Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Timedraven 117]

In america, banning guns NEVER WAS a option. In our first few amendments, the basic tenets of the country it states, "All men shall have the right to bare arms." That is a indisputable ground rule.

Thread done.

Tighter gun restriction? Yes fine that will do better then what we have now. But out right banning even if possible won't work very well. we have drug cartel central down south, Australia and Britain were island and isolated countries, or more isolated at least, making it easier to control.

 

[Faraja]

I don't look at modern Europe in a positive light, at all. I don't deny that. I see Europe as a continent becoming increasingly weak and reliant on others, and unwilling to do anything about it. I also expect the European Union to blow up within the next thirty years.

Can you even list a few European countries that are not EU members without looking it up on google? For that matter, do you even know how many countries are in the EU? Do you know how the EU is set up functionally, what's the role of the Parliament, of the Commission, the ECB?

I'm asking rhetorically, mind, since, it's the age of the internet after all, but if you can at least be honest with yourself I would be inclined to give you the measure of respect you're not willing to give me, because I committed the crime of "being European" and am therefore not worthy of your respect.

Without looking it up? Nope. Can you decipher the mess of government that has American's on edge? Can you name the thirteen states and territories that succeeded from the Union and became the subsequent Confederate States of America, and what happened the Union beat them back, and reabsorbed them? It led to a lot more then the freeing of slaves and the assassination of a president.

Historically, I haven't seen much evidence of Europe ever getting along with itself, and given how new Democracy is to a lot of country's, and they're very recent history, I can't see any reason why there isn't a bigger drive to protect yourselves.

 

[Vegosiux]

Without looking it up? Nope. Can you decipher the mess of government that has American's on edge? Can you name the thirteen states and territories that succeeded from the Union and became the subsequent Confederate States of America, and what happened the Union beat them back, and reabsorbed them? It led to a lot more then the freeing of slaves and the assassination of a president.

I think those questions would be relevant and would have revealed me as much of a hypocrite...if I was actually hating on USA without bothering to understand why stuff happens over there the way it happens.

Oh and by the way, I get the feeling you Americans can't decipher that mess, and it's your mess; I could name five or six tops; and I do not understand the last question because it seems to be missing an adverb or a preposition somewhere.

 

[Faraja]

Without looking it up? Nope. Can you decipher the mess of government that has American's on edge? Can you name the thirteen states and territories that succeeded from the Union and became the subsequent Confederate States of America, and what happened the Union beat them back, and reabsorbed them? It led to a lot more then the freeing of slaves and the assassination of a president.

I think those questions would be relevant and would have revealed me as much of a hypocrite...if I was actually hating on USA without bothering to understand why stuff happens over there the way it happens.

Oh and by the way, I get the feeling you Americans can't decipher that mess, and it's your mess; I could name five or six tops; and I do not understand the last question because it seems to be missing an adverb or a preposition somewhere.

No, that mess was pretty much sorted out after the war was over. And the last question is pretty much self explanatory; why, with Europe's history of institutional anarchy, recent history of starting conflicts that spanned the globe, and governments that never recognized the rights of the common people (or only select variety of people) would you trust any government enough to surrender anything that gives you actual leverage against the government?

In the same vein as the Civil War being our problem, Nazi Germany was Europe's problem, and Europe's fault. Maybe we shouldn't have gotten involved, ever. How long do you think the war would have lasted if the US stuck solely to the Japanese Empire, and didn't get involved at all in any sort of reconstruction effort?

This entire argument has turned into a giant pissing contest between you and I, detracting from the real question. I know why Europeans moved to eliminated guns, but I can't understand it to save my life.

 

[darksakul]

For every fool that argue about gun control and making guns illegal fail to see the big picture.

In the United States you have to be 21 to purchase a fire arm. Most states require a 3 day wait as they check your background. And weapons you own have to be registered, although guns purchase before registration laws do not require this if that sole owner does not later end up selling said gun (grandfather clause).

In the resent school shooting, the shooter is only 20 and suffers mental illness, so he can not legally purchase a gun.
So ether the shooter went to the black market, someone some-how provided a gun or someone fail to properly secure their own gun. In the Columbine shooting, the shooter was provided the gun by his parents.

This image macro is telling the truth, convected criminals, violent offenders can care less what the laws say.
You think La Mara Salvatrucha, the MS-13 Gang (google it) cares about gun laws, do you think they care about being high profile or not? There are people who get illegal weapons and not just acquire them for use, but flaunt it in the faces of authority. They split at your laws and laugh about the idea of gun control.

