Should Guns be Banned in the US?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJtsRRdCjKI&NR=1"]YouTube - Styles P-Gunman

 

What needs to be done is to clamp down on the scum who want to kill people.

 

What, you mean like passing a law making it illegal to murder people, and passing harsh sentences like death for it?

 

People can make their own guns in response to an earlier post. It's not that difficult and if guns were only in the hands of cops and the government then we would be at the mercy of the cops,who always show up after a break in and after a murder,or after someone killed someone who shot them after breaking into there home.. I'm no right wing gun nit at all, but we gotta be real, some people will always use a weapon be it a gun or a homemade expolosive device aka Oklahoma City bombing which used easily obtainable materials to make that bomb, or some sword , knive or club to kill another person!!
Make it more difficult for idoits,nutcases and criminals to get guns somehow!! Criminals can get guns easier than a person who buys one legally can, no ID check or waiting periods in an alley for cash!!! Think about it, the cops and government would certainly take over everything. Hitler made sure to get rid of all guns with the promise of military and police protection for the people!! SEE how that turned out?!! An armed populace is one that cannot so easily be made into sheep by the government!! And half the cops I have ever had the displeasure of being around are not IMO the types to carry guns, most are stormtrooper types or racists or anti- anything outside of the drone societys best interests=we work and produce goods ,then we buy goods and we go to sleep and work again producing goods, and not ever questioning the government!!! That's not a society I wish to be a part of and for the post part I'm not, but if the government had its way I would be rounded up and sent to a work camp for free labor,becasue I beleive in doing what I want to do and others doing what they want to do as long as it does not interfere with each others lives negatively!!

 

I hate how the human race have created such awful weapons, its a shame the world is not a peaceful place.

 

Actually in regards to Nazi Gun control since it's always so widely said:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

 

Semi-automatics are already banned in the US I think. I'm against banning firearms in the US. Though, I'm an anti-gun person, if we were to ban guns, I don't think it would be very wise. People need protection, but at the same time, crazy people need protection from themselves. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people with the guns. Economically, times are hard right now... really hard. And with desperate times come desperate measures. Just watch the news, for every 10 horrible stories, there's only one good one... and that's on a good day! What about the elderly that can't physically protect themselves from an intruder? "Wel,, we'll just give granny a taser or a baseball bat." No, you give granny a semi-automatic, sawed-off, pump-action shotgun... is what I say. OR... or, just one of those tiny handheld popguns. There's a lot of people that love her and wouldn't want her hurt. Plus, she's put a lot of time, effort, and money into our country. idk, kind of ranting I guess, humorously. But, I don't think it would be wise to put a ban on all firearms.

 

guns are banned here.... i think its better that way..
if they were legal, im sure there would be alot more killings.

 

dammit i tried to rep you!

but i have to spread it first....

 

Ireland, yea, if guns were legal there'd be a hell of a lot more murders.

 

What I found interesting about that article was the timing of Hitler extending the gun control laws in Germany, 1938. Isn't that just prior to them starting to round up the "undesireables" and shipping to "work" camps?

I expected from the linked article that site would be anti-gun, but it actually is the opposite and has a TON of solid research to support gun ownership from what I browsed through. Those of you blindly opposed to gun ownership should maybe give it a look and get some of the facts straight.
Good link Syd :2thumbsup:

 

This is a dumb question. First of all, there will always be someone with a gun. The only way to kill these people are with a gun. If guns were banned then all murderers would have a free pass to go killing as many people as desired. Sure mabey you could throw a hammer at them, but guns are more logical.

 

Terrapin2190,

You make some good points, and I agree with a lot you say. However, I did want to point out one thing you said that is partly wrong. You said:

There are a lot of folks who want to pass this into law, and there may be states and cities that have local laws against semi-autos, but they are not banned at the national level... yet.

Perhaps some education would help everyone. What you may be thinking of is "full automatic" or "selective fire." "Full automatic" basically means what you would think of as a machine gun. While this is not totally banned, it is so heavily regulated that almost no one can access one legally. "Selective fire" means that you are able to select the 3-shot bursts of full-auto that military-grade M16 rifles and many others are capable of. These are also not generally available to civilians.

The term "Semi-Automatic" sounds dangerous, but is is actually nothing to be afraid of. What it really means is that you are able to shoot one bullet out of the gun with one trigger pull. If you think about it, this is not really that different that the cowboy revolvers of the old west that were double action. The oldest cowboy revolvers had to have their hammer pulled back before you could pull the trigger to shoot, and those were called single action. On the other hand, if pulling the trigger can be used to pull back the hammer, that is called double action, which is what almost all revolvers are today.

So, how is Semi-automatic different? Well, the gun uses some of the bang to load a new bullet out of its magazine (the place where bullets are held), and this makes it a little easier for professionals to control where they aim. Other than that, there is no real difference for the average user between a modern revolver and a semi-automatic pistol.

That's all that semi-automatic means.

These days, many folks use emotionally charged words to try to stir up vague fears based on lack of knowledge. The term "semi-automatic" sounds scary, and is often used by folks who want to ban guns to imply machine gun toting maniacs, but that's just not what it means.

Hold whatever opinions you want, but if you are going to be active in any political debate it's a good idea to learn all of the facts. Then form your own opinion, and refuse to merely repeat what someone tells you you should believe.

Peace.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk"]YouTube - I Kill People

 

I actually have never read anything off that cite except that one article lol. I just always see the Nazi argument used, when in reality the Nazi gun laws especially in regards to long guns as long as you weren't Jewish actually liberalized gun laws slightly in comparison to the 1928 law passed in the Weimar republic. Bringing up the Third Reich just automatically makes a debate not rational and based on facts, even if the person is supporting your side.

Also to sum up for anyone who didn't want to read it:

 

"On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons"

That line right there would appear to support the idea that the Nazis did enforce gun control prior to rounding Jews up and shipping them off. So in reality the idea of Nazis banning gun ownership to help facilitate their "plan" and remove any armed opposition is a rather valid one after all.

As I said, the timing is rather telling, don't you think?

 

Can guns save you from suppression?

Here are a few musings on the subject that I hope might stimulate some debate.

**

To start, a bit about a theory I have.

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

**

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**


What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?

As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.


This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).
The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?

If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.

Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).

The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.

 

I know it's redundant but yup.

Lynxx, yall irish people still like brawling right? Well before the gun problem blew up in america most problems were solved with fights.

But at the same time... I live in a country where something pretty bad is almost centainly going to happen soon. All things considered, a gun would be nice.

 

You're obviously not understanding something.

Guns kill people.

There's no reason but killing people, why you would have a gun. Ever. So you shouldn't have a gun. Only the people whose job it is to keep you safe should have these killing devices.

Oh, unless it's a hunting gun, and fits my idea of what a gun for hunting should be, despite what sorts of guns are actually used for hunting every day.

 

Can you please show one instance in which a gun maliciously killed someone without a human pulling the trigger?

Actually I have been a gun "person" and owner for almost 30 years and have delved into and researched this very topic of gun control numerous times. I understand completely what the issues are.

Why don't you check the site Syd posted and read through some of the studies and statistics, then maybe you would understand that the facts and numbers DO NOT support the reasons or reasoning of those opposed to private gun ownership, actually quite the opposite.

And the reason why I own a gun is to kill the other guy before he kills me.