Are Gun Bans Realistic?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Motion, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    Handgun crime 'up' despite ban


    Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre

    A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned...

    The issue of gun control has come back up with the VT shootings. Some are talking about more gun control but how realistic is a total ban on guns?
  2. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    I agree with the article as far as a total ban on guns would only lead to an increase in illegal smuggling. Plus in America there are so many guns already in circulation that it would be too difficult for law enforcement to round up most of them before a gun ban goes into effect.

    America's focus should be on preventing certain individuals from getting guns such those with certain criminal records and mental problems and making the penalty harsher for black market gun dealers. This VT shooter should have never been able to purchase those guns. I'am not sure how he was missed on the gun check since he was declared unstable back in 05.
  3. earthmother

    earthmother senior weirdo

    No more realistic than the drug laws. Remember the saying about them having to "pry my gun out of my cold dead hands"? Do you realize how MANY people feel that way in the US? Now figure if there was a mandatory gun ban. All those people who feel that way would HIDE away their guns and ammo so the government couldn't get them. Now, as far as the government SHOULD be concerned (assuming they are smart enough to figure it out) that's a right dangerous amount of folks armed and presumed dangerous, in a society supposedly living under a gun ban. An across the board gun ban would cause far more problems than it would solve.

    It makes no sense. They are SO-O-O-O worried about the "ragheads" or "commies" or "terrorists" coming to mess with our priviledged existance that they are willing to destroy entire cultures, but they want to take away the very things we would need to actually defend ourselves should these prophecied situations actually come to pass...

    It should be obvious to all that the police, the national guard, nor the military can actually protect us when we are faced with an immediate emergency. No amount of American firepower can help me if I am home alone and someone has a gun in my face. If we allow the government to take away our means of protections, we set ourselves up for being helpless in an emergency.
  4. Duck

    Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

    if guns weren't banned on the Virginia Tech campus, there's a good cahnce that asshole coulda been stopped earlier
  5. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Gun control only leads to increased gun violence. It's statistically proven. It's common sense that, if you take the away the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, the black market then becomes flooded with guns, which then become widely available to the most criminal elements of society.

    If people are looking to buy a gun to commit a crime or act of violence, they're going to obtain one whether there's gun control or not. Gun control stops only decent, law-abiding people from owning guns.

    The real agenda behind gun control is disarming the people. Perhaps some of you government-worshipping, pro gun control people should look back at evey major dictatorship of the past 100 years. One of the first things Hitler did is have people's guns taken away. The same applies to the dictatorships of Stalin and Mao.

    And, like another poster mentioned above -- as I also mentioned in another thread -- Virginia is a concealed carry state, and only three months prior to this massacre, firearms were allowed on campus. In January, all firearms were banned from campus. If firearms were allowed on campus LEGALLY when this happened three days ago, perhaps we wouldn't have seen the tremendous loss of life that we saw. People would have been able to defend themselves instead of depending on the government to save them. And this incident should prove more than anything that you cannot rely on the government for anything, especially your own protection and safety.
  6. MaximusXXX

    MaximusXXX Senior Member

    I don't see why the public should be allowed to buy handguns and semi-automatics and uzis, I really don't understand why those are on the market, rifles with a scope is enough for me.
  7. Duck

    Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

    as for handguns = protection
    uzis = they can't
  8. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    If those guns are banned then only the Crips,Bloods,Vice Lords and other streetgangs would have them I guess. These gangs will be the only civilans with that type of firepower.
  9. Do you not think that the Second Amendment to the Constitution makes gun bans illegal?
  10. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    a universal ban on the mass PRODUCTION of percussive projectile fire arms would be.

    there are enough other effective ways to stop an attacker or fugative from justice these days to really no longer absolutely require reliance on LETHAL force!

  11. earthmother

    earthmother senior weirdo

    ......And really, this is the problem. This is why things like this happen. Seeing the mentally ill as assholes. Are you an asshole because you have a broken leg? Are you an asshole because you have diabetes? Are you an asshole because you have brown skin?

    Mental illness in the US is at an all time high, and yet all we can do is figure them to be assholes?

    How about we gain some understanding towards the mentally ill and treat them as ill instead of assholes? I have MUCH experience with "mentally ill" people and nearly ALL of them are great folks, but they have a sickness which they have no control over that puts them OUT of control at times. Their sicknesses should be treated as sickness, not looked over and termed "asshole". This country has TERRIBLE resources for mentally ill individuals. Instead of treatment, they tend to end up being tormented in prisons for things they could not help or didn't even realize they were doing...