In the 1990s the Yugoslavia civil war, there were people who spot welded pipes together to make crude shot guns, made their own black power and use bolts and screws as make shift ammo.
So if even if you manage to eliminate all guns, there be creative people to some how fabricate their own.

As locks only keep honest people honest, thieves will break or pick a lock. Gun restrictions only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. No where are land mines and rocket propelled grenades are legal for sale to civilians, so explain to me how terrorist have land mines and Rocket propelled grenades? Anti-weapon laws did not keep weapons out of terrorist hands, they ether got their weapons on the black market, they stole them or someone provided them the weapons.

Not all crime is motivated by money or profit, some crimes are crimes of hate, passion, weakness (as in lack of self control or a cry for help) or by impulse.

The resent Connecticut school shooting was the result of a sick individual who needed help, and this act was his final cry. Most of these shootings are from people who are ill and needed help and some how has fallen though the traps. This do not mean we chastise and attack those with mental illness. What we should do is reach out to those who need help, find them the help they need before those individuals take drastic action.

Typically (regardless of motivation) criminals are bullies, and bullies pick on the weak and the defenseless.
If you keep and maintain a weapon (of any sort) in your home (or even a trusty dog), you are less likely to be targeted of a crime.

Yes it is impractical to arm those children who became victims, and it is impractical to arm most of the teachers.
But it is practical to try to keep your own guns secure and away from someone who only misuse it.

Instead of calling for gun control, we need to do is have gun education. Nation wide gun education for all age groups and people.

For gun owners that means keeping there weapons in a safe place where is out of the reach of children and those who only misuse it. To teach people guns are not toys, they are tools of survival, for defense and lethal weapons. That Guns should be stored unloaded until they are needed for use. For non-owners and owners alike teach them what and how to respond to a gunmen.

 

[Callate]

"It won't make the problem stop immediately" is a bad excuse for continuing to do nothing. We don't accept "but it will be haaaaaaard" as an excuse not to do homework, for God's sake; why are we accepting it as an excuse to allow shootings to continue?

Yes, criminals will be able to continue to get guns for a while. But as has been pointed out, the guns that were used in the Connecticut shooting were legally purchased by the mother of the assailant (who used them to end her life.) It begs the question how we know criminals will continue to get weapons illegally when so frequently it's possible for them to get guns that, at least somewhere up the line, were purchased legally. It also screams how ridiculous it is to continue to insist that there's some magical line between law-abiding gun owners and outlaws that never gets crossed when, prior to the school shooting, the gunman had no criminal record.

No one needs an assault rifle to protect their home or hunt. It's high time we got them out of public circulation. Yes, it will be hard. Yes, there will probably be people who will get angry. That anger does not come out of a reasoned or reasonable place, and it shouldn't dictate the terms of the discussion.

 

[Faraja]

"It won't make the problem stop immediately" is a bad excuse for continuing to do nothing. We don't accept "but it will be haaaaaaard" as an excuse not to do homework, for God's sake; why are we accepting it as an excuse to allow shootings to continue?

It has nothing to do with being hard. It has to do with politics and the personal beliefs of how gun control should work in this country.

Yes, criminals will be able to continue to get guns for a while. But as has been pointed out, the guns that were used in the Connecticut shooting were legally purchased by the mother of the assailant (who used them to end her life.) It begs the question how we know criminals will continue to get weapons illegally when so frequently it's possible for them to get guns that, at least somewhere up the line, were purchased legally. It also screams how ridiculous it is to continue to insist that there's some magical line between law-abiding gun owners and outlaws that never gets crossed when, prior to the school shooting, the gunman had no criminal record.

Wait, wait, wait. You mean, the guy had no criminal record, then decided to go on a killing rampage? So, he crossed from one extreme to the other? If only there was some sort of metaphor for that. Crossing the river? Crossing the yard? No, those still require time spent crossing a large area. Oh! What about crossing the line!

No one needs an assault rifle to protect their home or hunt. It's high time we got them out of public circulation. Yes, it will be hard. Yes, there will probably be people who will get angry. That anger does not come out of a reasoned or reasonable place, and it shouldn't dictate the terms of the discussion.

I've listed several reasons where an assault rifle would come in handy already.

