Except you'll get caught. It would be dead simple for the cops to do that too. If you ponder that for a moment you'll see why this is obvious.
Except you'll get caught. It would be dead simple for the cops to do that too. If you ponder that for a moment you'll see why this is obvious.
BladeVenom, if you want to make an AK there are plans out there for bending jigs so you can just bend sheet metal into an AK frame. I have the schematics actually as recent debate on these forums over gun control has sparked a curiosity of mine for more information. I now hold about 500 e-books dedicated to manufacturing fire arms and accessories lol.
BTW HypX you want to spend even MORE tax dollars and have even MORE infringement on our privacy, put MORE police out on the street, simply because you're afraid of a statistic? Sad way to live. I bet you're A-OK with Police and Military having fire arms right? Why are you ok with some of your neighbors having access and not others? Because they are trained? You didn't train them. Because they passed a psyche test? Did you administer it? How can you trust those that did? Goes on and on. Like I said, you want the time machine. Better get to work.
BTW HypX you want to spend even MORE tax dollars and have even MORE infringement on our privacy, put MORE police out on the street, simply because you're afraid of a statistic? Sad way to live. I bet you're A-OK with Police and Military having fire arms right? Why are you ok with some of your neighbors having access and not others? Because they are trained? You didn't train them. Because they passed a psyche test? Did you administer it? How can you trust those that did? Goes on and on. Like I said, you want the time machine. Better get to work.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
I'm a big fan of guns, but I'll be honest: a nationwide ban like Great Britain would work in reducing gun violence.
But a nationwide ban would also kill the firearms industry. Is killing a multi-billion dollar industry in our own country worth saving a few thousand lives? Nope.
But a nationwide ban would also kill the firearms industry. Is killing a multi-billion dollar industry in our own country worth saving a few thousand lives? Nope.
HypX you keep saying "you'll get caught, you'll get caught" except there are literally MILLIONS of criminals who aren't caught now. They just aren't and it isn't due to any lack of effort or willingness to throw money at the problem. It's simply because you cannot make something not exist if it already exists. The information is there, the tools available, the need for its existence, so it is simply an impossibility to do away with, nor would I even support doing away with it because I believe that to be anti-progress of our species. We should be made deathly aware of our mortality and ease of which a human can devolve into evil.
PS there are absolutely times when using a gun to end a life is justified and that includes a single individuals rational that someone is trying to bring upon their end. Their world view, their perspective is not yours and when you want to thought police and information restrict you'll only do more to breed those kind of issues than get rid of them.
PS there are absolutely times when using a gun to end a life is justified and that includes a single individuals rational that someone is trying to bring upon their end. Their world view, their perspective is not yours and when you want to thought police and information restrict you'll only do more to breed those kind of issues than get rid of them.
Would Tesla coils work for defense?
That's what I always used. You've just gotta be careful not to build too many or you'll run low on power.
That's what I always used. You've just gotta be careful not to build too many or you'll run low on power.
Then how did UK and Japan do it? They all at one point had huge numbers of guns in their country, and now they're gone, and few try to undermine the laws.
I think I saw a statistic that showed a gun is far more likely to be used to murder someone than used in self-defense.
etrigan420
Golden Member
- Oct 30, 2007
- 1,723
- 1
- 81
:thumbsup:. Spot on. It just makes sense that if there were less guns then there would be less gun violence. Whether or not this would translate to a marked increase in other types of violent crime is debatable (and somewhat doubtful in my mind).
I also think the only way to effectively and successfully execute a nationwide ban would be to somehow, magically, make all of the current guns disappear and start from 0.
"The Gun" is just so ingrained in our culture.
Japan has always had gun control. Even before guns, only the Samurai were allowed to carry around swords.
Japan is a homogenous law abiding country. Even if they had guns they wouldn't go around shooting each others. You seldom see drug deals going bad, and turf wars in Japanese cities.
Every able bodied man in Switzerland is required to be in their militia, and they all take their fully automatic rifles home with them. They have less shootings than we do despite being so heavily armed with military weapons.
Why doesn't gun control work in Mexico or Washington DC?
