with a bigoted mind, unable to understand others view point, thus unable to combat it with logic, so throws out a few insults as a final paddy and says they don't want to play any more.

Bravo! The final nail in the coffin of your argument.

 

[Zetatrain]

Also, can somebody finally answer what people hunt with an M16? Even bears go down to a bolt action if you have a half decent aim, and why do people need any more than bolt action rifles?.

Who the hell would go hunting for bears with a .223 Remington?!

I'm willing to bet most people don't get an AR-15 to specifically hunt and even if they do it would not be to hunt bears.

EDIT: As for the OP's question

Well its a little hard to say since I don't own any. At the very least I'd expect compensation. because those things aren't exactly cheap. However, if I lived in a crime infested area then I'd probably try to hide them or at least one since those criminals sure as hell aren't gonna turn their guns in.

 

[Mazza35]

I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.

Mind you, how many massacres have we ever had even before Port Arthur?
And I'm fairly sure crimes went up, not firearm related crimes, but home invasions and other violent crimes :/

You would be correct. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Violent crime up 42.2% including a 49.2% increase in assault and 29.9% increase in sexual assault.
No thanks.

Why do you think I have a nice big 17inch bayonet in my room? Besides being a WWI re-enactor

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Where's the option that says "Don't have a gun, don't care"?

 

[Ironman126]

Seeing as all the firearms I own are literally twice my age, I imagine that they'd be grandfathered into a law. Failing that, the government can have them. They've been sitting, neglected, in my grandfather's closet for nearly half their lives (about 25 years) until I rescued them and I doubt they even function, at least not safely. Though, since I live in the US and we'd never be able to fully ban firearms, I seriously doubt the government would give a toss if I own weapons whose designs date back 130+ years (two lever-action rifles, a single-action revolver, and a break-action shotgun). They are pretty neat collector's pieces, though.

 

[lunavixen]

I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.

pretty much this.

Though if this were to happen in the USA (speaking hypothetically), unless there were some sort of compensation for the removal of firearms from private ownership, i think some people would resist quite severely, but to get to the point of passing a law like that would require a rewrite of sections of the Constitution and it would take a massive shift in public acceptance to get there.

 

[the clockmaker]

I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.

Mind you, how many massacres have we ever had even before Port Arthur?
And I'm fairly sure crimes went up, not firearm related crimes, but home invasions and other violent crimes :/

You would be correct. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Violent crime up 42.2% including a 49.2% increase in assault and 29.9% increase in sexual assault.
No thanks.

I'm just going to put the same rebuttal I did last time somebody used that nonsense source.

Incidence of sexual assault in 1995 1.5 percent
incidence in 2010 0.3 percent
incidence of physical assault in 95 560 per 100 000
incidence in 2010 270 per 100 000
Source -Australia bureau of Statistics
Stop throwing lies out to support your cause, if tighter restrictions on firearms caused an increase, would we not be seeing it here?

And by the way, the vast majority of assaults in Aus are punch ups at pubs and clubs, bad yes, but introducing a gun into a punch up results in deaths instead of a broken nose.

Educate yourself, go out into the world and stop posting nonsense.

edit - and sexual assault covers all forms of inappropriate physical contact, if I were to squeeze your arse, that would be sexual assault, but it would not be rape, it is not, nor has it ever been the equivilent of rape, that major major oversight alone shows how fucking ill informed your source is.

EDIT and another batch of issues with that source
-it refers to the ' Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research' an agency which to the best of my knowledge doesn't exist, there are several state agencies that go by similar names, but no national agency.
-The secondary source makes the claim that Australian women are raped 3 times as often as American women, as statistic that I have seen supported exactly nowhere
-The secondary source (by which I mean the source that your source used) made the claim that there was recently a massacre in Australia of 135 people without the use of a firearm, a claim that I shouldn't have to tell you falls somewhere between 'bullshit' and 'fucking nonsense'
-Tonally, your source and its source don't seem to be the most unbiased or reliable sites with phrases like 'anti-rights activists' and 'revisionist history' cropping up and the reference to the (non-existent) Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research uses the phrase 'even [they] acknowledges [the statistics]' as if the scary gun control bastards are trying to hide the truth from you.

