How To Argue For Gun Control.

If that's the case then they shouldn't be released. As I said, if they're too dangerous to own a gun then they're too dangerous to be out of jail.

 

Problem is, responsible gun ownership is never in the news. You'll never see a headline like, "Man With Gun Commits No Crime Today."

 

Mac

AND again you repeat something that has already been covered AND again you don’t address the outstanding criticisms of it.

But then as has been established by this thread you don’t actually have answers to the criticisms and that's why you have to constantly repeat your deeply flawed statements – it’s very dishonest

 

Mac

It’s already happened in the US and since it was used against the left most people on the right actually supported it.

I think many of the things been done in the name of ‘getting illegal immigrants' is terrible (like splitting up peaceful working families etc.) but many on the right are happy to support it even cheer it on even when it is clearly politically motivated scapegoating.

Again this has already been covered (I’m increasingly of the opinion that you know stuff has been covered but knowing you have no really counter argument to the criticism that then appear you ignore that and just repeat things again – it’s a really dishonest way of acting).

The point being that many on the right would support (and have supported) stuff have and would that inch the US toward tragedy.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Queen

Problem is that many studies have shown that having a gun makes you more likely of getting shot and killed or of shooting and killing someone else.

And the thing is that prudent gun control (as suggested in this thread) is about trying to lessen the likely of guns falling into the hands of the criminal or irresponsible, are you opposed to that and if not why not?

 

However you do see "man with gun stops robbery."

 

A gun owner spends years training for the moment they might need it. In my opinion this is why you see this. In their mind the gun is always there so when the slightest agitation comes up it is the solution. Some are better about judging this then others. But the community as a whole will always defend itself from outsiders.

 

Saying something and something actually happening are two different things.

But what if the Supreme Court repelled the prohibition of murder?

Ultimately no.

However you have to make the case that it should change in this instance.

I honestly don't care what two states declare as firearms since I have a 1/48 chance of actually residing in one of those two states.

It's one thing to make laws that have proven to reduce harm, its another to make laws that haven't done anything of the sort. If a law fails at it's objective (miserably I might add) then it should be repealed. As for machine guns, as mentioned, the law did little affect to reduce crime.

And I argue that they should be subtracted.

I agree with the first part but not the second. I still stand by my view that whatever the average soldier has access to, we should also.

 

And how do you know the the act was responsible? Many things changed within that time period including the repealing of the prohibition of alcohol which was the main cause for the crime spree. Also criminals prefer practicality and lugging a automatic weapon around is very conspicuous.

Yes.

 

Because violent crime continued after the law was enacted.

It leaves law abiding citizens underpowered against the armed criminals.

If you're talking about rifles, even they make up only 3% of all gun crime. In fact you're most likely to get killed by hands and feet than you are by rifles. If you're talking about smaller weapons like Uzis and Glock 18s, anyone with a bit of know how can convert pretty much any semi auto weapon into full auto. The reason why criminals most often use pistols is because they're easier to conceal.

 

LOL, yeah a little know how and a machine shop.
it really isn't as easy as you may think to convert weapons. Things made prior to the mid 80's-90's, maybe, but you still have to machine the parts.

 

True, but you can YouTube pretty much anything.

 

That was a time when police carried revolvers, no bullet proof vests, and MAYBE a shotgun in the car. Automatic weapons don't make that much of a difference in today's world.

Those weapons weren't available to the public to begin with. While they weren't regulated, they were however expensive. Also if I remember correctly, Bonnie and Clyde stole the BARs from an armory. Meaning that if I'm correct, it wasn't the fact that automatic weapons weren't regulated that gave them access.

Let me clarify, it's actually difficult to convert semi auto to auto, however at the same time it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

 

Actually it was because bulletproof vests weren't fully developed back then. Even the military didn't had them. In fact, I believe the British police of today had bulletproof vests (or at the very least knife vests) and they don't carry nor do most of the law abiding community. As for the other stuff, that's only partially true. They did had those things but it wasn't issued to every patrol car.

And there lies the root of the problem. It was the prohibition that caused them to form gangs to begin with.

For one, the only people who could afford Tommy guns were people of upper class and for another, the gangs stopped when the prohibition ended. We're there any accounts of police raiding gang members because they still own unregulated automatic weapons? If not then how can you say that it was the NFA Act that quell the crimes with automatic weapons?