It wasn't always so. Japan pre-WWII was a brutally violent nation. Though my knowledge of that period of Japan is limited.
Read the gun laws of Switzerland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
You're allowed to take a gun home with you, but you're forbidden from taking any ammunition with it.
Mexico has a ridiculous drug war problem (as well as the rest of S. America). I think whole cities in Mexico had all their police murdered. The US has weak gun laws even in supposedly "strong" gun law cities. Also, the US population, do to lax enforcement, is source of a huge amount of illegal guns to both Mexico and the inner cities, making a lot of gun laws ineffective in much of N. America.
sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,653
- 205
- 106
reducing gun crime at the expense of increasing all other crime, is not a good trade-off in my opinion.
For the people who live near low income areas, with higher theft, home invasion, and rape rates, a gun is often the only deterrent of being a victim.
when they know you have a stash which rivals sarah conner at your dispoal, they rarely are willing to near your property. Take away my stash, and my house would be robbed every saturday just like the gas station a block away.
SparkyJJO
Lifer
- May 16, 2002
- 13,357
- 7
- 81
If you can't wrap your head around this simple concept, well...
Even if we somehow kept all guns out of the hands of criminals (yeah right) it is silly to think that somehow murderers would just throw their hands up in the air and bemoan not being able to kill their target anymore. The very first murders were done with fists and maybe some rocks. And rocks can be a ranged weapon.
I long for the peaceful days of the Roman Empire, before they had guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots
If you can't wrap your head around this simple concept, well...
Even if we somehow kept all guns out of the hands of criminals (yeah right) it is silly to think that somehow murderers would just throw their hands up in the air and bemoan not being able to kill their target anymore. The very first murders were done with fists and maybe some rocks. And rocks can be a ranged weapon.
Most murders are crimes of passion. I believe the majority of them are between people who know each other, and had a dispute of some sort that led to murder. Reducing the "ease" of murder would have a very dramatic effect on number of deaths. It is also a fallacy that there is a huge gap between law abiders and crooks. Everyone commits small crimes on a regular basis; hardened criminals just do it more often or bigger crimes.
good question.
I think there are many individuals who would see inaccessibility as a deterrent.
but here we are in america we are taught to challenge every rule there is, and that no rule can stop us, so we believe that no matter how many laws we enact, it's all pointless.
i don't think it's that simple. gun control can't end violence in the US and but those who act like gun control can't do a thing act as if no criminal will obey laws. thus, why not just have no laws because criminals won't give a damn anyway?
I think there are many individuals who would see inaccessibility as a deterrent.
but here we are in america we are taught to challenge every rule there is, and that no rule can stop us, so we believe that no matter how many laws we enact, it's all pointless.
i don't think it's that simple. gun control can't end violence in the US and but those who act like gun control can't do a thing act as if no criminal will obey laws. thus, why not just have no laws because criminals won't give a damn anyway?
No
Just means a lot more innocents will get killed
When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
thejunglegod
Golden Member
- Feb 12, 2012
- 1,358
- 36
- 91
Gun control will definitely limit the number of innocents getting killed by gunfire. But obviously it's not going to stop crime in general.
z1ggy
Lifer
- May 17, 2008
- 10,010
- 66
- 91
The "magic" would be some commie President sending the police/military to every single home and require you to hand your gun in. And then if you got caught with one, you'd be imprisoned. Hmmm..Sounds like a pretty clear violation of the 2nd amendment to me. The reason our founding fathers created that particular amendment was so we could protect ourselves FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
There will always be murder. There will always be killers and people who break the law. Taking guns away won't do anything but create a black market for guns in which the ones who break the law have them. How many law abiding citizens do you know that go around shooting people, if they themselves have access to a gun? For every good citizen who accidentally has a gun fire, or some tragedy occurs, I bet there are 10 times more criminals who use guns to kill or commit crime ( Sorry no stat to back that up, just a guess).
It depends on how it's done. Small localized pockets of gun control (cities or even states in the US) isn't going to do anything, since the availability of guns remains relatively the same.
Widespread gun control (like Canada) will have an impact on the actual supply, even if our neighbouring countries help keep the supply from completely drying up.