I say again, your source is full of shit.

 

[Pebkio]

I fully support anyone who wants to rebel over this. Because you'll get killed for being overly-violent and an outlaw. I'll laugh. Hard. And a lot. Every time.

Afterwards, I'll sit and wait for someone actually intelligent to break the law (but without killing anyone), contest that law and eat an easy win in the federal appeals court. That way I'd be able to get me guns back legally and with less getting executed for murdering federal agents.

Then I'll go to each of you 109, trigger-happy, fools and write "pwn'd" on your gravestones.

...

...except without the getting my guns back part because I don't have, nor have ever needed, a single firearm.

 

[Ryotknife]

Were this to happen, I'm guessing it would cause another civil war, as pathetic as that sounds.

Pathetic? One of the main reasons for a civilian in a democracy to have a gun is to prevent it from becoming a dictatorship.

Yes, it's pathetic.

Pray tell, why is it that other first world countries get by perfectly fine, and democracy works as intended, without this 'need' for guns?

luck mostly, or in our case very bad luck.

most first world countries dont have anywhere near the number of problems we have that were mostly out of our hands to begin with.

the very location of our country, where the borders are, who we are near, how our population colonized, the geopgraphy of our nation, the diversity of our nation has screwed us over in the long run in this regard. None of these things were a problem in the begining.

Why dont you have problems? well because you are clumped with other first world nations, you dont have borders with a geography that makes it impossible to defend, you are not near an entire hub of nations who either have no problems with smuggling goods in our country or are unable to stop it, your population is more evenly spread out, etc etc.

It has less to do with culture than it does with basic geography, infrastructure, and who populated where.

I mean, for awhile our nation was basically split into two peices that had nothing to do with borders or a treaty. We had a heavily populated East Coast, a sparsely populated West Coast that was getting a surge of people, and virtually nothing in the middle (with the middle being thousands of miles)

 

[xDarc]

We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.

Nobody is trying to discuss that. Maybe the kind of people who play tug of war by holding onto the middle of the top, but ultimately there are two sides here- one wants all the guns gone and the other wants whatever they can get their hands on. Neither side wants to give an inch.

So why even bother to talk about what lies in the middle when no one is interested in it? Because it's sensible or logical? Maybe to you, but not to the people on one side or the other of that rope, or maybe neither.

P.S.

I've already decided I'm not registering my AR. Registration just makes confiscation that much easier. I also don't believe there's any justifiable reason for me to register except perhaps one day it might be the law. And yet, I have never even so much as been arrested once in my whole life, never had any trouble.

 

[mew4ever23]

I don't own a gun, and have no need for a gun. When some guns (can't remember what they were) were discovered in my late grandfather's house, we turned them in to the police.

Had I kept them, and the law were passed.. still turning that in. I have long been an opponent of the 2nd amendment, which covers the right to bear arms. If I have to give up a gun so that it becomes harder for people to shoot up schools, malls, theaters, etc. then I will give that up.

Needs of the many vs Needs of the few.

 

[xDarc]

We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.

Nobody is trying to discuss that.

Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.

I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If the request came after an amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory, I'd likely give them away provided they meet my simple requests.

1) Compensation for the weapons value adjusted for inflation.
2) Compensation for the tremendous time I spent selecting and shopping for my weapons, paid at my most current wage.
3) Compensation for the loss of a recreational activity.

Currently, the bill to the US government for my four firearms stands at about ten grand.

 

[loc978]

Not gonna happen, but in the case of the hypothetical, I'd give 'em up... then I'd apply for Canadian citizenship, move up there to the middle of nowhere and go through the hoops to become a registered gun owner again.

Off topic, I'd actually like to see some sensible registration, storage and mandatory education laws passed here (not useless bans and even more useless magazine size restrictions. The only type of firearm that is more dangerous to the public than any other type of firearm is the handgun. An assault weapons ban would save fewer lives than a knife ban). As a one-time firearms instructor, I think the state of anarchy in US gun ownership right now is a goddamn cluster-time-bomb that's been going off all winter.

