Should Guns be Banned in the US?

This comment is real funny, apparently this guy thinks anyone who supports the constitution, watches fox news and swings right.

The question I want to know, why is someone from the UK in a discussion about United State law? Like really do you think you're going to change someones opinion in here?

:beatdeadhorse5: You can't even vote here? Most US citizens don't want euro trash gun-laws that's why it never really went any where in the 90's when it was hip to be anti-gun to so many Europeans/Australians.

Pushed hard by foreign affair strings over the ACLU in 97 through the US though, this is the reason why the NRA ballooned and received so many American members during and after that period. Of course if you talk to any anti-gun nut today they will say the complete opposite, in their controlling view the NRA are a bunch of lobbyist hicks seeking to destroy English Tory democracy.

The way Islam law is going to be rule in UK's sort comings very soon I bet some of those people on the other side of the Atlantic are really regretting that decision.

Don't be a puppy to the one world dynasty.

Get a clue, then get lost right out of this thread.

 

Mad

And I’ve given you my reply to that again and again which you have so far completely ignored (try post 288) why not actually address what I’ve said in my reply and then we can move on, if you are just going to say something and then ignore any reply to it then we are stuck.

As I’ve said rather than just getting all huffy it would be much better putting that energy into reading what has been presented.

*

Again I truly wish that you would read my posts rather than ignoring them, posts 304-305 could be a good start.

Yes guns are a reaction, but that is my point – the reaction seem to be based on a certain mentality (I’ve talked about this in most of my posts in this thread have you not read any of them?)

“My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.”


If the mentality was different I think the reaction would be different – if the mentality saw crime as societal and systematic problem then they would look to community solutions based on societal and system changes. However if the mentality saw crime as the fault of individual ‘baddies’ that could be countered by individual ‘goodies’ through the threat of violence, then they are likely to look to individual solutions based on threat.

What I’m saying is that this approach, this mentality only seems to be a about tackling the symptoms not about finding solutions to the causes of those symptoms.

*

The fact is there are those with differing views meaning there are differing opinions, which means that what you believe in is only one opinion, contested and disputed.

But again I covered this in the post 288.

“you are promoting the idea that it is a ‘fact’ uncontested and undisputable that more gun ownership correlates directly (and by implication solely) to lower crime rates.

You almost scream the assertion - admit guns do play a role in crime........they lower it.

Well first that isn’t a ‘fact’ it is an opinion and one that is strongly and vigorously contested and disputed by others because it often seems based on a very subjective interpretation of the evidence and/or methodically dubious data. At best it is an unproven assertion, at worst a myth.

As to me bringing up the difference in crime figures between the UK and US, well in every discussion I’ve been in as soon as an American pro-gunner has discovered I’m a Brit they’ve brought it up not me.

And as both you and I (and the US department of Justice along with most reputable statisticians) have pointed out because of differences in policing methods and record keeping and interpretation of what constitutes certain crimes, other than homicide figures, the other statistics are difficult if not impossible to compare.

But that is a side issue the point here is that this is yet again an example of the mentality I’ve been talking about the problem is not so much legitimate gun ownership but the attitudes and mentality of gun owners, their viewpoint and outlook on their society.

They fear their society, they fear that a pistol totting, crack addicted gangbanger might at any moment break through their door with rape and murder on their minds; they fear their government is conspiring to make them into slaves and federal agents are poised in every shadow to strip them of all rights and freedoms.

And here is a bit I added for Still Hip

To you the view that widespread gun ownership directly results in lower crime rates is a ‘simple fact’. But that view seems to me to be based on and promotes the mentality that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression are legitimate means of societal control and as I’ve tried to explain this mindset seems to get in the way of such people actually working toward solutions to their socio-economic and political problems.

*

Ok I can understand you don’t like the arguments I’ve presented but just ignoring them will not make them go away.

 

Crums

Thank you, your post did make me laugh

It is an old trick which only the desperate use because it is so obvious.

Someone finds they haven’t got any counter arguments to what someone else has said, so they attack the person rather than the argument, in the hope that will somehow undermine the argument – of course it doesn’t it really only points out how weak their own position is.

I’m sorry but the very fact that you have had to resort to such dishonest trickery so early in our discussion can mean only one thing – you are out of ideas.

Which I must say, I’m not that surprised at, since you have come across as rather ill informed.

Honestly rather than dig your hole even deeper, I think you should go away do a bit of studying and then come back when you actually have informed arguments.

We might then be able to have an open and honest debate without you having to resort to tricks.

