Whats wrong with gun control?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DerringerUser

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
238
Sorry if the title is a bit misleading, but i dedicated this thread to give all the reasons that gun control is BS. Your reply can be humerous, you can post links and pictures, or just anything else related. Ill state my reasons here:

1)

My primary reason would be that violent crime and burglaries would skyrocket. Guns would be readily availible to criminals, but not law abiding citizens, therefore citizens can't defend themselves against armed criminals (duh).

2)

My second reason would be that it would open up a huge gun black market. Guns couldnt be regulated by the government, so class 3 weapons would be easily available to criminals permit free. It would also start a lot more gang violence over gun sales. Look at what happened in the Alchohal Prohabition, Look whats happening with the Drug Prohabition. Its not gonna work, and its going to make society an unsafe place.

3)

The founding fathers were smart guys, they gave us the right to bear arms for a reason. In fact, theres a lot to write and im too lazy. Im going to post a link to Penn and Tellers episode on gun control. I dont have time now though.


Thoughts? Opinions?

And also, here are some Pro-Gun control videos that i found. If you want a good laugh:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FB_g1w8fxB8
 
gun control

At it's core, gun control is distrust in one's fellow man. Anti's do not value other people and, since they "know better", will attempt to regulate and control the actions of others.
 
Gun control isn't about controlling guns, its about controlling people who obey they law.

Gun control takes the power away from the people and puts the power into the hands of the government and the criminals. (Sometimes its hard to tell the two apart.)

People who look to the government for protection are not free people.
 
It targets civilians, not criminals. It's criminalizing the tool, while allowing the one that used that tool to get out a few years after his crime.

And what's more, a lot of folks, myself included, believe that the right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right, but a natural right - it's a right of all people in all nations, regardless of how their law is written. The 2d Amendment is just putting fact into words.

Who kills more people - civilians or the government? When we talk about civilian mass murderers, I don't think we ever get above a hundred (with the possible exception of Sept. 11). When we talk about governments, we regularly get thousands, if not millions.
 
Actually, gun control criminalizes the civilian population. There is absolutely, positively no such thing as liberty in the absence of serious firepower. For liberty to exist, the civilian population MUST have equal or greater means by which to project force than the government. That is a condition that must be met, otherwise liberty begins to be limited.

Gun control is the theory of subserviance to a government power. The idea that one actually has the right to project force in defense of themselves or for the preservation of their liberty is despised by many.

Most Americans believe that you do not have the right to project force. This is because the government has worked hard over the last 150 years to mold society into that way of thinking.

It criminalizes citizens because it criminalizes the WILL of the people. It makes it against the law for you to have an opinion, or even to have a say in your own life. People don't get it at all. They say, "you're wrong, you can still vote"..But that's nonsense. You have ZERO rights the moment you LOSE the ability to force the government to do the will of the people. When you lose that ability, all rights instantly become privileges given to you by the state.

The only way not to be a criminal is to not harbor such thoughts. In order to do that, you must become a slave of the state. They own your property, they own your money, they own your life. You pay rent to own your home in the form of property taxation, if you don't pay, they take it away. Do you really "own" it? No. You can be drafted to fight in a war against your will. If you don't go, you will be sent to prison. This is slavery. You have no control over your own life - it belongs to them. Either your physical life and body will be used against your will, or you will be caged like an animal, in which case you are being denied life. In either situation, your life is taken away from you against your will.

You can stand up to this, but you will be arrested and you will lose in THEIR courts. You can recognize this fact, and stand up to being arrested. They will then use force to arrest you. You can use force to resist arrest. They will then try and kill you. The logical conclusion of liberty is the use of force to defend it. Each side will up the ante until it comes down to one side is going to end up dead. If neither side compromises or gives in, the matter MUST be settled by force. That's sad, that we live in a world where liberty is challenged by the threat of lethal force. Your life is used against you to limit your liberty.

We basically live in a world where they force you to kil them because that is how relentless their tyrannical agenda is. We don't do that though. Instead, we take the abuses. However, we like to reserve the means by which we can resist IF the abuses become too great, or our threshold of tolerance is reached.


That it why it is crucial that the civilian population maintain its Right to keep and bear arms. This is why gun-control is the central enemy of a free society.
 
My primary reason would be that violent crime and burglaries would skyrocket.
Click to expand...
This is not a good reason to be against gun control, since it implies gun control would be O.K. if violent crime and burglaries did not skyrocket.

My second reason would be that it would open up a huge gun black market.
Click to expand...
This is not a good reason to be against gun control, since it implies gun control would be O.K. if a black market did not emerge.

The founding fathers were smart guys, they gave us the right to bear arms for a reason.
Click to expand...
Our Founding Fathers did not "give" us the right to keep and bear arms. They were just men, and hence did not have the authority to give us this right. Your statement also implies that we did have the right to keep and bear arms before the Constitution was written, which is clearly false.

