Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you honestly think a gun will make a difference between being exploited and not being exploited? Have you considered that there are people out there with more tactical and weapons proficiency than you? It'll take more than having a gun if you want to fight the powers that be. You'd have to leave your house, stay watchful, develop a new method of sustaining yourself (unless you want to get spotted), you'd basically have to change the entire way you live if you want a fighting chance.

And when you run out of ammo...

It is part of the Quaker belief system to be passive and dislike weaponry, no? With that being said, I am an atheist, and as such, I dislike having things forced on me.

Simple guns and homemade explosives are slowly overthrowing the government in Syria.

I am passive and I would never kill anything that is not trying to kill me. However, being armed is an insurance policy against anyone or anything that wishes to deprive you of life, liberty, or property.

The reason the founders of the United States wanted the citizens to be armed was to protect themselves from the future stewards of the United States in case those individuals became a threat to the liberty of the people.

Wall Street and the 1% could very will be a threat to that liberty. It seems with each passing day, the US is headed deeper into the realm of a corporate oligarchy. The moneyed and privileged hold the power and Washington, and it seems that they are getting ready to exercise it. Bills like SOPA and the utter failure of meaningful healthcare reform serve to prove that. Why do they want to control the internet? To suppress dissent. Why do they want to deny you access to affordable healthcare? Keeping you broke and therefore easier to control.

Last edited by PM on 27 Dec 2012, 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, this I can work with.

There is substantial evidence that the possibility of a potential victim having a firearm does reduce crime. John Lott did a bunch of research on this. There is also the fact that mass shootings almost always happen in gun-free zones. Logic suggests that a criminal would choose a target where there is the highest chance of success. Chicago and D.C. both have very strict gun laws (bans, even) while having the highest violent crime rates in the U.S. That said, correlation does not imply causation, so the gun laws may or may not contribute to the violent crime rates.

Where we really differ in our world views is in regards to safety. I don't expect (or want) government to protect me. I can protect myself. You seem more inclined to rely on government for protection.

I am far more comfortable in a room full of people carrying firearms than in a room where guns are banned. If anyone tries anything, they are going down pretty fast. In a gun-free zone, one shooter can wipe out everyone with no resistance. I respect that a business or homeowner may not want guns on their property and will vote to ensure they have that right, but I won't do business with them.


You're unsure that it's appropriate to kill an active shooter? I find it hard to believe that if you were in a school where a gunman was killing off a bunch of children, you wouldn't want someone to shoot back.

I can't relate to that at all. If someone is killing people, they need to die as fast as possible.


My waste of electricity is offset by the money I pay to consume it. This balances the impact it has on other people.

If I keep a gun, it does increase the chance of a criminal stealing a gun from me since the chance of a criminal stealing something I don't have is zero. There are much easier and safer ways to acquire guns, however, so I don't think the chance of a criminal stealing a gun from me will have any impact whatsoever on your safety.

It is well established that concealed carry permit holders have a significantly lower criminal activity rate than the general public. When you carry, you feel an added sense of responsibility. The chance of one of these people shooting you for something you say is far less than the chance that someone else will beat you to death. I've carried firearms on and off for over 20 years and in that time, having a weapon on me has never encouraged me into conflict, but has often kept me out of conflict. This is common for all of the carry people I know.

Wow you avoid everything. You said "Nothing can spay death like a gun", and you are wrong. When proven wrong you hide behind that took time and skill. You believe guns are bad because they are easier to use. It's like trying to explain the Multiverse to an infant.

Just hope it happens in between firefights.

Do you think I am not aware of this?

I have no intention of raising a barrel to the powers that be unless they try to deprive me of life or liberty.

Goodness, can you educate me?

I agree with what PM is saying on this. At the end of the day, it is all about control and power. Who has it and who doesn't. The Elites, (Rothchilds, Bilderberg Group and Bankster$) have one thing in common: They want more of it.

Best Regards,

Jake

The Rothchilds and Bilderberg group, with all due respect, I do not believe those theories.

I am disregarding your first paragraph because I think we both know as much as we will ever know about each other's attitudes towards safety and neither of us is going to convince the other.

Yes, I am unsure if killing is justifiable even if it will save lives. Of course, there's a strong utilitarian argument, and there's a strong argument that allowing a death is no different to killing, but...

Yes, the money you spend on electricity does benefit people, but not necessarily the right people, and it doesn't necessarily have a 0 or positive net effect. You might keep some people in work at the electric company, who then spend more, and eventually someone can afford a holiday to the Seychelles, which benefits the people of the Seychelles... until they are forced to leave their homes due to rising sea levels.

Did you see the study I posted elsewhere that showed that guns were more likely to harm their owners than be used to harm an intruder? If I, as a concerned neighbour, investigate the gun shots coming from next door, I am more likely to find my neighbour's body or the gun being turned towards me than my neighbour, shaken but successfully having stopped an intruder.

When considering a gun ban, one must consider more than murder.

Assaults, home invasions, and rapes are also crimes you have to consider. Guns are the best tools available to deter these crimes.

So while a gun ban might possibly reduce murders (I am skeptical even of that because only those who obey the law would obey the ban) I think you would see the number of other violent crimes skyrocket.

Here is a good Harvard University published study about banning guns and the effect on murder and suicide.

http://marylandshallissue.org/wp-conten ... online.pdf

and a good article about violence beyond murder

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

That is a surprising good article for the Daily Mail once you get past the headline.

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of suicide in that study; just that banning guns does not have an effect on the homicide rate. I find that study very convincing.

If I was in connecticut and had a gun I would kill the shooter and be hailed as a hero unfortunatly its too late for that.