Yours in hope Balbus

 

While one is certainly free to argue such subjective "facts," nothing in that argument would void the fundamental, unchangeable constitutional principle of an armed citizenry.

The citizens are armed and on a simple ratio outnumber the organized armed forces by a factor of at least 25 to 1. That is the condition that the framers of the Constitution endeavored to preserve by securing the citizen's right to arms from governmental injury. It serves the philosophical even if the practical in this modern age is questionable.

That's fine with me . . .

 

I Think that the problem lies not with the fact that we have guns, but the fact that we feel inclined to use them on one another. Banning guns would be pointless, violence would continue and deaths may not be so clean if people start doing drive by's with crossbows lol I believe the Government should take measures to prevent the public from being homocidal. Not in the form of free or mandatory "chill pills" but by identifying the root sources that lead people to hurt eachother.

 

The one thing I reckon America has got going for her is the fact that guns are so easily accessible. America may have an awesome army, navy and air force, it's national guard etc. But then you've got every Tom, Dick and Harry with their own guns, realistically if America is invaded the enemy just doesn't have the forces but almost the entire population can defend itself.
If you hate guns and stuff, have fun being raped. =]

Go guns!! Woooo.

 

And the historic impetus for gun control in your nation and Europe in general has been for what purpose?

That historic restrictions on arms in the UK based in class and landholding were explained as for protection of game was a ruse that even Blackstone could see through centuries ago, "the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws".

Gun control as people control for political purposes is a proven premise. Gun control for crime reduction is proven an utter failure wherever it is undertaken, including the UK's recent efforts.

To say people should surrender arms as social engineering will finally give it that profound political failure, at least in the USA LOL.

US citizens, unlike UK subjects resist giving up liberty for the touchy feelly common good and especially when such a surrender is portrayed by advocates with armed guards as being a benefit when all the people see is vulnerability and weakness and surrender to criminals for themselves.

Look, you can be the happy test bed of criminal protection laws, we Americans laugh at you, where putting chicken wire on shed windows is illegal because burglars might harm themselves when breaking in . . .

With such a mindset it's no wonder you scoff at armed self defense LOL.

 

That is straight fucked but totally awesome at the same time!

 

Obviously your a troll that wants to keep this argument going, or you're crazy. But I'll play the game and state my last thought on the thread.

Personally how can I have a discussion with someone who doesn't listen, not only are you deaf you're apparently also blind since the poll on a very liberal forum also agrees with me. You're obviously ignoring other peoples opinions too control the argument. I guess anyone who wants control over peoples lives has got to have control issues in their own, and no you really don't have a say on domestic American Issues.

 

Well clearly people have not been reading my posts and that is the reason why nobody seem to be debating what I’ve said or putting up counter arguments.

Oh they’ve been very quick at replying to what they think I’ve said that’s why they are getting it so wrong.

To repeat for what feels like the hundredth time – I’m not against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun.

What I am putting forward is the view that [FONT=&quot]there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

[/FONT]

Ok having said that and hoping people have read it I will move on.

*

Irminsul

The US has roughly 9,960 intact nuclear warheads (2006 wiki), who the fuck do you think is going to invade it?

I suppose a country could try and nuke the US first but in that scenario I can’t see widespread gun ownership amongst its population being of much use, can you?

 

Rick

Your post is heavy on assertions but light on anything that would backs them up and it also doesn’t seem to actually address what’s said in the quote that heads it. But your general theme if I’ve got it right (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that Americans love ‘liberty’ more than anyone else, for example the British?

I would first ask you what you mean by ‘liberty’?

Because the impression I get is that you associate ‘liberty’ with gun ownership and you would rather have that ‘liberty’ than have a better, safer, less fearful society. I mean you seem to be saying that you would not ‘give up liberty for the touchy feely common good’

And I’d ask you why not both?

Why do you think one precludes the other?

And that is where we seem to come back to that mentality that I’ve been trying to highlight. The mentality that leads many Americans toward wanting guns but also seem to preclude any move toward finding solutions to the US’s social, economic and political problems.

Please read posts 304-305

*

You also seem to associate the ‘liberty’ of gun ownership with having or regaining political ‘liberty’ - the problem is that I’ve written at length as to why gun ownership might not stop suppression or safeguard other Americans freedom and liberty but you completely fail to address my criticisms, don’t put up any counter arguments and in fact don’t even mention them – as I’ve said before just ignoring criticisms doesn’t make them go away, in fact if someone is ignoring them it is more likely they are valid.