Gun control takes the power away from the people and puts the power into the hands of the government and the criminals.
Click to expand...
This is not a good reason to be against gun control, since it implies gun control would be O.K. if gun control did not put power into the hands of government and criminals.


My point is this: the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. This right does not – and should not – depend on what criminals do!! (In fact, it shouldn't depend on anything.) We should never bring up crime statistics when justifying our right to keep and bear arms, since it implies we wouldn't have or need this right if crime statistics proved the opposite.
 
There is only one right answer to this question

Whats wrong with gun control?
Click to expand...
Every human has inalienable rights. Keeping and bearing arms is one of them. Its sole purpose is to protect the other inalienable rights.

Gun control infringes upon a person's ability to protect their other inalienable rights.

There is nothing more that needs to be said.
 
Gun control is the misguided belief that passing laws with minor penalties will do anything to dissuade people who are willing to break laws with capital penalties.
 
Gun control is the misguided belief that passing laws with minor penalties will do anything to dissuade people who are willing to break laws with capital penalties.
Click to expand...
Implicit in your argument is that it would be O.K. to pass gun control laws if the laws did dissuade people from committing crimes.

Again, we shouldn't bring up the activities of criminals when justifying our right to keep and bear arms.
 
If gun control worked then prison would be the safest place on the planet. No guns allowed, no knives allowed, no sharpened toothbrushes allowed. The government can invade your privacy any time they want and confiscate anything they want and they can keep watch on you 24/7.

Every now and then you STILL hear of stories about convicts getting firearms and drugs smuggled to them.

Ultimate proof that gun control is a waste of time and doesn't work, even under 100% government supervision of everything.
 
gun control is a waste of time and doesn't work
Click to expand...
What if it did work? Would gun control be O.K., then?

I apologize if I appear to be somewhat antagonistic in this discussion; such is not my intention. I am simply pointing out an inherent fallacy in most of our anti gun control arguments. If the mods feel I'm being a pest, just tell me to shut up. ;)
 
The Declaration of Independence - the bedrock upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights rests, says:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Click to expand...
If life itself is an inalienable right, given from the hand of God to man - which it is - the right to protect and preserve that life by any and all means is also an inalienable right. It is the duty of man to guard jealously that which the Creator has given him - along with the means to do it.

Man cannot successfully perform this duty when stripped of the most effective means (firearms) with which to so; we see evidence of this in present day England, where the sheeple of England have let the crown disarm them, transforming them from armed citizens to helpless subjects.

As far as Liberty, no people can be truly free when denied the tools of Liberty (firearms). The gun prohibitionists know this. Their goal is not "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for We The People; their goal is unlimited power for themselves. Politicians cannot have unlimited power with an armed citizenry; history has proved this. Chairman Mao of the Chinese Communist party once said, "Political power springs from the barrel of a gun."

All politicians, regardless of which nation they may call home, regardless of party affiliation, know this to be true. Remove guns from the hands of the people and you also remove political power from the hands of the people. History has proved this.

The real issue however, is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

And farther down in the Declaration:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...
So there you go: When "The Government" perpetuates a "long train of abuses and usurpations" working to "reduce them under absolute Despotism," "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

That is the crux of the matter: Our possession of firearms is a therat to "The Government" (that would be the politicans, regardless of party affiliation) and its unquenchable, unlawful and illegitimate quest for unlimited power - especially firearms that would be the most effective against "The Government" such as 50 caliber rifles, so-called "Assault Weapons," semiautomatic rifles and handguns and any firearm that is capable of utilizing so-called "high capacity" magazines.

If we cannot throw off such a Government with mere words and ballots, we would be forced to choose between submitting to despotism or throwing off said Government by force. "The Government" (that is, the politicians) want to remove the latter option from the equation.

That's what is wrong with gun control - its true purpose is to reduce We The People to defenseless, cowering sheeple; it is therefore unconstitutional, immoral, illegitimate and unlawful.
 
The problem with gun control that it's based on an assumption which can be proven to be false. That assumption is that guns can be controlled via laws and their enforcement. Controlled in this context would mean that the people that you define as wanting or needing guns have them, and no one else.

Now ask yourself when, in the history of the world, has anything for which there is sufficient demand, been truly controlled? There have been bans of varying effectiveness but almost none that actually accomplished the goal of control. And with firearms, once one person opts out of control it obviously creates a disparity of force. And while some such disparities are unavoidable, this one is completely contrived and artificial.

Further, even if perfect control were possible, the force disparity would still exist betweened the legally armed and the disarmed. Who chooses who's a member of each group and on what basis? If the process were completely incorruptable then perhaps it could sustain itself, but again, in the history of the world, when has one group of people had power over another and not eventually exploited it? and how easy is the process to corrupt? There are currently literally thousands of ways to become a felon, and a good number of them are completely inadverdent, yet will move you from eligibility for the former group to a member of the later.
 
