1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What gun control means for...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Skribs, Dec 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Oct 29, 2010
    Lakewood, Washington
    I was just thinking about the many facets of our society that would be affected by gun control. Thought I'd break it down piece by piece.

    The Criminals: Gun control means nothing, except maybe more potential victims.

    Well, as has been mentioned thousands of times on THR, gun control would very likely not prevent criminals from obtaining the guns that are restricted or banned. The UK is a perfect example of this - they are on an island with pretty much a total ban, and yet still have "gun crime". Many shootings occur in "gun free" zones. The fact is: someone willing to commit mass murder doesn't give a rat's behind about gun laws.

    On the other hand, it is possible that making guns more difficult for criminals to acquire will result in them using less restricted weapons, such as a revolver instead of an AR, or gasoline or a knife instead of a gun. These options can be just as deadly, despite leftist rhetoric to the contrary. On the other hand, if the gun is restricted, then there's no reason not to go up to another restricted option, like a bomb. The fact is: someone who wants to commit mass murder will find a tool to do so, even if the tool they want is illegal.

    So Gun Control does nothing to the criminals except give them a more target-rich environment.

    The Economy: Gun control is bad for the economy.

    The current proposed bill would have most gun owners register weapons under NFA. That means $200 per weapon, unless adjusted to the inflated price of $3400. For most Americans, this could be a crippling financial blow, especially if already living paycheck-to-paycheck.

    In addition, the damage to big industry makers who now have to redesign their products to meet with gun control laws (and the down-time between stopping production on the "illegal" product and starting production on the new product) would be huge. This would impact their employees worse than the tax on most consumers. Then there are the countless small business accessories manufacturers who would be out of business, and gun stores that would have nearly-empty shelves until compliant stock came in.

    Gun control is bad for the American economy.

    Law-Abiding Owner: Gun control restricts the rights of law-abiding owners.

    This is pretty obvious, but the 2A should guarantee our rights. It is the only Amendment to the constitution that it is politically correct to disagree with. If I say the media should be government-run or that Mormonism and Buddhism should be illegal, I'm considered a blashphemer to patriotism in this country. But if I say we should ban guns, I can sit on a throne of money from some organisation that wants me to be a spokesperson for them.

    Just because a gun looks scary doesn't mean it doesn't work for hunting. According to the original spirit of the 2A, the military having the equipment means that we should have as good, if not better equipment. That's how we beat Britain. For self defense, I want the best tool possible, which is often the tools that antis want to restrict.

    Wait, didn't I say that "less restricted" guns are just as dangerous? So couldn't I defend myself with those? Well, there's a big difference between someone who is unimpeded in his slaughter until police show up and someone who has to defend against an attacker. There is a difference between someone who takes 20 spare magazines in a backpack to his massacre and someone who only carries the magazine in his pistol for self defense. Restrictions do not hinder prepared criminals, but they do hinder civilian self defense.

    Gun control doesn't make me safer any more than restricting the types of hammers carpenters can use makes them a better builder.

    Police: Gun control makes the job of the police harder.

    There are three reasons for this. The first is simple - the more laws there are to enforce, the more work the cops have to do. Many people say drugs and prostitution should be legal and taxed, one of the big reasons is that if you take out the cost of Vice departments and take in the revenue from taxes, it makes it easier on everyone. Same with guns. If cops don't have to worry (except to say "drop it" if you have one drawn), then they can deal with actual crimes.

    The second reason is that cops will have to deal with less victims. I watch crime shows on TV, which often have an anti slant to them (but I find them entertaining), and I can't help but wonder "what if victim #2 had a gun when this guy pulled a knife on her? Maybe this episode would only last 10 minutes..." In the case of a potential spree, a couple victims instead of a couple dozen is even better.

    The third reason is that if people are encouraged to own guns, then cops would go into the Academy with better marksmanship skills. This can't be a bad thing, especially considering the accuracy problems in NY.

    The Politicians: Gun control means "lookie! I did something!"

    As mentioned above, gun control does nothing to stop crime. Therefore, politicians who pass these laws are either stupid, or are just trying to say "look, I did something!" It's like doing a group project in school and being the person who comes up with one detail and says "okay, I did something, now you guys finish the project."

    People who pass these laws are looking for a quick bandaid to say "look, I did my part to reduce violence." The problem is that it does nothing to stop violence, so politicians are needlessly restricting my rights while at the same time failing to do what they set out to do in the first place. The worst part is that it means that instead of the pro-gun crowd being able to look at the real issue, we have to spend all of our effort fighting the antis to keep our rights. If they'd just stop trying to take our rights, I think we could move forward very quick towards the real issues.

    The "Sheeple" Antis: Gun control means a false sense of security.

    We had an AWB. People were still shot in mass shootings. UK has a total ban on guns. Home invasions are up, and people still get shot. Chicago, NYC, and DC have some of the strictest gun laws, and they have more crime than the vast majority of the US. In spite of this, people want more gun control.

    The problem is that many people do believe that a ban of some sort will work. They don't understand criminal psychology enough to know that criminals will find a way. They don't understand firearms enough to know that revolvers can still be very dangerous. They don't understand pretty much everything I've written above. They honestly believe that gun control will help the problem. Politically, this is dangerous.


    So this is probably stuff we here all know. Gun control doesn't prevent crime, infringes on my rights and capabilities, and it makes politicians look good to those who don't know any better. Hmmm...maybe it's not such a good thing.
  2. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Nov 6, 2004
    The proposed bill would require CLEO sign-off unless one does a trust. Imagine how tied up police will be when the owners of 50-100 million semi-autos and pistols come knocking for the NFA registry. A CLEO refusing to sign would essentially turn the owner into a felon unless he simply destroyed his property. It takes 7-8 months for a current Form 4 to process; there are less than 20 NFA processors to move about 30k applications a year. I hate to see how big the ATF will get or how long the waits will become when applications go up over 3,000% to handle the grandfathering.
  3. Lex Luthier

    Lex Luthier Member

    Mar 7, 2011
    Twin Cities
    Well done Skribs.
  4. snakeman

    snakeman Member

    May 20, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page