Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Page 7 of 14 [ 222 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14 Next

Do you think a US gun ban would work?

Yes	9%	[ 5 ]
No	56%	[ 31 ]
Somewhat	16%	[ 9 ]
Unsure	7%	[ 4 ]
I hate guns and have an unreasonable aversion to them!	4%	[ 2 ]
I love guns and have an unreasonable attachment to them!	4%	[ 2 ]
(Those last two were tongue in cheek)	4%	[ 2 ]

Total votes : 55

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 3:16 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.

You do understand that the only way to prevent people from owning guns is to use guns to enforce it, right?

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

23 Dec 2012, 3:20 pm

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect gun owners to get gun safes. You can't ban firearms, but you can't leave them lying around either imo.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

23 Dec 2012, 3:30 pm

MDD123 wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect gun owners to get gun safes. You can't ban firearms, but you can't leave them lying around either imo.

Personally, I like gun panels. It's an inconspicuous flip-open panel that hides your rifle. It's usually by the front door.

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 3:30 pm

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.

You do understand that the only way to prevent people from owning guns is to use guns to enforce it, right?

That's not true though, is it? Gun buybacks have been successful, and many people simply don't want to break the law.

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

23 Dec 2012, 3:35 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.

You do understand that the only way to prevent people from owning guns is to use guns to enforce it, right?

That's not true though, is it? Gun buybacks have been successful, and many people simply don't want to break the law.

No, usually criminals just turn in broken guns, and then grannies who have some old gun lying around turn it in because they're broke and need food money, and don't know that some WWII Luger their husband left them is worth $1000 and not $50.

Last edited by 1000Knives on 23 Dec 2012, 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

23 Dec 2012, 3:35 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.

You do understand that the only way to prevent people from owning guns is to use guns to enforce it, right?

That's not true though, is it? Gun buybacks have been successful, and many people simply don't want to break the law.

Except the stuff they make out of the "buy back gun" metal is atrocious. Bad public art usually...

Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

23 Dec 2012, 3:53 pm

For the record, since no-one has bothered to read my previous posts, I did not suggest that gun control lead to an increase in the homicides in the UK, except to show the ridiculousness of taking correlation (gun control was brought in, homicide rate went up) to mean causation (gun control lead to the increase).

I come at the issue from the view that something should be legal unless there is good reason for it to not be. Since gun control does not seem to decrease the homicide rate, then it shouldn't be brought in.

We have enough data now to control for the other variables that could affect the murder rate. Perhaps it would be a good idea for someone to do a comprehensive study on it, and find out how much gun control is reasonable (i.e, background checks at gun shows).

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 4:06 pm

Magneto wrote:

John Lott wrote a very statistics-oriented book on these things (More Guns, Less Crime). It's boring as hell unless you're a number cruncher, but he does support his conclusions pretty well.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 4:08 pm

MDD123 wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect gun owners to get gun safes. You can't ban firearms, but you can't leave them lying around either imo.

I think it's unreasonable to control other people.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 4:10 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.

You do understand that the only way to prevent people from owning guns is to use guns to enforce it, right?

That's not true though, is it? Gun buybacks have been successful, and many people simply don't want to break the law.

How do you intend to get the guns from the people who aren't willing to give them up?

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 4:31 pm

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.

You do understand that the only way to prevent people from owning guns is to use guns to enforce it, right?

That's not true though, is it? Gun buybacks have been successful, and many people simply don't want to break the law.

How do you intend to get the guns from the people who aren't willing to give them up?

Much the same way that we in England and Wales are getting knives off people who aren't willing to give them up. Arrest anyone who is seen with a gun or a knife in public, charge them with carrying the weapon, and impose the relevant punishment. If someone is arrested on another charge and then found to be carrying a weapon, charge them with that offence too. Encourage people to inform the authorities anonymously if they know someone is carrying a gun. In some places- schools where large numbers of pupils carry weapons, for example- it might be relevant to search people before they enter (I imagine this applies more to knives than guns).

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

23 Dec 2012, 4:37 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.

You do understand that the only way to prevent people from owning guns is to use guns to enforce it, right?

That's not true though, is it? Gun buybacks have been successful, and many people simply don't want to break the law.

How do you intend to get the guns from the people who aren't willing to give them up?

you cant carry a knife in england or just certain types of dangerous knives like switch blades or long blades

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 4:38 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

So like I said, you arrest them using threat of violence. Violence with weapons. But it's okay for them to do it since they agree with you.

I'd love to see you acknowledge that your problem isn't with guns, but with people who do things you don't approve. You're obviously fine with guns being used to furthur your own cause.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 4:40 pm

Seabass wrote:

I actually find Jacoby's argument not to be poor, and find your post to be a bunch of fluff. Natural rights are the rights you find in the Declaration of Independence, you know, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Although there have been differing views on what makes up natural rights in the past, the idea of natural rights is pretty much set in stone by now. The Constitution revolves around the existence of natural rights.

We are talking about the 2nd Amendment. He responded to a point on the 2nd Amendment. You say it is fluff, I say it is Law.

Fluff can't be tested, it is a principle of law that a piece of legislature needs to be able to be tested to work, therefore cannot have a vague implied concept tagged to it, because somebody says so.

My point was to those that cite the 2nd Amendment rather than any other law (which there are some other). It a criticism of citing the 2nd Amendment in this context. Can I make this any clearer?

Please tell me where the 2nd mentions those bulleted points that I mentioned wasn't covered. It doesn't, it is pretty clear plain English. Feel free to get a historical language expert. It is about the right to bear and keep arms, with regard the security of the free state, and it mentions a well regulated militia.

This is one point separate from opinions on gun control. The reason for mentioning this is ignorance of the 2nd Amendment.

If you disagree with me at least make your points about the 2nd Amendment.

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

23 Dec 2012, 4:46 pm

shrox wrote:

BlueAbyss wrote:

PM wrote:

Did prohibition work? No.

Is the drug war working? No.

So.......

Exactly, and yet lots of tax dollars were and are spent on those efforts, to no avail. Lots of people have been imprisoned who were harming no one but themselves.

Prohibition was to keep people from harming themselves as it were.

A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.

Very different. Both a symptom of how most upright mammals can't control themselves.

Actually, Prohibition's main backers were women's rights groups. Husbands would waste all their money at bars, or get drunk and beat their wives. They weren't concerned about liver problems. It was about the effect the drunk people had upon others.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 4:53 pm

1000Knives wrote:

I think it was actually religious pressure, Religious Temperance campaigners still exist, but in small numbers. There were women's groups, however there was also some women would get drunk.

Page 7 of 14 [ 222 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14 Next

Jump to:

Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work? Post Reply New Topic

Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?