Guns should be banned for all except the armed forces and the police. After all how can we have a society where eveyone feels they have to have a gun, just in case that doggy bloke on the otherside of the pub has one.
Also maybe by strictly banning guns would save pounds as public places would not have to have such high security.
Ah. Who might Joe Bloggs be?
And I take it you live on the East side of the Pond?
-andros-
Right, of course you do. That’s why it says so in your profile. Not that “saving pounds” wasn’t a dead giveaway.
Good luck, lad. I’m interested in seeing the carnage when the RedBloodedGunTotinAmericans show up.
-a-
2nd amendment debate as a second post ?garbod, you have some interesting times ahead of you…
This might be one to watch.
Norman.
Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.
Joe Bloggs, I remember him from Princeton Review. He was the kid who wasn’t an idiot but wasn’t exactly a rocket scientiest either. And he always behaved predictably.
I dont’ want to get in the debate, just wanted you to know I got the joke.
A RedBloodedGunTotinAmerican is here to debate.
First though, I would ask you to save the board (and myself) the trouble of repeating ourselves by browsing through the previous gun control topics. We seem to have beat this topic to death, so unless you are able to come up with a new perspective, you may have trouble drumming up any interest here.
The Number One Reason Free People Should Be Armed Is…
2nd Amendment: Out of “Guns and Freedom” thread…
More gun control laws (Colorado)
Having posted those links, I will just say that I think your position is moronic. If we can’t stop illegal drug trafficking, how do you propose to stop illegal gun trafficking? We can’t even keep weapons and drugs out of prisons, were the prisoners are under lock and key.
People must not realize that it is fairly simple to manufacture guns. This is a very old technology. Lets assume that after you search every house in America, search every citizen, stop every car and search it too, use a metal detector and search all the land in this country, that you get every single gun out there. Now lets pretend that people are not killing cops to get their guns. We will even go a step further and assume that you manage to do what we have never been able to do, seal the borders so that guns don’t get smuggled in from other parts of the world.
Ok, assuming all that. What is going to stop people from making guns themselves? And what about bombs? Do you think that lunatics who want to go out shooting won’t just switch to bombs?
While you’re probably right that guns don’t serve much purpose, and that banning them would probably solve more than a few social problems, I’m not sure how much support that view is going to get here. Most posters on this MB are from America, which means that this will most likely end up being a 2nd Amendment, which guarantees the right to own fire arms, discussion. In that context I really don’t think that you stand much of a chance…sorry…
Joe Bloggs, I believe is the British version of the American, John Doe.
Here’s mud in yer eye,
UncleBeer
A responsible person doesn’t own and carry a firearm because some other random person may have one. They carry because a violent predator is likely to be armed either with a firearm or knife and the best tool to defend yourself against such is with a firearm (this must include proper training, mindsetting, etc).
“Glitch … download” - Glitch’s final action. sniff
I’ll leave the gun debating to others; as Freedom said it’s been done to death (heh). But I have to pick one small nit. There is no way on Ghod’s Green Earth that you are from the UK. If you were, you could not possibly have made this statement:
If you really were from over there, you’d know that there is extremely tight security in virtually all public spaces and that there isn’t a goddamn public trash can in the whole flippin Empire on account of people keep throwing homemade bombs in 'em.
Reducing or eliminating guns, while arguably making the formerly-gun-owning families safer, would do nothing for overall public security issues. The World Trade Center was not bombed with a gun, nor was Lord Whatshisname.
Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine
batgirl:
Er, mind filling us in?
Sounds right, Unc. Any Brits, can you confirm the Bloggs=Doe connection? Or is it, as Batgirl says, a joke?
-andros-
Hm, looks like I was just one post late there…
ah, well.
and to reply to the redbloodedguntokinamerican
“Having posted those links, I will just say that I think your position is moronic.”
good to see that you’re starting this off on a civil note.
“If we can’t stop illegal drug trafficking, how do you propose to stop illegal gun trafficking?”
guns and drugs are that similar? I think you’ll have to justify this a bit more… drugs are, in many cases, addictive, highly profitable, easy to carry/conceal, and upon purchase are usually consumed. thus keeping the demand quite high. Guns, well, aren’t any of those(some are easy to conceal/carry-but most aren’t. especially with metal detectors so prevalent(airports and such)
“We can’t even keep weapons and drugs out of prisons, were the prisoners are under lock and key.”
I wasn’t aware that guns were a major issue in prisons, knives maybe, blunt objects and so on, but guns?
“People must not realize that it is fairly simple to manufacture guns. This is a very old technology.”
er…so? old technology doesn’t mean easy to make. Have you ever tried to make a gun yourself? I’m pretty sure it would require at least some sort of forge, not to mention some pretty extensive metal-working skills. And bullets would be just as hard.
“Lets assume that after you search every house in America, search every citizen, stop every car and search it too, use a metal detector and search all the land in
this country, that you get every single gun out there.”
So I’m guessing that the gradual approach isn’t something you generally favor, right? It would seem pretty simple to just outlaw guns, hold collections(every bring in your guns) and then impose stiff penalties on anyone either caught with a gun, especially if they were using it to commit a crime. No, it probably wouldn’t get all the guns, but it would come damn close.
“Now lets pretend that people are
not killing cops to get their guns.”
Sounds like a pretty safe assumption to me.
“We will even go a step further and assume that you manage to do what we have never been able to do, seal the borders so that guns don’t get smuggled in from other parts of the world.”
I think I addressed this already with the “guns are like drugs” bit.
“Ok, assuming all that. What is going to stop people from making guns themselves?”
What, you mean other than guns are really really hard to make? Why would they make them anyway? To hunt?
“And what about bombs? Do you think that lunatics who want to go out shooting won’t just switch to bombs?”
It’s a lot harder to impulsively go out and kill a whole bunch of people with bombs than with guns. For one, bombs are hard to manufacture-especially without people noticing. Secondly you realy can’t make a bomb and then leave it on your shelf for a few months until you feel like using it. So really bombs are only useful to lunatics who plan their killing sprees weeks or more in advance, I’ll pretend you meant this. In that case, well probably nothing. Of course lunatics like that were probably going to use bombs(greater destructive power) anyway, and bombs are easier to find/defuse before they go off.
The only sensible argument that I know of against serious(to the point of banning) gun control is that it’s pretty much forbidden by the second amendment, and thats enough for me. I certainly don’t support doing anything to undermine the constitution/bill of rights, and it seems like thats what extreme levels of gun control would do. For that reason I don’t support banning all guns, but really, thats about the only reason I can come up with.
Nu Vo Da Da
Guns and drugs similarity in such an event is quite accurate. And once smuggled into an area, the metal detector thing becomes pretty moot, unless you want a police state with detectors on every corner. And believe me, nothing would please a mugger/robber/criminal more than knowing that their target is unable to defend themselves. Once you have the gun, you are armed, your victim is not, and how would you be traced? There is no record of said gun, no trail, and because it was smuggled, no way to find the owner. Thus the gun becomes very consumable, the problem is, it is something that can be consumed multiple times. Guns are easy to conceal, they would become very profitable, and as pointed out, consumable multiple times, when you consider that consume means use.
People will get the guns.
I seem to recall that Australia’s crime rate tripled after guns were banned there, and Florida’s dropped rapidly when concealed guns were once more allowed. But I don’t currently have a cite, could someone please provide one?
Also, it was illegal to own a gun in the former Yugoslavia…guess what, when the country collapsed, didn’t take more than about five minutes for everyone to be armed. Turns out, most people allready were armed with guns, they just kept them hidden in the attic. So I guess when guns are illegal, pretty much everyone will be an outlaw is what that indicates.
Oh, I will also say that a blackmarket for homemade guns would almost certainly spring up. Would you also monitor the sales of metal working tools, and the equipment needed to make such things such as drill presses, powersanders, and such? Ah, they joys of the police state where your every move is watched.
>>Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry…unless the other guy is bigger than you.<<
—The dragon observes
Princeton Review is a test prep company - they prepare people to take the ACT, SAT, LSAT, GRE, MCAT and maybe a couple of other standardized tests. I don’t know about all of the tests, but part of the ACT / SAT preparation is to learn to recognize trick questions and avoid answers that sound good but are really wrong. They talk a lot about “Joe Bloggs,” a hypothetical average student who falls for the tirck questions. When I read the title of the OP, not knowing there were other uses of the term “Joe Bloggs” I thought that this was what garbod was referring to. But I could be wrong.
Why don’t we try to ban criminals for a change?
I’m trying hard not to re-live the previous threads. I promise I am.
I hate to disagree with Manhattan. Mostly because his post seems to does come down somewhere on the same side of the gun debate as I am on. But I can’t let this one little thing pass:
How does taking away the means to defend yourself and your family make you safer? You are safer WITH a gun in the house than without.
And on to Nu Vo DA DA (cool handle BTW)
These criminals are going to be the same people committing crimes on the street when they get released. If they are so committed to getting weapons when they are locked up, why do you think they would change when they are out free? If these people are armed, then I have a right to be armed to defend myself from them.
There is a quote in one of the other threads about England. It is from an article that talks about the recent surge in crime there since they banned guns. Among other things it talks about how the police are outgunned. Since every gun is illegal, the criminals are carrying fully automatic weapons since they are just as illegal as a revolver. It also talks about how they are flooding the country with illegal guns since it is so profitable to smuggle them in.
Assuming for one question 
that I was willing to turn in my guns, who would pay me for them? Would you use tax money for this? I don’t remember seeing "Gun Confiscation " listed as one of the powers of the federal government. (Ok, stop assuming I would turn in my guns)
But if the vast majority of law abiding Americans did, do you think the vast majority of criminals would also? Is it your intention to leave the criminals armed and the law abiding citizen unarmed?
What would you do about the millions of Americans who didn’t surrender their guns? Say someone broke into my home after the Federal gun confiscation program ended. Imagine there are several of them and they are armed. I use my hidden firearm to defend my family. Do I now get arrested and thrown in jail?
Really hard? For you maybe. (me too pobably) Of course It is also too hard for me to make exctasy, PCP, LSD and who knows how many other desiegner drugs. It all depends on where you are coming from. I am not talking about people making their own guns, as much as I am picturing small illegal gun manufacturing shops to pop up. These could be in the country, or out of it. Here is a thread on a board where they are making their own guns. Please note that they are not experts or anything, just hobbyists.
Here’s an example of the stuff they are talking about:
BTW…We would be lucky if they were using them to hunt. Most likely they would be selling guns to criminals so they can use them to guard their drugs, rob you and me, or any other illegal violent act that will be committed against an unarmed person.
I see you and I agree on the Second Amendment, so I don’t think we are on opposite sides of this topic. However, so much propaganda is out there demonizing guns that people don’t see that the real story about guns is that they reduce crime and save lives.
Having beat the gun subject to death, I am trying out a couple of new angles. People making their own is a new arguement for me. In doing a little more research about it, I came up with some interesting info:
People are making “almost complete” parts for the AR-15 (Civilian M-16) to sell in California. It is now illegal to sell this gun there, but people are getting around the restriction by manufacturing their own parts.
Keep in mind that the AR-15 is not a simple gun. This would be a lot easier if a small shop was set-up that made one simple gun over and over again.
Here are some quotes from the thread:
There are private individuals selling gun parts as a side business on that thread. People in California are buying the parts “almost finished” and then intend to finsh them up themselves. This is the only way they can get a legal AR-15 in California right now.
Keep in mind that only a law abiding person is going to jump through all these hoops. I criminal is just going to drive over the state line with his weapon. But if a law abiding person is willing to go through all this crap now, there is no way you can convince me that a criminal will not start selling guns that are manufactured illegaly if there is money to be made.
Even I was surprised to find out that guns are ALREADY being made to skirt the law.
I don’t want to relive old threads either. But I will re-iterate that teh main reason to keep guns legal is as a guard against tyranny. That is why the founding fathers made an amendment guaranteeing our right to bear arms.
Sure, the current government is not tyrannical. Sure, we dont’ need our guns right now. But if we don’t have them the day will come when we will.
If we don’t need guns, we don’t need the right to free speech either.
Ever notice that Britain, like most countries that outlaw gun ownership, was, and kinda is, a monarchy?
Mjollnir:
If criminals were outlawed, only outlaws would have criminals! :rolleyes:
Freedom: I believe Manhattan’s reasoning here is that, as things stand, family members are far more likely to be injured/killed with the family gun (either by accident or through exchanging gunfire with invaders) than they are likely to be shot by criminals if the family isn’t armed. did that sentence make any sense? Basically, the risk of being shot is always present if you keep firearms in the home; if you don’t have guns, the risk is only present if armed criminals break into your home while you’re there.
Otherwise, I’d have to say that having an armed body of law-abiding and careful citizens can be a great deterrent to random gun-enhanced crime. When Spike and his pals decide to bust a cap in my ass, I can spark right back at 'em. 
–Da Cap’n
“Playin’ solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one.”