Like I've said in other threads, even if you ascribe to the theory that gun control would only reduce guns owned by law abiding citizens, I still think that has the potential to lower the number of people who die. In Canada, two people get in a fight and while one person may get the shit beat out of them, it's rare that either person will die. If one of those people were carrying, it's a lot more likely that someone ends up at the morgue. In a lot of those cases it wouldn't even be 'murder' since it could be considered self defense. Here's a question: if Zimmerman were trolling around his neighbourhood unarmed, do you think either of them would have died that night?
Widespread gun control (like Canada) will have an impact on the actual supply, even if our neighbouring countries help keep the supply from completely drying up.
Like I've said in other threads, even if you ascribe to the theory that gun control would only reduce guns owned by law abiding citizens, I still think that has the potential to lower the number of people who die. In Canada, two people get in a fight and while one person may get the shit beat out of them, it's rare that either person will die. If one of those people were carrying, it's a lot more likely that someone ends up at the morgue. In a lot of those cases it wouldn't even be 'murder' since it could be considered self defense. Here's a question: if Zimmerman were trolling around his neighbourhood unarmed, do you think either of them would have died that night?
bruceb
Diamond Member
- Aug 20, 2004
- 8,874
- 111
- 106
No matter what idiotic rules are put in place, criminal will always get the weapons they want and it does not matter if the weapons are legal to have or not. Nor the fact that for a person with a record, they are not even allowed to have firearms. But criminals get them anyway. In a lot of areas you can't get a fully auto weapon. But the criminals and drug dealers, they do get them and use them. Rules do nothing, except penalize law abiding gun owners.
I don't know if it would limit the amount of crime, but it would limit the number of senseless deaths.
Of course gun control works. Only retarded americans (& many of those african/mid east/S. american dudes), coming from a society with a glutt of guns, would say otherwise. They can't see the big picture because they are in a culture with a massive amount of legal & illegal weapons.
It takes perhaps a dozen functional neurons to see the long term effects of gun laws on both legal & illegal markets.
I come from a country with strong gun laws, so it's hard to get a gun by either means. But we also have a culture of solving problems with a certain amount of dignity. "Assault" and "affray" crimes might be equal per capita, but they aren't necessarily reported. And we don't have bums holding us up with a cheap revolver.
It takes perhaps a dozen functional neurons to see the long term effects of gun laws on both legal & illegal markets.
I come from a country with strong gun laws, so it's hard to get a gun by either means. But we also have a culture of solving problems with a certain amount of dignity. "Assault" and "affray" crimes might be equal per capita, but they aren't necessarily reported. And we don't have bums holding us up with a cheap revolver.
From what I have read, we do not know the answer for sure, but looking at only the details being reported as "fact", there is a very good chance that Zimmerman would not be here if he relied on the good will of his attacker.
Either way though - without his gun, Zimmerman's life would have likely been in the hands of his attacker. I personally am not comfortable being in that position. Putting my life in the pope's hands is one thing, but to put in the hands of someone who has shown disdain for it is a completely different thing.
I am Canadian and I live in a society with very stringent gun controls laws. I am coming to the conclusion that all these laws do is prevent me from protecting myself against the bad guys. The bad guys are getting them (from my perspective) very easily.
This is an emotional outburst that makes no sense. Let's take Canada as an example. It has very tough handgun laws, yet over the last 20 years the number of illegal handguns in society has gone up dramatically. Logically, guns provide a huge increase in fighting power over anything else. Criminals are constantly looking for ways to get a leg up on law enforcement and each other. Outlawing guns doesn't stop these criminals from getting their hands on them - instead it makes another black market for criminals to try and assert their dominance over each other and prevents me from fighting on a common ground. Police are not there to prevent crimes - they are there to investigate afterwards and to arrest the perpetrator. The only one who can protect me and my family is me and my family.
I am Canadian whose brother in law is a LEO in one of Toronto's worst neighbourhoods. The number of handguns he finds on a daily and weekly basis has grown astronomically in the last 20 years (since he has been on the job).
There have been at least two multi-person shootings in the last couple of months in the Greater Toronto Area. 20 years ago - I would have agreed with you - now I am not sure I do.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter