Gun Control & Bans - Crunching Some Numbers

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Mirage, Jan 11, 2009.

?

What type of gun control would you like to see?

  1. [b]COMPLETE BAN:[/b] All guns should be banned period.

    14.3%
  2. [b]INTENSIVE BAN:[/b] Both semi-auto and full-auto guns should be banned.

    14.3%
  3. [b]PARTIAL BAN:[/b] Only full-auto guns should be banned.

    28.6%
  4. [b]NO BAN:[/b] Any standard issue military guns should be legal for private purchase.

    42.9%
  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    I realize there is already a thread about gun violence numbers but if I posted this in that thread it would likely hijack it. It's somewhat different. To put "gun control" into perspective for those who support it, here are some numbers:

    Are you considering backing gun control laws?

    Now I'm sure many people will say "Oh but the _____ government would NEVER round people up and exterminate them. I'm sure the Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia governments gave their citizens reason to believe they would be rounded up and exterminated after their guns were taken away.. Yeah that would make sense.

    Would it happen? Hopefully not, but the facts above simply cannot be ignored. As history shows, 56 million (reported) people in the last century would have a different opinion on so called "gun control" aka "citizen herding" if they were given a second chance at life.

    Some proponents of the US Assault Weapons Ban have openly said that if it was possible to ban guns completely without getting voted out of office, they would support a complete ban.

    YouTube - NRA: The Clinton Gun Ban Story

    Some interesting quotes from this video:

    I agree with the people who say that the Assault Weapons Ban is only a stepping stone to a complete ban down the line. First they wait until people are used to some guns being banned. Then they create fear for other types and then fear for guns altogether and before you know it it's illegal to own a gun.

    What do you think? Discuss.
     

  2. snowflake

    snowflake Registered Member

    They should all be banned. Guns just hurt people, If no guns less crime. But then again people would just find something else. Guns are banned in the UK and i hope that's the way it stays.
     
    Bananas likes this.
  3. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Did you even read my thread though? It includes several facts about what has happened when guns have been banned completely. None of which are things that anybody would wish upon themselves so how can you support a complete ban with such facts in front of you?

    If you don't read the whole thing then at least read the first part in quotes.
     
  4. snowflake

    snowflake Registered Member

    Yes i did read it Hybrix..... I find this really interesting.
    Here in the Uk i think people think guns make the crime now this might be due to them been banned !! But looking at what's happened in Australia it's not guns at all.
     
  5. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    Hmmm, that's a pretty interesting set of numbers there....



    The only thing I can say in defense of the first bit, is that I really couldn't see the American government ever committing an atrocity like that.

    If ever they did, it'd be World War III.

    Perhaps... But if it's only been 12 months, it's way too early to be making conclusions about long-term effects --> Let's see how things are in Australia 10 years from now, and discuss it then!



    I voted Partial Ban, because it makes sense. For certain, your average Joe doesn't need an M-60.
     
  6. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    I voted Partial ban. Criminals will always find a way to get some form of gun or weapon to hurt with. Especially if other countries have guns despite themselves not. So completely taking away a persons ability to have an equal defense is somewhat dumb. There's tons of other ways to defend oneself, and I'm sure lots of people know how. But how many joe shmoes know dick all about defending themselves. If a country is gonna allow guns however, there should be strict training progroms involved. Basically, you have to prove you can use one before you can buy it. Those are just some of my thoughts anyhow.
     
  7. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    In the case of governments rounding people up to be executed, I would hope that the America would never come to that. In any case though, armed robberies do increase after gun bans are implemented, moreso than any other crime. Murder rates increase too, but to a smaller extent, and if you look at statistics in America, they seem to not be a significant upward trend after gun bans, as in, yes the rates in general go up, but the same can be said for most places. Not saying that in favor of gun bans, though. Armed robberies increase, most likely because criminals feel that they are less likely to have a gun pulled back on them.

    I've always felt that the logic that guns cause crime so ban guns is flawed, since you will always be able to procure a firearm, legally or illegally. Guns don't cause crime, anyhow, since they are inanimate objects.
     
  8. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    I voted; INTENSIVE BAN: Both semi-auto and full-auto guns should be banned.

    I think it should be a step further and include all handguns. The only people to have firearms should be those who need them for proffessional purposes.


    Talk about paranoia.

    Of all the examples you have included they involve countries that were under going cultural revolution. When the wheels of a cultural revolution starts moving no poxy civil militia will stop it, it would infact accelerate it as the perpetrators will have access to a greater number of weapons and you would have circumstances more similar to those of the Spanish civil war, Yugoslavia or the Rwandan or Somalian genocides. It takes two to tango, if you blame the dissidents for being unarmed you have to blame the perpetrators for being armed. In the case of all the above examples it was the citizens who turned against other citizens, the governments power is in words not weapons, they turn neighbour against neighbour.



    Also with the exception of Germany everyone of those examples is outside of the western sphere of CIVILisation. Im not going to say the west is exempt but I dont think we will see those days repeating.



    Regarding the Australia statistics, it has been only 12 months! there are also many other factors involved in those statistics including a large dissident Asian migration. You will inevitably see a rise in crime immedeatly after an amnesty, but then they are not designed for short term premise.


    Indeed. They are inanimate objects, extremely dangerous ones when in the wrong hands. The fewer guns there are the less chance they will be in the wrong hands, that is the logic. It will not stop crime but it will stop firearm related death and injury be they criminal acts or freak accidents. Reminds me of the old saying "you should not be scared of flying, its the crashing part that kills you".

    You see thats where I see the problem lay, it is all to easy to get a weapon in some countries. Any Tom, DIck or Harry can procure a weapon with ease, the consequence is that a grudge can turn to a murder with comparative ease, a small robbery can quickly turn into a homicide with ease, a bar fight can go from a game of fisticuffs to being a bloodbath with the same amount of ease that was required to procure a firearm in the first place.

    Okay lets set-up an example; a man sees his wife with another man, he is heart broken, teeming with anger and mentally unstable, he wishes they were dead. Keeping in mind he is not thinking straight, he is seeing nothing but red anger. If he has access to a firearm he would most probably do some thing he would regret later. If it is made increasingly difficult to procure a handgun then he has too go through many steps, in each one of those steps he gives himself the oppurtunity to change his mind.

    You lpace this concept on any scenario be it a guy in a santa suit, a college student to a gangmember. Having access to that inanimate object acceleraes and amplifies the crime they would be committing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
  9. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Also here are a few more fun facts to back up what you are saying Hybrix.

    From NCPA | A Leader In Promoting Private Alternatives To Government Regulation & Control

    And just for you snowflake...

    Link

    Enjoy your gun free Utopia England. I'd rather take my chances and have a gun or 16 :)
    ------
    They won't do an outright ban. That would piss a bunch of people off. They will do it thru gun control, taxes, bans of certain firearms etc... slowly so people won't notice.
    ------
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2009
  10. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    The whole argument about folks needing guns to protect themselves from the government makes no sense in modern first-world nations. If the military and police in a nation are backing the government (which would probably mean the majority of the population backed it), the government would crush any resistance like it was swatting a fly. If the military and police don't back the government, the government won't be the government long enough to do anything that would require a resistance to form. Now if folks in the military and police forces split on the issue, the deciding factor in what faction will be victorious would still seem to have nothing to do with whether or not citizens are armed.

    In what precise scenario, would armed citizens be the key factor in whether or not the American government could successfully round folks up and kill them?
     

Share This Page