I just found this video, trying to ban the .50cal in CA.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pQYG5wLGk5c


And R. Edd, the video was down yesterday. It wasnt playing. Someone must've uploaded it back.


Anyway, this is no fun. So im going to play the Wicked Witch of the West here, and side with gun control. Ill provide arguments that prove gun control works, and you guys try to debate me.

My first argument would be:

In 1994 Governor Weld OF Massachusetts signed a law that banned handgun possession for people under 21 in Boston. a year after Weld signed the law, Boston, riddled with youth murders in the early 1990s, began a 2 1/2-year spell without a gun murder of a child under 17.

(Most of these taken from youdebate.com)

And also, freedom of speech doesnt mean you can say anything you want, and freedom of religion doesnt mean you can sacrafice a virgin whenever you want. You can use common sense with the second amendment too.
 
In 1994 Governor Weld OF Massachusetts signed a law that banned handgun possession for people under 21 in Boston. a year after Weld signed the law, Boston, riddled with youth murders in the early 1990s, began a 2 1/2-year spell without a gun murder of a child under 17.
Click to expand...

Sheer coincidence. Besides it is already illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun from a dealer under federal law.
 
Some modern people apparently aren't smart enough to read what the founding fathers actually wrote.
Click to expand...

To me, most people who aren't on these boards aren't smart enough to understand most things, let alone what the founding fathers wrote. :)
 
DU, how about this: In 1985, Wright, Rossi & Daly published "Under the Gun". (Univ. of Fla. Press.) The GCA of 1968 was in place, for some 15 to 16 years, insofar as their research before publication.

The authors are statisticians. Their writing on the subject of crime and gun control is not boring, however, even though it's common for statistics to be so. They reviewed laws, interviewed violent felons, and crunched crime-report data.

Anyway, the primary conclusion from their data was that no gun control law ever passed in Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crimes involving firearms.

Gary Kleck's supportive work came later. John Lott's supportive work came later. Wright, Rossi & Daly have published other supportive work.

IOW, for those of us who've done our homework, we already know that gun control doesn't accomplish anything useful insofar as reducing violent crime, and does lead to the needless problems which accrue to those who are rendered defenseless.

I suggeest you review the literature, and avoid inductive reasoning on the subject.

Art
 
DU, with 20,000 gun laws on the books (or so I've read over the years) will one more gun control law do the trick and lower "gun crime"? Will two? One hundred? One thousand?

Will criminals now obey your new improved, lemon freshened laws since they could not seem to control their impulses to commit crime and mayhem under the old laws? Or will your new laws (like the older ones) only be obeyed by the law-abiding? Those who, by their very nature, will not commit some nefarious act against their neighbor and community even if no laws are in place?

How about we pass legislation that doubles time in prison for anyone using a firearm or deadly weapon (or threat of same) in the act of a crime with ZERO parole and remove ALL other gun laws presently on the books? Criminals won't care and obey that new law anyway, but it'll keep those who do disobey and are caught off the streets until they're very very old and probably won't affect the law abiding remainder of society.

Unless your only reason for gun control law(s) is/are to CONTROL the balance of society such that local, state and federal governments can act as overseer's with all the power in their hands. In which case, never mind what our forefathers thought, wrote and cared about (that "free state" thing), carry on. Business as usual. :scrutiny:
 
But, I don't think liberals believe guns walk around and shoot people by themselves. What they do believe is that guns make killing physically easier, make it too convenient esp. when angered, allow a person to kill from a distance, and allows a person to kill many people at once.

DU, how about this: In 1985, Wright, Rossi & Daly published "Under the Gun". (Univ. of Fla. Press.) The GCA of 1968 was in place, for some 15 to 16 years, insofar as their research before publication.

The authors are statisticians. Their writing on the subject of crime and gun control is not boring, however, even though it's common for statistics to be so. They reviewed laws, interviewed violent felons, and crunched crime-report data.

Anyway, the primary conclusion from their data was that no gun control law ever passed in Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crimes involving firearms.

Gary Kleck's supportive work came later. John Lott's supportive work came later. Wright, Rossi & Daly have published other supportive work.

IOW, for those of us who've done our homework, we already know that gun control doesn't accomplish anything useful insofar as reducing violent crime, and does lead to the needless problems which accrue to those who are rendered defenseless.

I suggeest you review the literature, and avoid inductive reasoning on the subject.

Art
Click to expand...

Its obvious that someone who's willing to do a major crime like murder, isn't likely to worry about a gun control law. The object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Google.com is anti-gun
Replies
18
Views
2K
Doggy Daddy
D
D
  • Locked
Gun Control and Crime (a good pro-gun article)
Replies
4
Views
526
Langenator
L
A
  • Locked
Gun Control
Replies
8
Views
893
jfh
jfh
D
  • Locked
Reasons against gun control
Replies
2
Views
557
wuchak
W
S
  • Locked
ABC's of gun Control...
Replies
0
Views
431
Spot77
S
Back
Top