Gun control is withering on the vine.

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM&feature=related[/youtube]

Not sure why you chose to necro this one Panda, since it's not a thread you started about a tenuous link between a right wing figure and something odious... Nevertheless, it is sort of good timing, since the 7th Court just spanked the city of Chicago on the very regulations I was posting about last year. They're already on the hook for the plaintiffs legal bills in the other court cases even after they tried some legal chicanery to avoid them, so it would seem that I'm getting my wish for Chicago to pay for it's illegal regime. We'll have to see how the new mayor reacts...

Personally, the argument "we have to have guns to defend ourselves against criminals, because even if they were banned, criminals could still get them" seems misguided. If people try hard enough, they can probably get a banned lethal weapon. If they can't, they can train themselves to be lethal in hand-to-hand combat.

Perhaps people's stance on gun ownership is partially linked with the environment in which they grew up. I'm from a country where it is very difficult to get guns legally, and pretty much the only people who have them, other than the armed forces, are farmers and certain sections of the police force. It is illegal to carry them on the street. Consequently, I have never felt any reason to have a gun as self defence and would rather they were regulated.

On the other side of the coin is the US, where it is a constitutional right (as far as I understand) and there's a lot of opposition to the strict regulation of gun possession. Then question becomes, is the objection because people are scared to be on the street without one, or because they feel one of their rights is being taken away? Let's imagine that the government of the day did decide to strictly regulate gun possession as they do in the UK and other places, and were somehow able to enforce that. What would the actual, real consequence be on the average American? How seriously would it affect their personal life?

^^^^^^
Guns are significant in hunting for food, and is important for supplementing diets in some places, it keeps crime down (FBI report), and the supreme court's eminent domain ruling proved that at least some government officials understand that a violent backlash from the public is possible (even if it's after they do something stupid). Currently, politicians from republican and moderate areas fear touching the gun control issue because it is known to cost candidates elections. Even the 1968 gun control act that banned ex-cons from owning guns and started background checks cost a lot of politicians their jobs in the elections a few months later. A more immidiate effect would be on the crime rate. Americans in many regions rely heavily on guns for personal protection and the cops are not legally required to protect you. The immediate effect of banning guns would be that a crucial factor in regulating violent crime would suddenly get pulled out and crime would skyrocket- like it did in most countries that confiscated people's guns.

That's interesting. Why not?

I think the "hand-to-hand combat is perfectly sufficient" argument is misguided. What if the guy is bigger and stronger than you? Does an 95 pound woman stand a chance against a 250 pound sociopath? Or what if there are several 250 pound sociopaths coming for her? How many people can a person take in a fight all by themselves? It's not uncommon for criminals to work in groups.

Personally, I think that if drugs were legalized in the US the murder rate would go way down.

That's not exactly my point, which is that no matter how many things you ban, somebody will find a way to kill or harm others.

Then why would you support gun control in any way, as you're seemingly acknowledging it's futility here. Like drug prohibition, it stands to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding folk, and creates a gigantic money sink for the taxpayers who have to foot the bill.

A 1981 DC circuit court case. Warren vs. DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That ruling states policemen cannot be your private lifeguards. They can't be liable for any reckless action you take. Because the action of those guys was reckless, even if the police had arrived by then.

You can't stop the truly determined pros, but you can make it harder for everybody else. Guns make it much easier to kill someone than other weapons, such as knives, do. I suppose I just don't feel safe knowing that someone could pull a gun on me in a moment of madness or drunkeness.


Any criminal law makes a criminal out of otherwise law abiding folk if they break it, at least where I come from and live, so I'm not really sure how this statement is relevant.

The 2nd Amendment is partially to give the citizenry to have a way to protect themselves if government goes too far. It was actually included in the Constitution because of a certain historical incident that occurred in which people ended up getting killed and one of the fledgling state governments was arguably responsible.

Is that the Whiskey Rebellion?

Things that right to bear arms won't do
* Decrease shootings.
* Increase shootings.
* Protect against tyranny.
* Increase crime.
* Reduce crime.


Things that further restricting guns won't do
* Increase crime.
* Reduce crime.
* Increase shootings.
* Decrease shootings.
* Allow tyranny.

Thanks for reading.

Which "Peacekeeper" would you rather have defending your life, your country, and your freedom?

This one?



Or this one?

How much do you want to bet that the soldier at the time of that picture showered more recently than the hippie at the time his picture was taken?