Someone can rant and raze all they want but if they are not actually addressing the criticisms that have been put forward of their view then it’s mostly likely they’re unable to do so and all they are really producing is so much hot air.

 

Crums

As with Rick you are not actually addressing what I’ve said or putting up counter arguments all you seem to be saying is – I don’t like what you’ve said so go away –

You attack me by claiming that I don’t listen, that I’m deaf and blind even possibly crazy, yet I’ve replied to all your views and where I’ve disagreed, I’ve explained why, the truth is that it is you who is deaf and blind to those and it is you who is ignoring my posts presumably because you are unable to think of any counter arguments, so all you can do is attack me and tell me to go away.

Yes I like debate and I find this subject interesting.

And I’m ignoring others opinions I’m just disagreeing with some of them, I think your problem is that you think my disagreement is wrong, that I’m just plain wrong, you can’t say why I’m wrong beyond just knowing I am, you can’t say why my criticism are wrong and you clearly can’t counter them, but to you they are wrong because you just know they’re wrong.

In other words you don’t like debate, you don’t want debate, you want to dictate just how people should think and if they think differently than you then they must be deaf and dumb and crazy, and you will attack them as such if they have the audacity to say things you don’t like.

That is a clear example of a mentality of threat, intimidation and suppression, its not about trying to understand or resolve any issue but about trying to stop people airing what they might see as issues.

 

What's that thing about the pot and kettle? . . . Your rambles are nothing but blind and blanket assertions and assignment to Americans of all sorts of characterizations without a shred of evidence or rational support besides, "you feel."

My comments were directed at what I quoted and speak to what you said.

You speak about the ownership of guns as being no barrier to governmental action and I replied with the fact that gun control in the European experience has always been a tool (and a very successful tool) of political control of the people.

If guns in the hands of commoners were no threat to government actions why have governments, especially yours, wasted so much energy keeping the masses, especially the middle and lower classes, disarmed?

You present that the ownership of guns for personal protection is an illegitimate reaction to the perceived risk of criminal attack; that we, as Americans are derailing any possible social corrections because we accept that criminal violence can be met (or worse, feel it should be met) with violence. Your (apparent) argument is that we should be divested of our guns and only then will we, as a society, have a Kum-By-Ya moment and the criminals and the righteous shall break bread and live in peace and socio-economic harmony.

I reply that such a scheme would hand politically motivated gun control its first defeat LOL. I said that Americans (and especially individualistic gun owners) rarely surrender personal freedoms in response to arguments that the common good will be served. Your idea is very undeveloped because you fail to explain how this could be achieved; you seem completely unaware that no governmental power exists that could undertake or execute such a thing in America.

Liberty is a concept that flows from the principle of conferred powers. The US Constitution is a contract of conferred powers that the people have granted to government. Everything not transferred to government is retained by the people.

Those retained powers are more commonly called rights and in the aggregate they comprise "liberty" which means autonomy; the freedom to act without restraint except the bounds of the equal rights of others. Liberty is, in the words of Algernon Sidney, the "exemption from all human laws, to which they have not given their assent."

With the number of gun owning citizens and the affirmation of the right by our Supreme Court and the number of states that explicitly secure the right to arms for their citizens, there is no chance that any significant action will ever be undertaken on the right to arms of Americans, . . . no matter how wonderful the promised perfect society we will receive in exchange is portrayed.

​

Certainly I will always choose my gun over the promise of a "better, safer, less fearful society" especially if I'm being told that my gun is the reason we don't have a "better, safer, less fearful society" LOL.

Correct because I embrace the concept of individual rights. You would have us ignore the individual and only consider the communitarian "benefits" of an abandonment of individuality. Can this new society guarantee the safety of the individual in exchange for this surrender?

Because the concepts are mutually exclusive. Self-defense is the most fundamental of all individual rights and any deviation from that principle, any exposure to legal ramifications for justifiable self defense, is a complete violation of individual autonomy and a crime against humanity.

You have some interesting theories that's for sure. I find it puzzling the power that you assign to stubborn American gun owners that can single-handedly frustrate the great social, economic and political reformation of America - - - given your position that guns in civilian hands are woefully ineffective barrier to government action . . .

I also ignored wide swaths of the Unibomber's Manefesto . . . So what?

Why don't you reform your thoughts and re-frame your dissertation focused on how what you want to happen is permitted by the US Constitution and legitimate within the jurisprudence of the 2nd Amendment.

And we will all witness your personal adherence to that code when we read your reply to this post.

 

Guys(and Gals), can't we just agree guns are like abortion? If you don't like it, then don't have one, but as a species, a culture, a people, let's work to do whatever we need to do to reduce the need, the original cause, whatever be it that requires people to have it.

 

Rick

Can you please read my posts rather than ignoring them and basing your replies on what you think I would have said rather than what I did say.

I mean you even admit you haven’t read my posts, arguments or criticisms “I also ignored wide swaths of the Unibomber's Manefesto . . . So what?”

So what? – well if you haven’t actually read what I’ve said then how can you give a honest or informed reply?

For example a large amount of you post is based on the premise that I want to stop people owning guns, but I’ve repeated over and over that

- I’m not against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun –

What do I have to do to get people to read it, write it in forty foot flaming letters on Mount Rushmore?

That means that a lot of your post doesn’t make much sense because its based on a false premise.

*

That theory could only stand up if there had been little or no political change in Europe in say the last 200 years, but that is untrue there has been huge political change in Europe and quiet a number of successful revolutions (a number just 20 years ago or so). So that theory doesn’t seem to stand up.

Also since you are putting it in the context of the US and Europe your argument would be that the US has never experience political suppression in a similar period. But as I’ve catalogued and explained at length that is untrue. Try reading -

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


*

Oh I wish you’d read my posts. No I haven’t said that what I have done is ask questions, such as -

Why are some people so frightened of their society and government that they feel they need a gun to protect themselves from them?

Why do some people seem to think that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression are legitimate, even the best, means of societal control?

*

Completely wrong – my argument repeated many times and in several different ways is completely different.

Over and over I’ve said that to me it is a certain mentality that is behind the desire to own guns – if you’d read my posts you’d know that, you’d also know because I’ve also said it many times, that only if that mentality changed would the desire for guns dissipate.

But you haven’t read my post you’ve just reacted to what you see as a threat, you seem to be so frightened that any discussion on the gun issue might in some way impact on you desire to have a gun that you wish to stamp on it.

But my question is - why is there the desire to have a gun?

*

Again you clearly haven’t read my posts – to me it is the mentality that is the problem I repeat it over and over, but you seem to have missed it every time.

Please if you wish to comment on my arguments can you at least have the courtesy to actually read them first?

*

I ask you why there cannot be both gun ownership and a better, safer, less fearful society and your reply is curious

You seem to be saying that is impossible, why?

*

I said - And that is where we seem to come back to that mentality that I’ve been trying to highlight. The mentality that leads many Americans toward wanting guns but also seem to preclude any move toward finding solutions to the US’s social, economic and political problems.
The mentality right, I say it twice. Now here is your reply -

And to you it’s about guns in civilian hands
Do you not see what I mean about the mentality I’m taking about?
*

Again could you please read my posts – once more your reaction seems to be driven by fear, the fear that somehow my views might impact on your desire to have a gun, but as I’ve said I’m not against the law abiding and responsible having a gun. But I’d ask why do you want a gun, why are you so frightened of your society and government that you feel you need a gun to protect yourself from them?
*

 

Rick

Well first I’d ask how do you know since you admit you have ignored much of what I’ve said in fact it seems to be clear from your replies that you haven’t even read much, if not most of what I’ve written.

Could you please go back and actually read and think about what they say then come back?

*
Ok, now hopefully you’ve actually read them and we can carry on.

Do you still think they’re blind assertions with no evidence or rational thought behind them and if so, can you now explain why you think that, citing the areas you might bring up?

I am genuinely interested in your, informed, input.

 

Mad

I agree, but the problem is that the mentality I’ve tried to highlight that is behind the desire for guns seems to get in the way of tackling the causes of the problems.

But yes it is similar to the abortion issue in that many that oppose abortion also oppose freely available contraception and even sex education (as well as many socio-economic changes that could go toward alleviating the problem).

The thing is that only education can change mindsets.

 

Why did humans want rocks and sticks to protect themselves 3-4 thousand years ago? Why did people need spears,bows and arrows and other such destructive devices hundreds of years ago? Why guns,bombs,ect into modern day society? In my opinion,weapons have always served a purpose, because there have always been those who would take that which does not belong to them. There are those with deficient brain chemicals that have no concience and kill for "sport".Also, there have always been governments that deny the written or implied rights of the citizens of their countries. So it goes. It seems to be human nature to want to protect oneself from individual assaults and the usurpation of rights from those in power. Sad ,but true and in order to make a paradigm shift in human nature to complete peace, non self aggrandizment and ridding ouselves of weapons is probably too much to ask. We're only human,after all.

 

No to banning guns.