 

[the clockmaker]

Source -Australia bureau of Statistics

You may recognise that as an actual Australian agency, regarded as the sole authority of Australian statistics
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0
There is the crime hub, which should give you access to the same info that I had. Whereas you quoted an article that couldn't tell the difference between sexual assault and rape. Please try and claim that your source is more accurate than the ABS with regards to Australia, it will make things so much easier for me.

From what I can see, your logic was that crime had increased in Aus since guns were restricted (note, you can still have hunting weapons here) that, I have refuted.

And where I live at the moment, nobody lives in fear.

[post="18.396399.16143361"]I don't see you doing anything to fix those problems.

Well you'd have to, you know, actually get to know a person and spend some time with them before you can actually see them doing anything, don't you think?

On that note, I don't see you doing anything to fix anything either. And frankly, the people I'd suspect would want to declare themselves supreme führer and oppress me are the people who act as if they're so fucking superior and above me.

A bit like what you've been doing in the recent posts.[/quote]

I don't look at modern Europe in a positive light, at all. I don't deny that. I see Europe as a continent becoming increasingly weak and reliant on others, and unwilling to do anything about it. I also expect the European Union to blow up within the next thirty years.

You might also want to go back and re-read my posts, I fully support the rights of the people to arm themselves for personal, home, and national defense. Be that from a foreign power, or a domestic government gone rogue.[/quote]

And what is it with this delusion that you are going to defend your home from opressors? A domestic government will have way more pull and ability to organise the people of your land than you will, the fact is that a fair amount will support the government and you will be unable to conduct an unpopular insurgency.

A foreign government conducting a land invasion of the US that ended in a permanent/ semi permanent occupation would have to have a few things at their disposal,
1- Massive manpower and a willingness to take casualties, meaning that your popping off rounds at them isn't going to scare them
2- Political and ideological will, meaning that they will see nothing wrong with killing your entire family after they killed you to discourage futher attacks
3- Technological/ doctrinal parity, meaning that they can kill you from hundreds of miles away and will have a working knowledge of counter insurgency (note, this does not mean they read the wikipedia page on IEDs, it means they actually have trained to combat them)
4- Training, a knowledge and muscle memory of tactics and a proven ability to conduct operations despite friction and enemy action.

Note that you have none of those things.

Full convent warfare between major world powers is essentially dead, wars of conquest are essentially dead. Nukes killed them, interlinked economies killed them, public opinion killed them to the point that seventeenth century warfare that ends when the union jack flies over the white house or the sang saka merah putih over Canberra is redundant.

A war between, say, the US and china would play out in south east/east Asia and end with the losing power withdrawing their sphere of influence closer to themselves. It would not end with Chinese troops on the streets of DC.

And even if your dreams came true and the evil foreigners were on the streets, your 'helping' your country by becoming an insurgent (in the vanishingly unlikely chance that you lasted more than a day) would do more harm to the infrastructure and populace than simply letting the regular forces handle it would have, simply because you don't have access to the plan of how attacks and counter attacks are going to take place, examples,
-Blow up a bridge, turns out the army needed it for their counter attack
-Shoot an MP, reprisals catch the actual special forces in the area
-Attempt to ambush a patrol, they are alerted and aren't caught by the real ambush down the road.

You would do more harm than good.

The rules of the american revolution do not apply, the rules of world war one do not apply, the rules of world war 2 do not apply, the rules of the cold war do not apply.

ADAPT.

 

[the clockmaker]

This image macro is telling the truth, convected criminals, violent offenders can care less what the laws say.

Please go back in the thread and read my response to this macro.

 

[J Tyran]

In america, banning guns NEVER WAS a option. In our first few amendments, the basic tenets of the country it states, "All men shall have the right to bare arms."

I do not need a constitution to tell me that I can wear a T-shirt. (Joke btw don't get mad)

 

[ArmyTanker8402]

First I want to recommend a book "Deer hunting with Jesus" that I had to read in college. The author grew up in a very conservative home and is a "cultural defector" if you will. This book will give you an insight into the U.S gun culture, its also very funny.

With all the talk of guns and shootings recently I've read allot of posts from users oversees that suggest we simply make guns illegal in the U.S. The problem is it just wont work, guns have become an enormous part of america's culture and are apart of the nation's heritage/identity. I don't identify with the subculture that is obsessed with guns but I know people who are and if guns were made illegal there would be very large, very dangerous, armed riots all over the country.