 

[Single Shot]

If the request came after an amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory, I'd likely give them away provided they meet my simple requests.

1) Compensation for the weapons value adjusted for inflation.
2) Compensation for the tremendous time I spent selecting and shopping for my weapons, paid at my most current wage.
3) Compensation for the loss of a recreational activity.

Currently, the bill to the US government for my four firearms stands at about ten grand.

Okay, let's look at those requests a bit more.
1) alright, seems legit. this would cost the US gov millions, if not billions, but it would be needed if they ever did go ahead. it is probably one of the main reasons no such law will ever pass.
2) really? and how do you prove how much time you spent? think people. this is what makes you look dumb. besides, this would further increace the already monumental cost.
3) again, really? and what would you expect as compensation for this? would it vary depending on how often you went shooting? how would you prove how often you wandered into the woods to shoot?

P.S. of that $10,000 price tag you put on you're guns, how much of that is point 1), and how much is bulls**t 2) and 3)?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If the request came after an amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory, I'd likely give them away provided they meet my simple requests.

1) Compensation for the weapons value adjusted for inflation.
2) Compensation for the tremendous time I spent selecting and shopping for my weapons, paid at my most current wage.
3) Compensation for the loss of a recreational activity.

Currently, the bill to the US government for my four firearms stands at about ten grand.

Okay, let's look at those requests a bit more.
1) alright, seems legit. this would cost the US gov millions, if not billions, but it would be needed if they ever did go ahead. it is probably one of the main reasons no such law will ever pass.
2) really? and how do you prove how much time you spent? think people. this is what makes you look dumb. besides, this would further increace the already monumental cost.
3) again, really? and what would you expect as compensation for this? would it vary depending on how often you went shooting? how would you prove how often you wandered into the woods to shoot?

P.S. of that $10,000 price tag you put on you're guns, how much of that is point 1), and how much is bulls**t 2) and 3)?

My point is simply that, in the unlikely event that law were to pass, I would expect to be compensated. Point three is certainly meaningless - what dollar value does entertainment have anyhow but it remains a concern. Point two is impossible to prove but would nonetheless be an issue raised time and again. Even paying what amounts to a robbery fee (the total actual value of my four guns is about 1500 USD) would bet met with intense resistance.

Thus why the whole "asking for guns back" is such a hard sell. Some people would be reasonable. Some would gouge. Some would refuse and some would refuse violently. Personally, I'd gouge every penny I could get.

 

[Ryotknife]

Now those are two words that shouldn't ever be said together. Democratic paranoia. The irrational fear that the government you voted into power might be in charge.

I am so going to note that one down, and, with your permission, use it in conversation now and then.

All yours buddy. Use it well.

If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.

Don't move to the United Kingdom then. The only people with guns out here are farmers and gangsters. I'm genuinely too scared to leave my house in the daytime. I have to go out at night and stay out of the streetlights. I break into the local stores and steal tins of food to stock my basement so I never go hungry. The other day somebody knocked at my door. I made sure the boards over the windows were still on tight and locked myself in the wardrobe till they left.

Can't take chances in this mob-ruled country.

I know you are making a joke, but I live in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. We are constantly told to make sure all windows and doors are locked and to not go out at night because it is too dangerous. And i live in one of the "safest" neighborhoods. There are constant stories of people invading someone's home at night, killing the owners (mostly with knives), take whatever they can grab, and leave before the police show up. My parents have been robbed 3 times in a 15 year period, and they live in a "safe" neighborhood. They are just lucky they were never around when the house got robbed, otherwise they would be dead too.

Shall I tell you the story of a mother and her children who hid in the attic waiting for police to arrive? The intruder, armed with a crowbar, managed to break through multiple locked doors with his tool, barge his way into the attic, get shot 5 times in the chest, stumble back downstairs to his car, AND LEAVE before the police arrived.

Dont talk about what you dont understand.

