Gun control and violence

[Zmid]

A criminal would not use a registered gun.  We could easily track them that way.

But that's the thing - they wouldn't use registered guns because there would be no such thing as registered guns.

 

They are already using illegal guns and if there was a law against all guns it would not matter to them. They are using illegal guns anyway.

 

All it would take is one slip and them to be seen with a gun of any type once. The result? Police arrest them, raid thier property and that's another gun or two/three/whatever off the streets.

 

-in first grade teacher voice-

Yeah... you see evreyone there is this place called a "black market"... It is a place where you buy "illegal stuff"...

 

...and, of course, this 'black market', just like any other market, has to have a supply. If this supply is harder to get, as a result, there is less to sell.

 

You anti-gun people seem to be very nieve... Removing guns from a society that has accepted them will elivate crime to unbelieveable numbers... Criminals would see it as a chance for them to get away with anything.

 

Except for these people who get in the way of that called 'police'.

 

Malchik, it couldn't work for a very simple reason. As I said earlier, guns have an extremely long lifetime. Even if not a single gun were made after this moment, the ones that exist already would last for hundreds of years. A well made gun simply isn't going to disappear if taken care of.

 

But, as I said above, all it requires is one little slip, and it gets confiscated by the police. Plus, of course, many of the more law-abiding people would hand in their guns if there was a 'gun amnesty'.

 

Then of course there's the problem with enforcing the ban. Just look at drugs right now... they're completely illegal and banned from production and import, but does that stop anything? If drugs can get in, illegal guns would get in just as easily.

 

Except you can smuggle drugs in far easier than guns. Plus, look at the price of drugs. They are ridiculously expensive for what they are. Even if some guns did get in, they would be out of the reach of 'casual' criminals.

 

So what's the result of all this? The people who care about the laws get disarmed, and the criminals don't.

 

No, the law-abiding people get disarmed, and it becomes harder for criminals to get illegal guns, and, as time goes on and the 'pool' of guns starts decreasing, it becomes progressively harder and harder and harder. The US government will never totally eliminate all illegal guns, but, if they make a damn good try, they can get close.

 

Perhaps that's your idea of a good world, but I'll take the ability to defend myself.

 

But that's part of the police's job - to defend you (and all the other law-abiding citizens) from criminals. All the government has to do is make sure they damn well do it.

[Arrow_Diet]

Except you can smuggle drugs in far easier than guns

<_< How would you know...?

 

Hehehe, I'm just pulling your leg.

 

He has a point though. Guns are much heavier and much more expensive to make/sell/buy. Where as a gram or so of crack can be put in a condom and shoved up your rear. :sick: I know, it's a sad truth, guns don't fit in most body cavitys ^_^

 

Where there is money to make, and laws to evade, you're always gonna get your occasional adventurer that is willing to put is ass, his wife, 8 kids, and his boat/car/house on the line to make a buck selling guns.

 

Making guns isn't gonna be illegal for quite some time... *dramatic pause* atleast, not with Bush in office :bleh:

[Peregrine]

But that's part of the police's job - to defend you (and all the other law-abiding citizens) from criminals. All the government has to do is make sure they damn well do it.

Yes, by investigating the crime and dealing with the person responsible: AFTER it's too late for the victim. If my life is in danger from a criminal, I'm entirely on my own. The police will get there far too late to do anything to save me. Police response times are an absolute joke compared to the time it takes to resolve the crime one way or the other. The police will arrive to find a body... the only question is whether it's the body of the victim or the attacker. I prefer for it to be the attacker.

 

 

Putting your trust in the police to defend you is foolish and suicidal.

[UberBender]

Plus, look at the price of drugs. They are ridiculously expensive for what they are.

They are only expensive because they are illegal.

 

If you were to grow/sell it in a legal way it would be quite cheap.

 

Legalize man!!!

[Zmid]

Except you can smuggle drugs in far easier than guns

How would you know...?

 

Not saying a word.... ;)

 

Seriously, I know through simply applying common sense and reading accounts of drug smugglers.

 

But that's part of the police's job - to defend you (and all the other law-abiding citizens) from criminals.  All the government has to do is make sure they damn well do it.

Yes, by investigating the crime and dealing with the person responsible: AFTER it's too late for the victim. If my life is in danger from a criminal, I'm entirely on my own. The police will get there far too late to do anything to save me.

You're missing my point. Yes, the police respond and deal with your attacker once he attacks you, but it is also thier job to make it incredibly difficult, or, ideally, impossible for your attacker to attack you in the first place, and also, if guns were illegal, to make it as difficult as possible to get a gun in the first place.

 

Plus, look at the price of drugs. They are ridiculously expensive for what they are.

They are only expensive because they are illegal.

 

Exactly my point. Guns are relatively cheap, drugs are relatively expensive. Guns are legal, drugs are illegal. To touch on another debate, certainly soft drugs (for example, cannabis) should be legalised, as, with them, you can only f**k up yourself. With a gun, you can f**k up a lot of people.

[tyjet3]

You're missing my point. Yes, the police respond and deal with your attacker once he attacks you, but it is also thier job to make it incredibly difficult, or, ideally, impossible for your attacker to attack you in the first place, and also, if guns were illegal, to make it as difficult as possible to get a gun in the first place.

 

Now you tell me, how can that be fixed?

 

What if the attacker doesn't have a gun? Say they have a bomb... then what? People should still be able to defend themselves with a gun.

 

Until you have an air proof way to solve this, i'll stick with my right to bear arms.

[Zmid]

You're missing my point. Yes, the police respond and deal with your attacker once he attacks you, but it is also thier job to make it incredibly difficult, or, ideally, impossible for your attacker to attack you in the first place, and also, if guns were illegal, to make it as difficult as possible to get a gun in the first place.

 

Now you tell me, how can that be fixed?

How can what, exactly, be fixed?

 

What if the attacker doesn't have a gun? Say they have a bomb... then what? People should still be able to defend themselves with a gun.

 

Granted, with the right knowledge you can probably make a fairly effective bomb using various household items, but the only time someone attacks a particular person with a bomb is by laying some kind of booby-trap, so the first you will know they have attacked you is when the bomb goes off and kills you. Bit late to use your gun then.

 

Another possibility is terrorist suicide bombers, but what's killing them going to accomplish? They're expecting to die, and it is quite possible they will have some sort of 'dead man's switch', so the bomb will go off if you kill them.

 

The only other way I can think of a bomb being used is by terrorist non-suicide bombers, in which case, again, most likely, the first you will know the bomb is there is when it explodes.

 

Until you have an air proof way to solve this, i'll stick with my right to bear arms.

 

Please see above.

[UberBender]

Exactly my point. Guns are relatively cheap, drugs are relatively expensive. Guns are legal, drugs are illegal. To touch on another debate, certainly soft drugs (for example, cannabis) should be legalised, as, with them, you can only f**k up yourself. With a gun, you can f**k up a lot of people.

Um... no.

 

Guns are quite expensive, more expensive than drugs at least.

 

And drugs can screw people up other than just you.

 

What if a airline pilot did drugs?

 

He would crash the plane and kill possibly hundreds of people. (not to mention the ones on the ground)

 

They do have drug test to prevent this but it does happen.

 

Same with guns.

 

We have screenings to make sure criminals don't get guns but crap still happens.

[tyjet3]

Yes, the police respond and deal with your attacker once he attacks you, but it is also thier job to make it incredibly difficult, or, ideally, impossible for your attacker to attack you in the first place

 

This is what I was asking... How do make it so no one is ever attacked? You can't... It is impossible... Crime will always exist and nothing will ever change that. So as long as we have crime, we should have a way to defend ourselves...

[Darnoc]

Only if you have total control with satellite, cameras etc. And this isn't exactly what you want, am I right? OK, the USA isn't far away from a totally controlled state...