Secondly there are huge, powerful lobbying groups that spend billions to maintain influence in Washington and they will not see the day when guns become illegal.

Gun laws and control might work but making guns completely illegal is not an option anymore.

glad you remmeber me, cha
here we go again.
americas culture is rooted with weapons. its a sad truth. but that does not mean we can just leave it be. make guns illegal. rioting? jail them. armed riots? let the army interviene. make a CLEAR message that guns are not welcome. its a decisive action, yes, but thats the only thing that works when your whole culture is rotten.

lobbying groups, well, thats why you dont have gun control and they wont let that, that us true, however we are speaking of what should be done and not what can be done if some criminals would say its ok.

Banning all guns in the US at one point will just make this point stand out more: http://www.donself.com/images/wonka-gun-laws.jpg

except that most of the shootings were done by non-criminals who had a perfect record all the way up to the time they opened fire.

You're clearly underestimating the amount of gun owners we have here who value their firearms more than their own lives.

remove them. whether its jail or death sentence, noone in the world need people like them.

1. Gun owners need compensation. Market value, as set out by constitution. America can't afford this.

2. Gun makers. They cant exist in a country with banned guns. They leave and look to other countries, taking every single prototype and project with them. Paid by tax payers. Also need compensation as well for their stock. Basically buy out the endless supply of defense contractors America employs in ADDITION to the gun owners.

The tally total for banning guns numbers in the trillions.

3. You need a search warrant. For every house in America. That and its also against the law in America for the government to just come in without probable cause. To search every house without cause, without warrant, and illegally is a tyrannical act. The populace WILL rebel.

Not only that, but the police would be STRETCHED TO THEIR LIMIT, and they cant stay in one house longer for an hour because they have a lot of shit to do. So you might not even get all the guns, crime goes uncontested, and we have all of our homes raided.

Any more questions?

gun owners dont need compensation. they made their own foolish choice when they decided to buy guns.
gun makers can GTFO the faster the better.
gun prototype contracts will stay, because army will still use them, and thier userbase wont change.
that can easily be changed. they will rebel? crush them with rain of thier own medicine - bullets. and then tell them that this is EXACTLY what they are fighting for. because thats what it is - a right to go on a shooting rampage.
hiring more police officers is always a good idea.

Before any of this has to happen the Constitution would have to be destroyed because you ran through almost every single thing that has to do with search and seizure, limiting the military's involvement in any of this. Most of the ground forces(Army and Marines) would be defending the rights of the guns. The military swears to protect the Constitution not whomever sits in the White House or in Congress. If that person/people in power think that they military will blindly follow them they better expect to face those same people who are trained and willing to fight for what they stand for.

 

[darksakul]

This image macro is telling the truth, convected criminals, violent offenders can care less what the laws say.

Please go back in the thread and read my response to this macro.

Yeah I have already read your post before I wrote my own, and I decided to disregard your short sighted opinions.

The fact of the matter is there are criminals who only laugh if you bring up the topic of gun control (if they do not try to kill you where you stand). As if you would bother to read my post, I pointed out the MS 13 gang who not just do not care if they become high profile, but will make it very obvious to law enforcement who they are and what they have just to rub it into there faces.

 

[Faraja]

Source -Australia bureau of Statistics

You may recognise that as an actual Australian agency, regarded as the sole authority of Australian statistics
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4530.0
There is the crime hub, which should give you access to the same info that I had. Whereas you quoted an article that couldn't tell the difference between sexual assault and rape. Please try and claim that your source is more accurate than the ABS with regards to Australia, it will make things so much easier for me.

From what I can see, your logic was that crime had increased in Aus since guns were restricted (note, you can still have hunting weapons here) that, I have refuted.

And where I live at the moment, nobody lives in fear.

[post="18.396399.16143361"]I don't see you doing anything to fix those problems.

Well you'd have to, you know, actually get to know a person and spend some time with them before you can actually see them doing anything, don't you think?

On that note, I don't see you doing anything to fix anything either. And frankly, the people I'd suspect would want to declare themselves supreme führer and oppress me are the people who act as if they're so fucking superior and above me.

A bit like what you've been doing in the recent posts.

I don't look at modern Europe in a positive light, at all. I don't deny that. I see Europe as a continent becoming increasingly weak and reliant on others, and unwilling to do anything about it. I also expect the European Union to blow up within the next thirty years.

