• 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.

So, to the anti-gun crowd...

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Make it harder to get guns, and you have less people killing each other with guns. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

You can sum up the ignorance and stupidity of your post with this one line. And my answer is this:

"Make it harder to get drugs, and you have less people killing each theselves with drugs. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?"

No, it doesn't. Banning something has NEVER made it harder for criminals to obtain. Prohibition and the war on drugs are very obvious examples of this.

All bans do is limit the freedoms of the law abiding. Criminals are CRIMINALS. They break the law. That's what they do. Passing law upon law in an effort to prevent people from breaking already existing laws is an abject failure. It does nothing but rob the law abiding of their rights and freedom, yet the criminals still intent on breaking the law continue to do so.
Click to expand...

If you could get heroin in any corner store you'd see a LOT more people ODing. How many people do you actually know that have a problem with hard drugs like herion, coke, etc.

The only illegal drug that is really easily accessible everywhere is weed, but unlike weed, you can't grow guns in your basement with hydroponics. You need a factory to build them, and that alone would make them much harder to get if there was a nationwide ban. The more resourceful guns would still be able to get them, but your average joe would not, or wouldn't put the extra effort in to get one.

That said, I know this ban would never happen, since there are so many gun loving rednecks in the US that even mentioning it would be political suicide.
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Now that you've seen what happens when society breaks down (NOLA) do you still want to keep disarming law abiding citizens? IE more gun control?
Click to expand...

that's what happens to when people have guns when society breaks down.
 
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
If you could get heroin in any corner store you'd see a LOT more people ODing.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The vast majority (>90%) of all heroin overdoses (which makes up for > 90% of all illicit drug overdoses) are caused by what is known as the "hot dose," or an unexpectedly potent dose. The user thinks he's injecting the correct amount when in fact he got "lucky" with some "uncut" for a change. This is the direct result of criminalization and the resultant lack of regulation in heroin sales. Were heroin properly regulated, say like other pharmaceuticals that also require very precise doses, the incidence of overdose would go down considerably. So if heroin were available at every corner store (something I wouldn't agree with btw, if legal I would prefer it to be sold in clinics), the numbers of overdoses would go down because the dosage would be strictly regulated and controled. BTW the number of illicit drug overdoses annually are less than 10% the number of prescription drug overdoses annually.
 
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Make it harder to get guns, and you have less people killing each other with guns. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

You can sum up the ignorance and stupidity of your post with this one line. And my answer is this:

"Make it harder to get drugs, and you have less people killing each theselves with drugs. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?"

No, it doesn't. Banning something has NEVER made it harder for criminals to obtain. Prohibition and the war on drugs are very obvious examples of this.

All bans do is limit the freedoms of the law abiding. Criminals are CRIMINALS. They break the law. That's what they do. Passing law upon law in an effort to prevent people from breaking already existing laws is an abject failure. It does nothing but rob the law abiding of their rights and freedom, yet the criminals still intent on breaking the law continue to do so.
Click to expand...

If you could get heroin in any corner store you'd see a LOT more people ODing. How many people do you actually know that have a problem with hard drugs like herion, coke, etc.

The only illegal drug that is really easily accessible everywhere is weed, but unlike weed, you can't grow guns in your basement with hydroponics. You need a factory to build them, and that alone would make them much harder to get if there was a nationwide ban. The more resourceful guns would still be able to get them, but your average joe would not, or wouldn't put the extra effort in to get one.

That said, I know this ban would never happen, since there are so many gun loving rednecks in the US that even mentioning it would be political suicide.
Click to expand...

Ask ANY random drug free person why they do not do drugs and you will, not once --not one single time-- hear the reply, "because they are illegal."

People who don't use drugs don't do drugs because they know the harm they can do. The illegality of drugs does NOTHING to stop the availability or addiction to drugs. Education does that. The only thing illegality does is drive the trade underground, and give great power and wealth to dangerous gangs and black markets.

As for availabilty, ask a high school student what he can aquire easier, drugs, or alcohol.

Guns are a 500+ year old technology. They do NOT require a factory, but a very elementary knowledge of metallurgy and extremely primitive tools to manufacture. I dare say it's more difficult to manufacture crystal meth... and we all know how hard it is for criminals to make that, now don't we? :roll:

However, this is all irrelevant because they will simply smuggle in guns with the same ease they do cocaine and opiates.

