• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Has gun control ever been proven to work?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
I'm of the Franklinite school of thought that if you give up liberty for security then you have neither, so I can only think of times in which gun control has been counter-effective.

Fun facts: Lincoln, then FDR was the first president to violate the 2nd Amendment, then LBJ, Nixon (if I'm not mistaken) then Bush 41, then Clinton.
 
(Speaking specifically about the US here)

It does not matter if strict gun control "works" or not. Owning a gun is a guaranteed constitutional right to all freemen.

Many authoritarian measures (not just strict gun control) that violate our Bill of Rights would also greatly reduce violence and crime, but then the nation would not be worth saving.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Has gun control ever been proven to work?
Click to expand...

Probably, but gun control laws will typically only be as effective as the culture in the country where they're passed allows them to be. In other words, in places where they work it's probably already low levels of firearm violence and thus "gun control" is just codifying the status quo. In places where violence is elevated, I don't think passing gun control laws make any difference whatsoever.

So in short they're pointless, but for some reason they serve as a security blanket for those who would pass them. At best, the rights of others are an afterthought; more commonly those who would pass the laws see it as an acceptable trade-off (since it's not their rights being infringed, and after all you have to break some eggs to make an omlette).
 
Depends what the goal is. Gun control worked great for the British in oppressing other people. Hard to fight rifles and cannon with sticks and rocks.

On the other hand, pervasive gun ownership has a poor track record of preventing tyranny. Iraq under Saddam had one of the most heavily armed populaces on earth.
 
I find that gun control works great. The better you control your gun, the more targets you hit!!
 
Last edited:
Depends on what gun control to you means.


Full banning I think is dumb and would cause more problems then good.
But free for all guns would also be bad if not worse.

Like all things there is a middle ground but most seem to take the extreme of one side and says its the only way.
 
I have to agree with Schadenfroh regardless if it's effective. I still don't think it's effective though, although I had been wondering what others here thought.

If there has to be gun control, then it better only be at the local level and only if it proves to be safer for law-abiding citizens than for criminals. However, I don't think the latter is possible anyway, so it's best not to try it.

I've always thought gun control disarmed the good people and helped the rapists and murderers.
 
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!! We have a winner!!!!

1) Gun control is about control, not crime reduction.

2) Criminals are criminals because they break the law. Making guns illegal only keeps law-abiding citizens from buying them, not criminals.

AV1611 out......


Anarchist420 said:
I have to agree with Schadenfroh regardless if it's effective. I still don't think it's effective though, although I had been wondering what others here thought.

If there has to be gun control, then it better only be at the local level and only if it proves to be safer for law-abiding citizens than for criminals. However, I don't think the latter is possible anyway, so it's best not to try it.

I've always thought gun control disarmed the good people and helped the rapists and murderers.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top