    """there are enough other effective ways to stop an attacker or fugative from justice these days to really no longer absolutely require reliance on LETHAL force!""""

    Well, yes and no. Most folks respond to a gun with instant fear. So it's probably the best way to get your point across quickly in a defence situation. Lethal force is only one possibility and sould only be used if all else fails. The POLICE use lethal force regularly. Shoot to kill when in doubt is their motto. Myself, confronted with a bad situation and with a gun in my hands I would tend to shoot at someone's feet or legs. I don't want to kill ANYONE!!! Of course there are other ways, and perhaps even better ways, but it requires a bit of forethought and some practice. We have a crossbow for example. The cops ALREADY stole our guns. I say stole, because just what do you think becomes of your guns once the cops get their hands on them? They have a tendancy to simply "disappear". There is actually a local scandal about guns from an "investigation" being "sold", so they could not produce them as evidence in the court.

    Nope, guns are only a tool. It just depends on whose hands they are in and the intent. I would rather stop worrying over guns and put my energy towards creating humane and intelligent ways of dealing with the mentally ill.
  12. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    y'all seem to have this false dichotomy. truth is you are most likely to be killed by a member of your immediate family, or use a gun to kill yourself. This means that using a gun for protection is pretty asinine, because you are arming the people most likely to kill you.
    the second amendment is meant to be a check on the government in whole by the people. this made sense back when everybody had muskets, but nowadays we have abrams tanks and nuclear bombs, i think in just about any armed conflict (at least with civilians in the traditional sense, not prolonged occupations) the military is going to win.
    unless we let everybody have access to these weaponry.

    so, owning a gun is riskier than not, and the whole intent of the second amendment has already been compromised, so what's the point in keeping them?
  13. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    This is more of a "what if" question as far as America and a band on guns.

    Gun bans are already in use in some European countries like England. There are some Americans who would like to see bans on guns in America.
  14. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    Isn't the real problem in countries with gun violence problems like America more related to drugs and gangs and the conditions that contribute to them(poverty,unemployment etc)?

    Many of America's gun homicides seem to be gang and drug dealing related especially in urban areas. This also seem to be what's contributing to England's gun violence problem. So It seems if more focus is put into dealing with the conditions that breeds gangs then you could see a reduction in gun violence itself.
  15. Duck

    Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

    THAT is the problem

    seeing everyone as mentally ill

    he was NOT mentally ill
    he was a bit demented
    a bit careless about others
    that does not make him mentally ill

    it's just convient to label people that think differently from the way society says they should as mentally ill

    and as far as the lethal force thing
    how the fuck are you going to stop soemone that is shooting at you, with anything other than a gun?
    you got your spear on you at all times??
  16. earthmother

    earthmother senior weirdo

    Actually, he WAS mentally ill. I've read alot of stuff on the alternative news sites. He was evaluated "professionally" at one point and declared to be a danger to HIM SELF. (That's considered mental illness) He was on anti depressants. Doctors don't usually prescribe antidepressants just for the fun of it. (Anti depressants are medicine for someone who has a mental condition which they have no control over otherwise. Mental conditions are caused mostly by what they call "chemical imbalance" in the brain. Thus it is an illness.) Teachers and students alike were afraid of him, LONG before he did the shooting. There was something OBVIOUSLY wrong with him which was not handled properly. Funny thing about the seriously mentally ill, they don't tend to be aware enough of their illness to be able to seek the help they need on their own. After all, their minds are not functioning properly....

    I never even remotely said that EVERYONE is mentally ill. But mental illness is a pretty misunderstood condition. I WOULD go so far as to say that anyone who can pick up ANY object and use it as a weapon against innocent people simply because they are agry and "a bit demented" has some issues that seriously need to be addressed. And anyone who has it in them to slaughter that many innocent folks is more than "a bit careless about others", don't you think?...

    With at least 40% to 50% of jail inmates being held in jail when they really should be in a mental hospital (that's a statistic straight from the mouths of SEVERAL inmates I know personally in the jail system) I think society is totally missing the point. As are you.

    Oh my. I have been shot at, more than once in my life. Amazingly enough, it was by someone who was mentally ill. I tend to run, or hide, or hit the lights (I work much better in the dark when I know my way around). There are so many things a person could do to protect themselves I can't even go into it without writing a book. 'Course if someone just walked up to you and stuck a gun to your head without any warning, you might be a bit handicapped. Our personal plan (yes, we have a plan) if there were someone on our property shooting at us or our house, is for someone to sneak out back, circle round, and use the crossbow OR the swords!) Of course we have a perimiter fence and 13 dogs too. But where did this come from anyhow? I never said I was against guns, only those who use them to harm others when it is unnecessary. Which includes the military and most definately the police. Here in the WV sticks we have to protect ourselves from rogue cops more than sick people with guns (mostly meth heads)... And it ain't healthy to be shooting at cops. But if ya think for one tiny second that a cop is gonna protect you in a bad situation, you are wrong. Hell, he may even try to imply that you are part of the problem and shoot YOU!...