You might also want to go back and re-read my posts, I fully support the rights of the people to arm themselves for personal, home, and national defense. Be that from a foreign power, or a domestic government gone rogue.[/quote]

And what is it with this delusion that you are going to defend your home from opressors? A domestic government will have way more pull and ability to organise the people of your land than you will, the fact is that a fair amount will support the government and you will be unable to conduct an unpopular insurgency.[/quote]

And an already armed populace with working knowledge of firearms is going to be much easier to organize than a bunch of people who probably haven't even seen a weapon fired outside of CoD. They're going to adapt easier to the weapons training, and will probably have a few of their own, meaning you can cut down on the number of weapons you'll have to provide.

Or give you a source of reserve firepower and scrap.

A foreign government conducting a land invasion of the US that ended in a permanent/ semi permanent occupation would have to have a few things at their disposal,
1- Massive manpower and a willingness to take casualties, meaning that your popping off rounds at them isn't going to scare them
2- Political and ideological will, meaning that they will see nothing wrong with killing your entire family after they killed you to discourage futher attacks
3- Technological/ doctrinal parity, meaning that they can kill you from hundreds of miles away and will have a working knowledge of counter insurgency (note, this does not mean they read the wikipedia page on IEDs, it means they actually have trained to combat them)
4- Training, a knowledge and muscle memory of tactics and a proven ability to conduct operations despite friction and enemy action.

And they're going to have to contend with a group that knows the surrounding area, the weather conditions, seasonal changes, and are fighting for their homes, families, and lives. They're also going to have to be willing to destroy a great deal of the natural resources of this country.

Note that you have none of those things.

Full convent warfare between major world powers is essentially dead, wars of conquest are essentially dead. Nukes killed them, interlinked economies killed them, public opinion killed them to the point that seventeenth century warfare that ends when the union jack flies over the white house or the sang saka merah putih over Canberra is redundant.

A war between, say, the US and china would play out in south east/east Asia and end with the losing power withdrawing their sphere of influence closer to themselves. It would not end with Chinese troops on the streets of DC.

There would have to be a land invasion of the pushed back power. If one's navy slinks off, they'll either rebuild it, stronger this time, or go for broke and launch the missiles. Assuming neither side wants to literally wiped off the face of the map, I'm going to go with the first one.

And even if your dreams came true and the evil foreigners were on the streets, your 'helping' your country by becoming an insurgent (in the vanishingly unlikely chance that you lasted more than a day) would do more harm to the infrastructure and populace than simply letting the regular forces handle it would have, simply because you don't have access to the plan of how attacks and counter attacks are going to take place, examples,
-Blow up a bridge, turns out the army needed it for their counter attack
-Shoot an MP, reprisals catch the actual special forces in the area
-Attempt to ambush a patrol, they are alerted and aren't caught by the real ambush down the road.

You would do more harm than good.

If it ever happened, and the US was invaded, who do you think the military would turn to for aid? Best bet would be the local militias. They're going to know their weapons inside and out, have a vast understanding of local terrain, be the quickest at establishing regional supply lines, and will probably have methods of communications the Chinese would never think about.

The rules of the american revolution do not apply, the rules of world war one do not apply, the rules of world war 2 do not apply, the rules of the cold war do not apply.

ADAPT.

Really? I'm pretty sure if I interviewed a thousand soldiers from Iraq, or still stationed in Afghanistan, they'd tell me that the only thing to really change in ground warfare is that we don't line up in giant squares anymore.

 

[ArmyTanker8402]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

You can't exactly walk into a Walmart and buy a full-auto anymore, ya know?

No, but the general public can buy full automatic weapons legally. It doesn't matter if it's not at the general store, the fact that it's even possible is fucking ridiculous. And I don't care how well you check out mentally, the average joe should not be able to buy military weaponry.

And wait... "anymore"? You mean it was actually possible at one point to buy full automatic weapons at Wallmart? For Christ's sake...

The general public cant buy automatic firearms.

You have to have the authorization of your local LEOs (extremely hard to get, I tried) and then you have to have a government agency COME TO YOUR FUCKING HOUSE to inspect it, and make sure you have secure storage for said weapons, and then you have to be a business and fill out a massive stack of forms and go through several background checks by your local law enforcement, the ATF, and the FBI and then, and only then, can you purchase an automatic weapon that was made BEFORE 1986.