And while you may classify gun owners such as myself as "rednecks" to make yourself feel better in your elitist fantasy, know this: You just got owned in basic logic by one of your fantasy gun toting "rednecks."
 
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: exdeath
Lol. Been watching this thread and so far everything I would have wanted to say has already been said...

At any rate, here is my opinion on the subject:

http://members.cox.net/exdeath/armory/usp.jpg
Click to expand...

I just shot a .40 USP a couple of weeks back. Very nice gun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my first experience with it was as a rental at a range. I picked it up and put 2 in the x ring at 15 yards as easily as I pointed my finger, and I hadn't been shooting for about a year. After further research, I had to have one 😉
 
If I own a pawn shop in a major urban area about to be smacked
by a cat 5 'cane I'm thinking maybe I should PACK UP THE GUNS
and TAKE THEM WITH ME!!..Same for Wal-mart..What were they
thinking?? that the thugs would make a bee line for the fishing gear!
 
Originally posted by: BUTCH1
If I own a pawn shop in a major urban area about to be smacked
by a cat 5 'cane I'm thinking maybe I should PACK UP THE GUNS
and TAKE THEM WITH ME!!..Same for Wal-mart..What were they
thinking?? that the thugs would make a bee line for the fishing gear!
Click to expand...

First thing that came to my mind too...

Anyhow its nice to see these asshats getting what they deserve; 6 of them killed today after shooting at police and some random people they were escorting for no reason.
 
Originally posted by: BUTCH1
If I own a pawn shop in a major urban area about to be smacked
by a cat 5 'cane I'm thinking maybe I should PACK UP THE GUNS
and TAKE THEM WITH ME!!..Same for Wal-mart..What were they
thinking?? that the thugs would make a bee line for the fishing gear!
Click to expand...

Well, I agree. However, let's think about this in the real world.

You have one day to pack up your family and leave, and the roads are clogged so you better get on the road even sooner or you'll be spending the hurricane in a traffic jam.

What do you do? Pack up your family and get on the road, or drive downtown and secure the guns?
 
Originally posted by: sygyzy
Please. Everytime there is a riot or violent outbreak, you guys use it as a grand example as to why we should have guns everywhere. You are just so sure that all legal gun owners would rise up and only use their guns to protect and serve. They would never use it for any illegal acts. You are just so sure of this right? Because only the non-NRA members are starving, displaced, homeless, and desperate. All the guys with legally owned guns are in great shape in N.O.

The argument is getting old. The best part is we'll never have absolute gun freedom so it can't be proved right or wrong.
Click to expand...

A society can exists and prosper with guns everywhere, with almost no guns at all, and at every intermediar level. There are example of each of the extremes, and many example between.
As for extremes, England (no guns) and Switzerland (every man has a government-issued assault rifle).
It has to do much more with the people than with the guns
 
Compare the yearly number of murders by use of firearms in the US with the total number of US citizens killed by Al Qaida since it was founded. Bin Laden should be funding the NRA, so succesful as it is in killing Americans.
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Compare the yearly number of murders by use of firearms in the US with the total number of US citizens killed by Al Qaida since it was founded. Bin Laden should be funding the NRA, so succesful as it is in killing Americans.
Click to expand...

More sillyness. Should he be funding the knife industry, too, since the US leads all other industrialized nations in stabbing deaths as well?

Again, the US has a problem with murder, not guns. Our murder rate is higher acress the board for all modes, not just firearms.

And, as has been already pointed out countless times, Israel and Switzerland are proof that countries with high rates of private gun ownership can have LOWER murder rates than most of the European countries in which guns are banned.

Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a person is the most illogical and intellectually dishonest thing the left has ever done.
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam

If guns were illegal and I were a gangbanger/thug/criminal, I'd still wouldn't have a problem getting a gun. Why? Well, pot is illegal and I was a pothead/college student at one point in my life. The black market makes it easy to acquire restricted products if you have the right connections.
Click to expand...

mom and pop america ain't going to know those connections.