    Everyone needs a plan to protect themselves in case of emergency!!! It's foolish not to. That CHO dude, he went along shooting folks, alot of folks, and not one of those folks even tried to stop him? WTF? I absolutely could NOT just sit with my eyes closed and let someone simply execute my friends one by one in front of me, even stopping to reload. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND this. It makes NO sense. Don't people realize that this world is a crazy place and anything can happen at any minute, and ya better DAMN WELL be ready to act if something bad does happen. Even if ya DON'T have a gun.

    OK, here's a statement destined to be jumped on---

    This country seems to be just full of "pussies" who can't do anything but wait for someone else to do it. That's why it's so easy for some "asshole" like Cho to kill SO MANY. If all the future mass murderers had an idea that if they walked into a room with a gun and started shooting, only to be attacked by courageous people, with or without guns, who ain't gonna just sit there and take it, maybe they would think twice. But of course if they are mentally ill, they're not really thinking rationally, now are they? Slightly demented, I think you called it........

    Get the picture?
  17. polecat

    polecat Weerd

    hmm, i like my guns. I think I'll keep them.
  18. Alaskan

    Alaskan Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    I own 4 rifles, 2 shotguns and 3 hand guns. The only rapid fire is my colt 1911, 45 cal.
    I am a responsible adult and have never fired a weapon in anger. Have never threatened anyone with a weapon.
    The last time I shot any of my weapons was to put down our dog last year when she went into seizures for about 45 minutes.
    My question is am I a threat to civilization ?
  19. Duck

    Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

    as for the anti-depressants
    my friend was on them, and basically all he did was talk to his grandma say he was depressed, get taken to the psych and tell him the truth about himself, and he wasn't even depressed, he just did it to get the drugs, then he got addicted to them =/

    anti-depressants are the most commonly (and overly) prescribed psychiatric drug
    there are 32 types of anti-depressants with over 40 brand names
    studies have shown that 16% of Americans are on anti-depressants
    that's over 48-million people on anti-depressants this very second, in America alone

    also, the anti-depressants caused violent tendencies in him
    may very well have been the same here
    in fact, there are many that believe anti-depressants cause violent acts (especially suicide)

    and people are scared of lots of people, doens't make them insane
    people always say I look sad, doens't mean I actually am

    and I don't see how you can say I'm missing the poitn, when I was on my wa towards psychology when I realized all of this
    you're the one that thinks along with society, not me
    stop acting liek it's different to think of people as mentally ill, it's not
    statistics show as many as up to 60% of Americans having some sort of mental problems
    there's no fucking way that the majority of people are mentally ill
    psychologists have no fucking clue what they are doing
    every year disorders gain and lose symptoms, gain and lose names, get shifted into new categories
    every year thousands of people are misdiagnosed and diagnosed with problems they do not have (ADHD is a good example for this)

    and yes, maybe a massive group of people working together could have stopped him without the use of a gun, but there would still be people getting shot and killed in the process

    and don't be so quick to judge them
    you are seeing your friends and colleagues get shot, you are scared, you are right there in the room with the guy shooting his gun, it's sorta hard to organize an attack
  20. earthmother

    earthmother senior weirdo

    So, if you ARE on antidepressants, you could be considered possibly mentally ill whether you needed them originally or not...

    Fuck statistics and generalities, because until you have witnessed first hand what REAL honest-to-god mental illness can do to otherwise wonderful people, your arguement doesn't mean much. I'm talking about REAL mental illness, the kind most folks don't really understand, or are afraid of. The ones who would give ANYTHING for it not to be that way, but when they are, they have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over it.

    I'm not much impressed by book learning. Nor am I much impressed by lack of compassion for people who are handicapped. Much of the time, mental illnesses are of a PHYSICAL nature. Certain organs in your body (your brain IS part of your body) malfunctioning. I don't disagree with the problems with meds! There is plenty of problem when they use mental patients and others for guinney pigs. Yea, if you didn't really NEED the meds to begin with but got on them anyhow, they could cause your brain to malfunction. Absolutely. I've also seen what can happen if someone who is REALLY mentally ill gets meds that don't agree with them.

    But, No, I already KNOW that if I were in a situation like that I would have to act. I can't imagine otherwise.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice