• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The Gun Law Discussion

If guns are banned, then yes someone could very easily kill a lot of people with a crossbow or sword until enough police managed to get there and defeat the killer in a sword fight.

Difference is its easier to run and defend against a person with a sword than a gun, I could use a stick of sorts to shield, throw objects and generally run and hide, where a gun can be used from distance!

And I have actually got to admit I don't know a huge amount about the northern Ireland situation except that it has calmed down a lot and there was a lot if stuff happened before I was born/when I was younger.(I am only 26, and as things have not been to serious in my time, I've not read up on things!)
 
I think that even without guns, People will still kill others. Solving the root problem of violence isn't going to be as easy as taking away weapons. You'd have to take away household products, office supplies, etc... Pretty much anything can be used as a "Weapon".

As for putting the "Mentally ill" into one category, That's like putting a stereotype on a ethnicity. It's too broad and so vague it leaves too much to question. People would stop seeking help for fear of losing their CHL here in Texas!

I think that making things illegal not only makes them more valuable but it also creates more crime. Like how that "War on drugs" hasn't slowed anyone down. People want what they can't have. Look at the Hostess situation, suddenly twinkies were on ebay for thousands of dollars!

I think lots of bad things happen without guns, I just think the media doesn't focus on it enough for most to notice. They always focus on what they want to, selective processing. That is why I don't watch the news, some things are for me to learn, not for them to tell me.
 
People on here are really arguing that people wouldn't kill each other if there were no guns? Really?

I haven't been keeping that close of a track, but I'm pretty sure nobody has claimed that: all that people have said is that it would reduce what is an horrendously high firearms-related death rate (42 times that of the UK, pro-rata).

Of course it won't fix the entire problem. Life's never that simple. It is likely to help, though.

PS: I also don't expect anyone from the US to change their view about guns. It's an issue that goes beyond rationality in the US - in a way non-Americans really struggle to understand. For instance, you would just never get a suggestion of arming kindergarten teachers outside of a comedy sketch.
 
I haven't been keeping that close of a track, but I'm pretty sure nobody has claimed that: all that people have said is that it would reduce what is an horrendously high firearms-related death rate (42 times that of the UK, pro-rata).

Of course it won't fix the entire problem. Life's never that simple. It is likely to help, though.
.

It would also make other crimes rise and turn more people into victims. For example if someone tries to rob you with a knife and you pull out your gun, you win instead of being a victim. Same for attempted rape or assult. Size and strength difference doesn't matter. Same goes for a home invasion. You can either win and survive or let the police document your death and theft.
 
It would also make other crimes rise and turn more people into victims. For example if someone tries to rob you with a knife and you pull out your gun, you win instead of being a victim. Same for attempted rape or assult. Size and strength difference doesn't matter. Same goes for a home invasion. You can either win and survive or let the police document your death and theft.

I so want to leave this alone as this thread is a complete waste of time, but I just can't let that go unchallenged.

The problem with the bringing-a-knife-to-a-gun-fight analogy is that, next time, they'll bring a gun.

And so it goes on.

Basically, you end up with arms escalation.

Everyone just becomes more and more efficient at killing one and other - and bystanders. No surprise that you end up with a first world country that suffers (gross generalisation alert) third world murder rates.

You may believe that mutually assured destruction kept the cold war from going hot, but that ignores a helluvalot of little wars that got pretty hot, like Korea and Vietnam ..
 
I don't think anyone would deny that, it's just that killing someone is a heck of a lot easier with a gun than without. Of course, some people will always find a way, but I'm guessing not having a gun to hand might put off a few - stabbing is so messy! :)
The fact remains that it doesn't only happen in the US!
 
If guns are banned, then yes someone could very easily kill a lot of people with a crossbow or sword until enough police managed to get there and defeat the killer in a sword fight.
And in fact that has happened.

Therein lies the rub: banning one inanimate object only shifts the focus onto other inanimate objects, often much more grisly ones.

It's simply not practical to ban every inanimate object on earth for obvious reasons. In the long run, making the effort to think about the problem and attacking it intelligently will be a lot more effective.

Repeating past failures will only make things worse. That's guaranteed. Bans are not a legitimate solution.
 
Therein lies the rub: banning one inanimate object only shifts the focus onto other inanimate objects, often much more grisly ones.

More grisly, but less efficient.

Don't know about you, but I find a nutter with a knife a lot less scary than the same a-hole with an AR15.

In a nutshell, the gun ownership laws there are as permissive as they are here in the US.

Sorry - not sure if that's supposed to be sarcastic, but of course the laws in NI are the same as in England and Wales (Scotland is slightly different, but the effect is much the same).

Given NI is only 10 years away from a shooting war, there are however many more weapons around (despite the fact they were supposed to have been decomissioned).
 
More grisly, but less efficient.
And again I must point out that this isn't an issue for people to decide with a calculator. No number of wrongful deaths is acceptable! Banning guns "because the numbers look better" is not a solution, it's an act of cowardice.

Don't know about you, but I find a nutter with a knife a lot less scary than the same a-hole with an AR15.
I would prefer neither. But if I'm going to die, I'd much rather have it happen by a bullet through the brain and not have my last living moments to be the horrific sight of seeing myself carved up!

People can rationalize til the cows come home, but this is still a problem that demands solutions, not "what if?" excuses.

the laws in NI are the same as in England and Wales
So this is incorrect? Or this?

"Latest figures show 138,728 people are licensed by police to hold firearms in England and Wales, while 574,946 people hold shotgun certificates. Separate laws apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland."

I've never been to Northern Ireland, so all I have to go on is what I've read. If what I'm reading is wrong, please do set the record straight. I would hate to be an ill-informed outsider passing judgement on another country that I don't completely understand.
 
I haven't been keeping that close of a track, but I'm pretty sure nobody has claimed that: all that people have said is that it would reduce what is an horrendously high firearms-related death rate (42 times that of the UK, pro-rata).

It wouldn't reduce the death rate though. Nearly 100 years ago we made alcohol illegal. It did not decrease the amount of alcohol consumed. In fact alcohol related deaths went up and violent crime went up as well. It was a failed experiment to say the least.

If you were to ban guns in the US tomorrow, you wouldn't solve the problem. There would simply be a huge black market for weapons. And if you waved a magic wand and got every weapon off the street, there would still be the problem of violence. People would still kill each other because that's what people want to do. Guns were not invented because people had no means to kill each other. Guns were invented because people wanted to kill each other in the most efficient means possible. There are plenty of inefficient ways to kill people.
 
If guns were banned, it would be a total cluster frick of increased violence and mayhem..Those few individuals who (apparently this movement or legislation is using to justifying this whole ridiculous ban thing.).. are already disturbed and would just resort to bashing someone's head in with an anvil instead...


seriously...

If guns are banned...I will whittle me a weapon..fight like hell... . leave this land ...declare independence...and start my own free country.......if I have to..


.hmmmmmmm:)

sounds...familiar
 
The bottom line is banning guns is a quick fix...sooner or later you'll be hearing about school bombings instead of school shootings. There is a little more planning and technical competence involved in that, but I doubt they will ever succeed in banning diesel and fertilizer.

I think the root of the problem is the way people look at mental illness in this country. Asking for help and even getting help is taboo and marks you as "crazy." That and insurance for mental health related prescription drugs and outpatient care is usually a special case in insurance plans. You have to pay extra or maybe you don't get it at all.

I have not seen any mainstream news articles addressing that. People would rather tear down or erode constitutional rights than actually address a problem that would cost a LOT more but would pay off in the long run.
 
The bottom line is banning guns is a quick fix...sooner or later you'll be hearing about school bombings instead of school shootings. There is a little more planning and technical competence involved in that, but I doubt they will ever succeed in banning diesel and fertilizer.

I think the root of the problem is the way people look at mental illness in this country. Asking for help and even getting help is taboo and marks you as "crazy." That and insurance for mental health related prescription drugs and outpatient care is usually a special case in insurance plans. You have to pay extra or maybe you don't get it at all.

I have not seen any mainstream news articles addressing that. People would rather tear down or erode constitutional rights than actually address a problem that would cost a LOT more but would pay off in the long run.

Chalking up all or even most gun violence issues to mental health problems is a complete cop out.
 
The bottom line is banning guns is a quick fix...sooner or later you'll be hearing about school bombings instead of school shootings. There is a little more planning and technical competence involved in that, but I doubt they will ever succeed in banning diesel and fertilizer.
And in fact we have already had school bombings. It's a bigger thing in Europe, where "homeland" terrorism has been "normal" for decades. And of course it's a favorite all over the world in former war zones when the superpower du jour threatens their homeland.

Every different weapon is just a derivative of the same common cause.

I think the root of the problem is the way people look at mental illness in this country...
Obviously that's a huge factor, since just about every rampage killer turns out having some form of mental illness. (Since most kill themselves, it's hard to get real statistics though. :rolleyes:)

One big problem here is that conditions that are considered perfectly normal chemical imbalances when they occur outside the brain are "mental illness" with all the stigma and limitations that the label brings. I'm all for reform of the legal and medical systems. Reform that prohibits both parties profiting from the suffering of people, and maybe even helping these people. I'm also for protections that don't automatically disqualify people who aren't an actual threat to public safety. People with sleeping disorders shouldn't be lumped together with Charles Manson.

I have not seen any mainstream news articles addressing that. People would rather tear down or erode constitutional rights than actually address a problem that would cost a LOT more but would pay off in the long run.
It's the coward's way: pick on something that can't talk back or defend itself in any way. :rolleyes: The "war on drugs" is another example. After living through the horrible consequences of politicians attacking inanimate objects as a way to control people, I'm saying "no more!"
 
Chalking up all or even most gun violence issues to mental health problems is a complete cop out.
Obviously the solution to stereotyping isn't another form of stereotyping. Every individual person deserves individual consideration. But the fact of the matter is that people who have long histories of life-threatening mental illness shouldn't be allowed access to anything that they can use as weapons against their imaginary tormentors. The mother of the Newtown shooter who knew that he was deeply disturbed, and left him alone in a house full of guns is the real criminal in that case as far as I'm concerned.
 
Perhaps the best argument against gun control:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4123638147897

That is a great speech. The downside is that because it is full of logic and facts instead of emotion, democrats agenda, and made up numbers it will be ignored by anyone who supports gun bans.

People need to wake up. I'm sure all the 100million people murdered by their own government after they were disarmed all thought "that would never happen here", then it did. And that is just within the last century.
 
That is a great speech. The downside is that because it is full of logic and facts instead of emotion, democrats agenda, and made up numbers it will be ignored by anyone who supports gun bans.
We certainly need more logic and facts, and can entirely dispose with appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies in this matter.

People need to wake up. I'm sure all the 100million people murdered by their own government after they were disarmed all thought "that would never happen here", then it did. And that is just within the last century.
Well, in a country where the military and nobody else possesses enough nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry to utterly decimate any small-armed insurrection, it's really a moot point.

Where were the so-called protectors of grassroots American freedom in 2001 when the ironically-named "Patriot" act was being rushed through Congress? As long as we're dealing with facts now, we must face the fact that we Americans collectively traded away our liberties for the illusion of security a dozen years ago, and no amount of small arms ownership is going to make a dent on that giant act of cowardice.

I do believe that the letter and intent of the Second Amendment was to give The People a fighting chance against an illegal government. But to use that fact in an appeal to fear based on the fallacy that we still have a fighting chance is no different than the other appeals to fear.
 
We do still have a chance because the majority of our military would never follow orders to turn against the people. And the UN trying anything against us... :laugh::rofl:

And the Patriot Act and NDAA are terrible and extreme violations of several of our rights. Just because we lost those doesn't mean we should be willing to lose them all.
 
Back
Top Bottom