However, to find them it's about as hard as hanging out in your downtown bar/club area and get into the right circles. Then just drop what you are looking for, when money's involved and your chance of being law enforcement is diminished those dark alleys become open.

 
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle is okay.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Compare the yearly number of murders by use of firearms in the US with the total number of US citizens killed by Al Qaida since it was founded. Bin Laden should be funding the NRA, so succesful as it is in killing Americans.
Click to expand...

More sillyness. Should he be funding the knife industry, too, since the US leads all other industrialized nations in stabbing deaths as well?

Again, the US has a problem with murder, not guns. Our murder rate is higher acress the board for all modes, not just firearms.

And, as has been already pointed out countless times, Israel and Switzerland are proof that countries with high rates of private gun ownership can have LOWER murder rates than most of the European countries in which guns are banned.

Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a person is the most illogical and intellectually dishonest thing the left has ever done.
Click to expand...

Knifes have other purposes than just killing or wounding. Unless you use a half-automatic gun to cut your vegetables guns do not.
 
Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Compare the yearly number of murders by use of firearms in the US with the total number of US citizens killed by Al Qaida since it was founded. Bin Laden should be funding the NRA, so succesful as it is in killing Americans.
Click to expand...

More sillyness. Should he be funding the knife industry, too, since the US leads all other industrialized nations in stabbing deaths as well?

Again, the US has a problem with murder, not guns. Our murder rate is higher acress the board for all modes, not just firearms.

And, as has been already pointed out countless times, Israel and Switzerland are proof that countries with high rates of private gun ownership can have LOWER murder rates than most of the European countries in which guns are banned.

Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a person is the most illogical and intellectually dishonest thing the left has ever done.
Click to expand...

Knifes have other purposes than just killing or wounding. Unless you use a half-automatic gun to cut your vegetables guns do not.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to YOUR post. The fact is, knives are killing more people than Bin Laden, so by your logic, he should be funding the knife industry.

Nice try at a diversion, though. Too bad it didn't work. Better luck next time.
 
Originally posted by: Calin

A society can exists and prosper with guns everywhere, with almost no guns at all, and at every intermediar level. There are example of each of the extremes, and many example between.
As for extremes, England (no guns) and Switzerland (every man has a government-issued assault rifle).
It has to do much more with the people than with the guns
Click to expand...

Your examples have non-broken government as the base. There are guns in England.

The problem is and so many are missing it, that time and time again it has been proven without government control/possibility of arrest/witnesses, people will do whatever benefits them directly without care to their fellow man most of the time. An active government supplies a penalty for being caught doing something against the rules...this is why governments came to be at first (at the smallest level more than likely just a 'Chief/Mayor/Sheriff' type and a couple of 'assistants'). People needed some party to handle problems...then it expanded...some of it due to human greed/power....but a lot because it's needed to keep people safe and healthy (sanitation and waste management is a HUGE one)

When all hell breaks loose and people know you are the unarmed guy on the block with a whole stockpile of food, generator/fuel, etc....someone is going to come and take it. During the end of the world 2000 craze there were quite a few of the rich and upper middle class investing in personal bunkers...some basically fortified mansions.

Breakdown of even local government is one of the reasons having a gun is important. Not to prevent you getting your wallet stolen (with all of $20 in it) walking to the corner store.

However, seriously I don't know what is to become of our society...you have the poor/middle class trying to play as royalty in the streets (anyway their perception of it), and telling their children they are ENTITLED to take what they want. When caught they pull the 'DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?' and get violent... You have people in SUV and large vehicles running others off the road and forcing their way into traffic with their children in the vehicle.

Kids are only learning to take advantage of people mostly and that what you think is right, is right.

Ain't going to take long before we have more NOLA's over simple blackouts and the like.

10 years ago I'd be all for arming every person over 18. Require them to carry. That would be a great leveling ground against crime and government take over (which is always a possibility although people think 'it will never happen'). It gives a whole different risk to robbing your local pizza place when the patrons are all armed.

However, you'd have people ignoring things just like now and you'd have some getting gung-ho and blasting the guy that wanted to merge onto the freeway. I think then it'd solve more problems then it caused, but now I believe you'd have people shooting each other over who got to the front of the ticket line first.

