Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Yes, you are right, if guns had never been invented this would have been more difficult to accomplish but the trouble is that even if the US shut down every manufacturer of guns in the US, they would just move somewhere else and if they didn't, since there would still be a demand for them, 3rd world countries would produce them.

And even if we could bomb all the manufacturing plants out of existence and ignoring that fact that individuals could still manufacture their own, there are already millions, if not billions of guns already in existence. Just the AK-47, an assault rifle, is said to number at about 100 million and is still being manufactured by a number of nations and can be bought at a price as low as $30 a piece.

So while stopping gun manufacturing world wide will prevent many guns from being made, like I said individuals could still make their own, it would do nothing about the guns already available and would only make gun prices higher, which would make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain one whereas criminals are ready to come up with the price of the tools of their trade and "may be able to write them off as a business expense ".

In any any case, as Balbus would say, if we would look to the underlying causes in this case, we would see that guns were not the cause but repressive drug laws that have made illegal drug sales a multi-billion dollar industry that people are killing each other for a bigger piece of.

 

Brother

Agree

 

What most are whining about is that some misuse and harm. [in red]

This is not a mater of guns or no guns.. this is an issue of education and morality.
To blame guns for the immorality and stupidity of humans when that is
a sole function of government to 'elevate'
Is to say for a start hat the entire education system is a farce. And then to continue to the social standards of greed , winners and loosers. The movie industry which promotes horror and gore. And so much more.

The HYPOCRACY is monumental

GUNS are not the problem. To remove guns. the last defence guanateed
for a population against the guns of a government. Is dictatorship.

Im a father and i detest violence.. but i know guns. and im an Aussie.
I would never use one unless absolutely needed.
Thats what they are for.

You may not agree. That is your inalienable right. Dont take my rights because yours are based in stupidity

 

I agree wholly.

 

You bring up a good point, Balbus has on many occasions said that gun owners just by the fact they own guns are not interested in wider social issues but your post points up that is not the case.

Your unprompted statement; "This is not a mater of guns or no guns.. this is an issue of education and morality.", shows that your ownership of a gun has not lead you to no longer think about or discuss wider issues and in fact believe that the answer is not gun ownership or gun control but lies in working on and the fixing wider issues that cause people to be violent in the first place.

 

I have and always will say. Education.
[read posts by razorofoccam. they all say the same]

The more educated the population. The less violence.

The US has a horrific sized underclass of uneducted. If it was not guns it would be crowbars and machetes

Just as machetes were so popular in africa before the ak47 ruled.

For the most powerful nation on earth. This is a pathetic situation

I grew up believing america was a golden land of any dream can be true.
I wanted to be an american.

then i grew up

but thats off topic.. soz

 

Thundakat

What ‘rights and freedoms’?

Again you seem to want to limit people’s ability to ask questions.
This forum is for the discussion of politics.
It is a wide subject covering in the whole of history and every nation that does or has ever existed as well as taking in all types of political philosophy and thought.
If someone wants to discuss the politics of 12th century Iceland, they can if they wish and anyone who feels like it can join in.
What you’re saying is that they shouldn’t be allowed to - ‘like are they from the 12th century or a citizen of Iceland?’
Hey astronomers stop looking at that planet ‘like are you a citizen of it?’
Stop what you are doing mister virologist that Ebola strain is from the Congo ‘like are you a Congolese citizen?’
Let me ask you this Egyptologist woman is the Pharaoh your ruler, like are you an ancient Egyptian citizen?
*
I have an interest in politics that is wide and eclectic, I have shelves of books on history, economics and politics. Covering many places times and ideas.
I happen to be here because I have an interest in American history and politics and many here are from the US or are American citizens and am trying to understand their ideas.

But do you agree about something because of your training or despite of it?

Implying you don’t most of the time?

So you ‘make up your mind’ and then never question that view ever again?

You missed the point it was a ‘for example’ to explain that just as the information in text books might change so with experience and knowledge so can your perception of other things.