Uh. What? How would guns even make any of that better?

You are right, that wife and her children being brutally murder by an intruder with a crowbar is so much better than her defending herself with a gun.

guns are an unfortunate neccessity. Yes, banning guns works in UK, im happy for you. Im not going to try to tell you that UK should stop. It wont work in the US. For one, it will cause extreme economic harm. Two, the police can not protect anyone, nor are they required to. Three, it will not stop criminals in the slightest. Four, people will die in droves from wildlife related incidents. More people die from deer in this country per year than mass shootings. Five, every single piece of evidence INSIDE the US shows that banning guns or restricting guns either makes crime WORSE or does nothing at all. It doesnt matter how gun control affects people in other countries, all that matters is how it affects ours. I live in a state with the stricest gun control laws in the country (about to get stricter, although i do agree with about half of the measures they are implementing), and it is one of the most dangerous states in the country.

If you remove the NEED for guns, then I would be much more persuaded. But so long as that need exists, banning guns is immoral, illogical, and irational

Once again...you've cited one anecdotal incident. A story. You've painted a picture of a nightmarish existence where everyone lives in fear because they don't have guns. I have a whole nation with no guns and where we don't live in fear. My example vastly trumps yours. Yeah, so, more people get stabbed. But we can work on that. Knives are tools for other purposes that just get blatantly misused.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. You want guns to kill people. Keep citing self defence, my friend, but all I'm hearing is "People are bad and I deserve the ability to kill them."

you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...

Thats a good point the 60 odd year period where guns were slowly banned, was an incredibly turbulent time, to this day if you go to the wrong area you can still get possibly even killed for voicing your opinion if your protestant/catholic unionist/separatist on the wrong side of the divide.


Ryotknife If you don't think there's accusations of institutional racism in the police, or racial tensions in the UK, or crime in general you have a story book idea of the UK. We just don't allow all this to carry on with everyone pimped out like their ready for a mission on saints row.

Also population density? are you aware how small the Uk is compared to how many people live here. How much immigration there is. We also have gangs, but again because of gun control they are not armed to the teeth.

"does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?" In short yes (excluding the borders thing) which again reinforces the point, why on earth are you justifying such easy avaliablity of arms in your country with all these problems?

1. you are going to have to back up your claim that you do ahve the same problems. Show me proof.

2.since we can not stop or even stem the flow of illegal goods, banning guns or heavily restricting them is pointless. All it will do is insure that the criminals will be armed with maximum force while the law abiding citizens will be completely defenseless. Hell Mexico is getting a wee bit pissed at us for this, especially when a government operation was botched and they essentially gave illegal guns to...undesirables...in Mexico in an effort to pinpoint where the illegal guns were flowing from. Then we lost track of our own weapons that we gave them...

3. because of population density and economy, this has a big impact on police response times

4. because of the culture of distrust towards law enforcement and economy, any attempt to vastly increase the police force will be met with stiff resistence both because of the cost and because some people will see it as a method to persecute minorities.

I also justify the availability of arms as it is the only thing proven to work around these problems inside the US. If you want to point out that as a general rule of thumb getting rid of or heavily restricting guns reduces crime in first world countries reduces crime, I would actually agree. UNFORTUNATELY, it does not work in the US. Look at the crime statistics for the cities with strict gun control, then look at the cities of dallas or Austin, well reknown for their lax gun laws.

I WISH we had a silver bullet for crime. I WISH that banning guns would work in the US. unfortunately, gun control does NOT in the US. The data shows the exact opposite.

If we could solve general poverity, especially among certain ethnic groups, if we could get better police response times, if we could stop illegal goods from flowing, if we could spread out our population in a more controlled manner, then maybe gun control would work.

unfortunately, most of those problems are simply beyond our reach without implementing a police state.

 

[the clockmaker]

We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.

Nobody is trying to discuss that.

Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.

I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.

I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?

Life is compromise, and tighter restrictions on who can own a firearm are a reasonable answer. I posted a multi point plan in another thread if you would like an example of a moderate stance.