I have found these groups are mostly the poor (with the connotation that they are entitled due to their oppression), and then the upper middle class (with the connotation that they SHOULD be rich)

I seriously think american is becoming non-unified.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.
Click to expand...

damn amused, I was going to reply to that one too.

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS NOT SO THAT WE COULD ALL BE JUST A MILITIA TO HELP THE GOVERNMENT. THE MAIN IDEA WAS TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT AWARE THAT ONCE IT STOPPED BEING FOR THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE WOULD RISE.

We as a people have nothing in our power to save ourselves should the government decide to do what it and a small minority wants...even those armed are usually so clueless they'd end up killing their family due to lack of training, thinking just buying an expensive handgun or assault rifle makes them the next Bronson or Dirty Harry.

The historical trend is no one saw their government being overthrown until it was too late. As american's we are counting on our 'leaders' to do the right and wholesome thing for us. They are all human just like those in NO.

 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.
Click to expand...

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...


 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: sygyzy
Please. Everytime there is a riot or violent outbreak, you guys use it as a grand example as to why we should have guns everywhere. You are just so sure that all legal gun owners would rise up and only use their guns to protect and serve. They would never use it for any illegal acts. You are just so sure of this right? Because only the non-NRA members are starving, displaced, homeless, and desperate. All the guys with legally owned guns are in great shape in N.O.

The argument is getting old. The best part is we'll never have absolute gun freedom so it can't be proved right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, the proof exists. Legal gun owners, especially CCW holders RARELY commit crimes, much less gun related crimes. Even in times of crisis.

The ignorant assumption that arming law abiding citizens will turn them into gun toting criminals has LONG been debunked.
Click to expand...

I would believe that reason to be because the only people who would really go after a legal gun at this point would feel they are doing some duty by upholding the law. But if 90% of the population was legally carrying guns, you'd have a lot of retards carrying them just looking for a chance to tip something in their favor. The reality is that you wouldn't have all good people or all bad people, you'd have a mix and I think thats what sygyzy was getting at. The fact is, the all gun society, would be no different than our current society, just a different set of pitfalls.
 
Originally posted by: aircooled
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: aircooled
In the 1700's no one could even imagine a gun that could fire more than once (the 6 shot revolver wasn't invented until the 1830's). So the vague term "right to keep and bear arms" is really not valid nowadays. The right to keep and bear a single shot black powder rifle okay.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

The right to keep and bear arms was not only to guarantee the individual right to keep firearms, but to keep an armed populace from which to draw a citizen militia in times of crisis.

This meant the right to keep and bear common infantry rifles and sidearms. Today, that would be select fire rifles and semi-auto handguns.

The firearm technology changes are totally irrelevant. That's like saying the right to free speech should be limited now, because we have new cuss words, and people are more vulgar.
Click to expand...

I'm not against people having the right to own guns (as long as they know how to use them properly). You are educated in this field and should have every right to own one.

The right to free speech has been limited since the writing of the constitution. You can say what you want, but now you need permits and such to do so. Same with guns, we now need licenses and such. I'm not against your rights, I just think we need to re-look at things written in the 1700's when they could not even fathom the thought of what we have now.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm right...
Click to expand...

You do not need a permit to speak your mind in the US. What ever gave you that idea?

I will NEVER support the licensing of constitutional rights. Sorry.

As for "educated in this field..." Shall we limit free speech to those who have an education? How about the right to vote? Shall we go back to the Jim Crow days and have voter qualifications?
 
Originally posted by: skace
I would believe that reason to be because the only people who would really go after a legal gun at this point would feel they are doing some duty by upholding the law. But if 90% of the population was legally carrying guns, you'd have a lot of retards carrying them just looking for a chance to tip something in their favor. The reality is that you wouldn't have all good people or all bad people, you'd have a mix and I think thats what sygyzy was getting at. The fact is, the all gun society, would be no different than our current society, just a different set of pitfalls.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that in an all-gun society it'd be made of all bad doers.

The way this works is Joe Chump walks into 7-Eleven and tries to hold them up. Chances are if everyone is armed....someone is going to get him (assuming no one is just shooting into a crowd and knows how to use their weapon).

That retard trying to tip something ot his favor would get owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top