LOL - especially someone like me?

So you see politics as based in faith rather than having any rational basis?

So you think any idea is right just because it is believed in, there is no need to have a rational or reasonable argument to back up this idea?

 

OWB

This implies you are happy for ‘criminals’ to own a gun its only if they ‘misuse’ one that they forfeit their right to own a one?

The problem is that the view that virtually any gun control measures will inevitably lead to a total ban, comes up in virtually every gun issue thread (and I’ve been in many) and has come up in other conversations elsewhere so I think it a bit of a dodge to try and claim it only happens here.

The problem is that the view that virtually any gun control measures will inevitably lead to a total ban, comes up in virtually every gun issue thread (and I’ve been in many) and has come up in other conversations elsewhere so I think it a bit of a dodge to try and claim it only happens here.

This goes back to what I’ve stated in the


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

That ‘freedoms’ like that of freedom of speech have already been eroded and have been done so with the support of many people who also seem to support gun ownership.

*

You -

Sorry but I don’t think you actually have, you have objected but those objections have been along the lines of just telling me I’m wrong (without explanation or counter argument). But if you believe you have said something more substantive please cite these answers or say where they are and I’ll have a look?

To which you reply –

I’m sure I’m not the only one that has noticed you have not cited the supposed answers or pointed out where they are.

 

OWB

Once again I would plead with you to actually read my posts, you clearly are still not doing so since many of the things you ask in your replies already been covered.

No that is not what I said, please read what I’ve actually said rather than make it up because you haven’t read it. As I say - It isn’t exactly the rational approach, it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted - the person is a criminal and has got hold of a gun – a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals.

It is two things - separate –
(1) try and prevent a person turning to crime
(2) as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals

So what are your ideas for preventing people turning to crime, what do you think are the underlying causes of crime? You see you haven’t discussed them in these forums as far as I can tell – If you believe you have anywhere please point it out so I can see what your views are?

Sorry this doesn’t make sense why do you think that there would be no criminals?

As discussed with Roo, I’m saying it would be good to try and stop people turning to crime but some will. And even if measures were put in place to try and turn people away from crime many have already done so. I’m really unsure what your thinking is here?

Anyway -

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

Again can you explain your thinking?

As I explained at the time your approach seemed limited – it seemed routed in the idea that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression are legitimate means of societal control. It is an approach that isn’t about tackling the reasons why someone has a gun with criminal intent or about how they have come to be in possession of a gun, it is only about the outcome the symptom.

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

So what are your ideas for preventing people turning to crime, what do you think are the underlying causes of crime? You see you haven’t discussed them in these forums as far as I can tell – If you believe you have anywhere please point it out so I can see what your views are?

There is no circular reasoning except in your head.

To repeat - I’m saying it would be good to try and stop people turning to crime but some will. And even if measures were put in place to try and turn people away from crime many have already done so.

So

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

But to rely on that (taking the gun away after the deed) it isn’t exactly the rational approach, yes it has to be there, but it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted - the person is a criminal and has got hold of a gun – a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals.

 

The ideas for trying to limit the number of guns going into the US system I first presented here in one form or another a few years ago and I’ve brought them up a number of times since, including three times already in this thread (posts 361, 437, 455).

To repeat

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

Here are a few of ideas I’ve suggested before

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

 

You what?

This is hilarious – oh yes kangaroos and parrots will abide by the ‘laws of civilization’ but those pesky humans they’ll go all uncivilised at the drop of a hat.

That’s right you can trust hyenas and chipmunks to abide by the ‘laws of civilisation’ but you can’t expect it of those damned humans its like they don’t even know what ‘civilised’ means.

 

"It is only the humans who refuse to abide by the laws of civilization which forces us to create governments who create laws which dole out punishments to such individuals."

Or if that doesn't provide adequate hints to properly parse, consider "individuals" or "individual humans" as a replacement for the word "humans" in the original text.