No wonder so many people go "OMAGAD MERICA AND DER GUNS" they dont know what the fuck they are talking about.

Then how the hell did a mother who had a son with obvious mental issues get a clear check by the ATF, and the FB?

I don't care how much paperwork you have to sort through and how many inspections you have to pass, allowing civilians to own automic weapons in their own home is dangerous. If you really, really, REALLY want one it should be kept locked away at the local firing range whenever you're not using it for target practice or cleaning.

Wut?

They didnt have an automatic weapon.

The AR-15 is a SEMI AUTOMATIC version of the military M16 AUTOMATIC weapon, they are virtually identical except that the one that a civilian can get their hands on is semi automatic, meaning you have to pull the trigger each time you want a bullet to come out of it.

The reason it is considered an ASSAULT rifle is because it has a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Just an FYI for everyone in the thread the United States armed forces no longer use a full auto rifle. This was phased out after Vietnam I believe. All rifles are now either single or triple shot rifles. The machine guns are still full auto however they are not rifles.

 

[godofallu]

Every time a tiny disproportionate amount of people die in a school shooting the entire world goes crazy and acts like it is the worst thing that has ever happened.

More than a hundred people die every ten minutes from car crashes in the US alone but you don't stop letting people drive cars.

The point is that the amount of people that die from firearms is nothing in comparison to the sheer amount of people that would loose their hobbies. Their way to hunt and put food on the table for their family in rural areas. Their collections. Their way to defend themselves. A way to employ hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone. To provide millions upon millions in taxes which help fuel our government and our economy.

Why not ban computers. It's true that many are used every year in crimes all over the world, and at great frequency. How about knives or cars?

Who wants to let any government tell them what they can or can't own? That's just foolish. Giving up even the most basic means of self defense and putting all of your trust in a group of people you don't even know. Who won't be with you at all times, and who probably don't even know you exist. Politicians and cops can be bought. But even if they were all perfect noone will ever lookout for your safety as well as you.

 

[Faraja]

First I want to recommend a book "Deer hunting with Jesus" that I had to read in college. The author grew up in a very conservative home and is a "cultural defector" if you will. This book will give you an insight into the U.S gun culture, its also very funny.

With all the talk of guns and shootings recently I've read allot of posts from users oversees that suggest we simply make guns illegal in the U.S. The problem is it just wont work, guns have become an enormous part of america's culture and are apart of the nation's heritage/identity. I don't identify with the subculture that is obsessed with guns but I know people who are and if guns were made illegal there would be very large, very dangerous, armed riots all over the country.

Secondly there are huge, powerful lobbying groups that spend billions to maintain influence in Washington and they will not see the day when guns become illegal.

Gun laws and control might work but making guns completely illegal is not an option anymore.

glad you remmeber me, cha
here we go again.
americas culture is rooted with weapons. its a sad truth. but that does not mean we can just leave it be. make guns illegal. rioting? jail them. armed riots? let the army interviene. make a CLEAR message that guns are not welcome. its a decisive action, yes, but thats the only thing that works when your whole culture is rotten.

lobbying groups, well, thats why you dont have gun control and they wont let that, that us true, however we are speaking of what should be done and not what can be done if some criminals would say its ok.

Banning all guns in the US at one point will just make this point stand out more: http://www.donself.com/images/wonka-gun-laws.jpg

except that most of the shootings were done by non-criminals who had a perfect record all the way up to the time they opened fire.

You're clearly underestimating the amount of gun owners we have here who value their firearms more than their own lives.

remove them. whether its jail or death sentence, noone in the world need people like them.

1. Gun owners need compensation. Market value, as set out by constitution. America can't afford this.

2. Gun makers. They cant exist in a country with banned guns. They leave and look to other countries, taking every single prototype and project with them. Paid by tax payers. Also need compensation as well for their stock. Basically buy out the endless supply of defense contractors America employs in ADDITION to the gun owners.

The tally total for banning guns numbers in the trillions.

3. You need a search warrant. For every house in America. That and its also against the law in America for the government to just come in without probable cause. To search every house without cause, without warrant, and illegally is a tyrannical act. The populace WILL rebel.

Not only that, but the police would be STRETCHED TO THEIR LIMIT, and they cant stay in one house longer for an hour because they have a lot of shit to do. So you might not even get all the guns, crime goes uncontested, and we have all of our homes raided.

