Should Guns be Banned in the US?

These should be the only guns allowed. They would even work for people wanting to 'defend' their houses and property. When these noble folk go to shoot the intruder it takes themselves out instead, getting rid of the root of the problem!

 

I'll take this instead

 

They would use suicide bombing instead.

 

huh, so if one person cuts off another in traffic, the offended party will blow themselves up?

me likey!

 

Sure, if their psycho enough, otherwise they'll just ram their car into them.

 

Still Hip

To repeat -

“A knife or baseball bat (the mostly commonly cited example of other weapons, if guns were banned) were designed with other purposes in mind, and yes they can be misused to kill - but shooting and killing something with a gun is not a misuse of the gun that is what the gun was designed for so basically that is its purpose (not for hunting or collecting but for killing other human beings).”

A machete is a development of a knife designed to cut back vegetation (on the other hand a sword is a weapon but again it is a development of the tool the knife).

Basically it a mental attitude it is not about wanting an innocent ‘tool’ bought for something else that could be used as a weapon, it seems to be about wanting the most efficient mean of killing people as they can buy as a weapon to protect themselves because they’re frightened.

It is out of fear of their society’s problems and their own government.

*

To repeat (again) –

“And as I’ve been pointing out all along – the mentality of many pro-gunners is opposed to the very idea of socio-economic and political change that might actually improve the situation to the point where many Americans didn’t feel so frightened of their society and fellow citizens that they thought they needed a gun to protect themselves from them.”

Please read posts 304 – 305

It is my theory that they see or come to see guns as a solution (because it can be used to tackle the symptoms) rather that searching for real solutions (that tackle the causes).

(see below)

 

Mad

Francis Fukuyama

I don’t disagree with this what I’d say is that I don’t think it has much validity in the real world, that many Americans have fallen for a myth that leads them open to manipulation.

In fact I’d go so far to say that it is about keeping the establishment (and a system) in place and that the ‘tyranny’ they fear most seems to be ‘democracy’

(see below).

 

Papa Wolf

Long time no hear, glad you’re back.

Like a lot of people you seem to confuse government with the established order. This usually consists of a minority of the population and in monetary economies usually based on wealth.

Governments don’t have to reflect the views of the established order but they can, in fact governments in a democracy should be a balance to the influence of the few, the electoral power of the many as a balance to the influence of wealth.

And opposition to ‘democracy’ has long been a hallmark of established order and the supporters of its preferred system, in many countries (including the US).

For example you say -

I have heard variations of this many times, coming mainly from those leaning toward right wing libertarianism. But the history of this quote is very telling in this thread – here I quote wikiquotes –

Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in English literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet.[/quote]
First thing to say is that it doesn’t seem to be a Franklyn quote but claiming it is gives it a lot of kudos especially amongst that crowd that think the founding fathers words are sacred. Second someone with a certain mentality and bias has subsequently added the second sentence about being armed.
The quote is basically about undermining democratic ideas; it is about instilling a distrust of democracy. Or in a later addition that democracy could only work with widespread gun ownership.
I hope people are beginning to see how deep manipulation can go.
*
To me the problem is that the ideas that often underpin gun ownership are ones that support the established system, and so leave un-tackled the underlying problems with it.

 

I think education is the key.


Because if people think that their gun is going to protect them from government I think they are sadly mistaken and if they believe widespread gun ownership is the best way of tackling crime then I think their society will become a more fearful place rather than been less so.



And if people in the US want a government of the people that genuinely works in the interests of the people then they better stop believing in myths and actually start fighting for it, otherwise it will remain a government of wealth that is run mainly in the interests of wealth.

 

So by your logic taking guns away from the population will help the poor/middle class? Obviously the wealth of this country hides behind men with guns (the Law). Wealth can certainly manipulate laws e.g lobbyist.

I should direct you to my thread

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=420964&f=51

The guy in the last video at the bottom, perhaps things would have been different for him and his country if they had a gun instead of a rock in their hands?

I wonder how it could have gotten to this? Maybe because this guys country is controlled by the wealthy, but we shouldn't forget that the wealthy in this man's country has also been supported by the (US) wealthy in my country for the pass 30 years.

What makes you think our wealthy class wouldn't do the same if they are pressured, since they lay in the same bed with each other.

A lot of you anti-gun nuts have a naive perspective unless you also lay in bed and are raping to someone else's agenda.

 

I have always, and will always, be of the opinion, that guns should be hard to reach by the common population. Those who fear, that only outlaws would carry guns then, must remember, that they still have got guns if it is legal. And if someone want to shoot you at the street, you don't have the time to say "Will you wait, I'm just gonna get my gun in my purse."

And if you ban guns, that is better prevention from guns than letting them keep them. At least you can arrest gang members, if they carry guns in public.

 

crums


Sorry but you seem to be all over the place and don’t seem to be putting up any counter argument to what I’ve actually said. Could you please read my posts before going off half cocked (which is an old gun expression).
*

I’ve said many times and will repeat once more – I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning guns.
And why do you think I’ve said that taking guns away from the population will help the poor and middle class, what is your argument?
*

What I’ve been trying to highlight is that many of the people that are pro-gun are also in favour of many of the things put forward or supported by wealth.
*

As I said earlier - the best defence against tyranny is a balanced political system and the best hope of bring one down is an army that isn’t willing to open fire on its own people.

As I said earlier - Here is a short version –

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

*

Hey! If you think US involvement in the Middle East only goes back 30 years then you need to do a bit more research.
Basically and to horrendously generalise - there was a left leaning secular movement in the Middle East during the 40’s-50’s that the Western powers (Britain, France then the US) tried to suppress or corrupt.
A good starting point could be the book - All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer - about how the CIA toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, claiming falsely that he was a communist and set up the Shah and supported his brutal regime.

Thing is that most Americans supported action against ‘communists’ at home and abroad which brings me to your next point -

*

If you mean the harassment and repression of those with alternative views to the ruling elites then I’m sorry haven’t you noticed it has already happened. And one of the major supporters of it were gun owners.

It is just that it was done in a more subtle way in the US.

See posts 304-305

*

I’m not sure where this is going or meaning can you clarify?

 

the day big brother tells us to turn in my guns i will dig a hole and hide them no way i will give up my guns remember guns dont kill people do

 

Gang members already carry guns in public and it's already illegal to do so in 48 states without a permit, it's not hard to hide a gun. Oh also

 

Doesn't that just show that people with guns suck at finishing crimes?

 

Read the title closer, it's about the victim's method of protection, not the assaulter's weapon.

 

Mad

As I said in post 336 when Still Hip brought up something similar

 

in the woods

Thing is –

(a) guns are unlikely to help you if the establishment moves against you.

(b) a lot of gun owners support the type of system that favours the establishment and it is therefore unlikely to turn against them.

Big Brother is already there whispering over your shoulder through Fox News and other right wing media.

*

As to the slogan – guns don’t kill people do – if looked at logically it actually works against widespread gun ownership, as in - people kill people so it’s probably best not to give them easy access to one of the most efficient means of killing e.g. guns.

 

Balb, I've said it again and again, guns aren't a symptom, they're a reaction, and I post the information because YOU seem to think the increase in guns leads to more crime, I don't believe in it, I've said numerous times guns play no role in the amount of gun crime that happens much like the death penalty plays no role in homicide. But if you're going to keep bringing it up, the fact remains the burden of proof is on you, and all evidence points to the fact if anything laxer gun laws in the US have correlated with less crime, while world wide there's no correlation one way or the other. So it's not opinion

 

We should make a thread why guns won't be banned.

Then we should make a thread if guns where to be banned, who would still make them illegally.