 

More people should acquire guns in the U.S., and those who already own guns should acquire more so that they outnumber the guns in the hands of criminals.

 

Indie

Oh but it so did tickle my funny bone.

Anyway so you mean – that it is only some people within a group that go against what is consider by that group to be ‘normal behaviour’ (civilised as in proper)?

It would come down to a definition of what you mean by ‘civilised’.

 

Indie

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.


So it is likely if no measures are taken to secure such guns it will just mean that more guns get into the hands of criminals.

 

Generally law abiding, although that doesn't always mean agreeing with every one of the laws of the society in which you are living.

 

:beatdeadhorse5on't you have any other quotes to use?

That's very naive and myopic logic.

Again, reading the latest wall of posts made by Balbus just reaffirms what I said earlier.
Balbus is so completely and utterly convinced that he is correct and that any who disagree must certainly be ignorant, uneducated, don't care about societal issues, don't understand the issue, don't understand Balbus' position, etc,etc.

Honestly Balbus, did the thought never cross your mind that there can be people who are much more educated, intelligent, well versed in social issues, than you and understand fully both sides of the debate, understand fully your position and STILL don't agree with you?

Yes, I have read through this thread, or rather have followed it since it's inception and I don't agree with you, like many others who have spoken here.
Get over it already.

Someone give me my gun so I can kill this poor horse and put it out of it's misery.

 

Until someone misuses a gun they haven't broken any laws, unless they have acquired a gun to which they have been prohibited from possessing due to previous conviction.

Removing criminals from the population would seem to be a solution which would have no effect on law abiding citizens.

 

Am I the only one who finds it funny that balbus is still berating people for not reading his posts?

First of all, you say the same damn thing, attacking back doors that people leave open in their text and saying they're saying or implying things that they obviously do not mean to.

Second of all, if someone disagrees with you, you seem to assume they didn't read. You say a lot of bullshit as though it supports your point-because I don't take meaningless red herrings into consideration does not mean I didn't read them.

And third of all, they all say the exact same fucking thing, they're half a damn page long, and are semi-choerant drivel with about the same overall honesty level as a debate on fox news, they can't be quoted effectively because you use about 3x as many lines as you need to filling them up with BBcode garbage that doesn't do anything, and every time some one has a NEW way of beating your dishonest arguments into the ground you just tell them they're not reading your posts, launch personal attacks, and then write the WHOLE failed argument out and waste another whole page, often spanning multiple posts because it's too much bullshit to fit into one.

I sort of expect to be banned and have this post deleted for this, but: Why the FUCK is this guy a mod? How about a canadian mods this section? they're sort of british, but sane.

 

Let's throw a few facts into the mix here, shall we????

First of all. Washington DC had handguns illegal for years. According to FBI statistics, over a 15 year period, a full 85% of the guns that were confiscated were HOME-MADE.

Second. I can go into my shop and in about half an hour, with simple hand tools, come out with a fully functional gun barrel. Just as lethal as anything you buy in any store. That's just using a hand drill and a hacksaw. That's me, and there are other people that are far better at it than I am.

Now, the curious thing about laws and padlocks is that they both just keep the honest people honest. You want to keep guns out of the hands of outlaws, so enact more laws. Why do you suppose they're "outlaws"? You can have 1001 laws about guns, and they'll ignore every one of them. Ban guns completely, and they'll make their own.

Hand guns have been illegal in Canada for years. Over the last ten years, there have been quite a number of crimes that involved hand guns in Canada. Even in England where the police don't carry guns, guns have been used in quite a number of the crimes there. So, where are you going to get ahead of the game by making guns illegal?

Back in the '90s, a guy serving time in prison for burglary in CA was asked about banning guns. His answer.... The best thing they could do for burglars. They wouldn't have to worry about meeting an armed home owner if guns were made illegal.

There are women that have bought guns, gotten certified to use them, and carry them for protection against rape. Are you going to take that protection away from them? Are you telling them they have to agree to be raped?