Any more questions?

gun owners dont need compensation. they made their own foolish choice when they decided to buy guns.
gun makers can GTFO the faster the better.
gun prototype contracts will stay, because army will still use them, and thier userbase wont change.
that can easily be changed. they will rebel? crush them with rain of thier own medicine - bullets. and then tell them that this is EXACTLY what they are fighting for. because thats what it is - a right to go on a shooting rampage.
hiring more police officers is always a good idea.

I'm borrowing your post, ArmyTanker.

Strazdas, everything you mentioned doing is pretty much why the second amendment has to exist. Not only that, you're basically proving you don't support liberties, and have no real clue about what you're talking about. The majority of the military would immediately turn against the government the second they tried to pull something like this, taking all of their equipment with them. It would be a civil war more devastating than any seen since the Second World War. If, that is, the entire military didn't turn against the government. They'd have to resort to the creation military drones far more advanced then what currently exists.

If the government somehow survived, they'd emerge as a true police state. Watching every citizen all the time. They'd raid homes on a constant basis, and destroy the Constitution.

Over the course of several years, you'd see a great number of cities in the US reduced to rubble, and more people killed then by all the gun crimes committed since the US's creation.

Arms producers would go bankrupt, including the ones who create weaponry for the military. Thousands of jobs would be lost over night.

You're also promoting arresting people for doing something they're guaranteed the right to do.

 

[the clockmaker]

words

YOu have the less understanding of modern conflicts than anyone that I have seen in a long time. It is just fucking mind boggling. You seriously think nothing has changed since world war 2? seriously? You know what me and my mates would say if you asked the question of what has changed, we would ask you what part of the war on terror you meant, because Afghan 10years ago is as differant from afghan today as vietnam was from the Indonesian war of independence. 'Nothing has changed' that statement is a fucking insult to the, I shit you not, millions of man hours in doctrine/capability/tactic/equipment/cultural development that occur with each warfare paradigm shift.

You seem to think that firing a weapon is all there is to warfighting, or that being a good shot is all that is required to be an effective combatant. False. YOu seem to think that all wars are total wars, False. Yo do not understand your own nations geopolitical weight or how that weight is maintained and so you are putting it into simple terms so that it makes sense through your lens of ignorance.

-Civilian combatants are not an asset in combat, they are unreliable, prone to atrocities, prone to panic, difficult to coordinate and liable to see themselves as rambo. They do more harm than good and provide no real asset to the defence of the realm. At most they can stand there and die as a distraction.

-Warfare between two first order powers cannot occur without instantly destroying both economies and the cost involved would be so crippling that both parties will wish to end the war as quickly as possible through the 'best acceptable peace' that is not total victory for either side, that is, perhaps, the US abandoning Taiwan or the PRC recognising it.

Seriously, stop trying to apply 'what you would do' to warfighting, because you clearly have fucking zero understanding of it.

Also, nice job ignoring the thing I origonally quoted you for, do you accept that your source was wrong or not?

and please preview your posts before posting, it is kind of annoying when your words are in my quote and vice versa.

This image macro is telling the truth, convected criminals, violent offenders can care less what the laws say.

Please go back in the thread and read my response to this macro.

Yeah I have already read your post before I wrote my own, and I decided to disregard your short sighted opinions.

The fact of the matter is there are criminals who only laugh if you bring up the topic of gun control (if they do not try to kill you where you stand). As if you would bother to read my post, I pointed out the MS 13 gang who not just do not care if they become high profile, but will make it very obvious to law enforcement who they are and what they have just to rub it into there faces.

Mate, if you are going to decide to 'disregard' my post without actually refuting any of the points, you're having a laugh if you think I'm going to pay any respect to yours. MS 13 is an issue, one that requires a much more dedicated and determined law enforcement campaign than the one it is receiving, but mate, your gun isn't going to stop them either.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

Yes, and ignoring cultural differences makes SO much sense.

Ignoring the fact that the situations are COMPLETELY different makes SO much sense.

Your sarcasm detector is broken. You should fix it.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

The U.K. doesn't see gun ownership as a personal right, the U.S government does (Also, the UK doesn't ban guns. They do license guns out ya know). To ban all firearms, you'd first need to repeal the second amendment, which is just never going to happen. Not because there aren't anyone lobbying against though mind you, but because it just does not have enough support to make it through the house, let alone the senate and the states.

A ban on firearms is just not possible with among such a divided group of people.