Banning guns in the U.S. wouldn't solve anything.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

it does even it out.

you seem to think that the people in the military are just going to mind numbingly follow government orders during a rebellion. you seem to underestimate how guerilla tactis work against large scale military. You said you're in the military right? have you even fought? Im starting to think you're a cook or something because if you were in iraq you'd realize its a serious threat.

You can continue if you want, it dosent make a difference. In a rebellion, you dont go after the military either you go after the leaders and at that point its not about who has the biggest guns its not like you would be trying to shoot handguns at tanks for christs sake. is that what you thought? please answer that because I want to see your actual train of thought derail.

RiSkyBiZ-13

Guerilla tactics, lmfao. This isn't the revolutionary war, dude. Our military uses and teaches Guerilla Tactics with just about every special forces branch under the sun. As for claiming I'm a cook, I'll ignore that and report it. *done*

So you assume that the general public, armed with whatever weapons they can salvage, can gather the intel with what little resources they have to locate key leadership, eliminate it, and expect the entire government to crumble as a result of this? (the military rank structure is designed just for this purpose, if the highest ranking gets killed, the next in line takes over) And next to strategy, war is pretty much about who has the biggest guns and the biggest boom. I'm sure you like to watch movies and play a lot of video games, but that's not real life.

I hate to break it to you, but a few hundred Afghani farmers, merchants, and nomads soundly whipped the mighty Soviet army in the 70s and 80s. Granted, they had a little help from the U.S., but they were doing just fine before the Soviets began using Mi-24s. It's not about whose gun is bigger, it's about who can use what they have available to the greatest advantage. For someone who claims to be in the military, you should know that.

If bullets were a 1,000 dollars a bullet... their would be less cilvilians.

Problem solved.

V0te me for President 2008.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]RiSkyBiZ-13

Sorry, but freedom of speech and freedom of owning crazy *** guns does not = the same.

You can't compare them. One is philosophic and the other is materialistic.

You're thinking about it too close minded IMO. They're both declarations of the inherant rights each American citizen has.

The issue of the 2nd Ammendment is a topic of such hypocrisy among those who so strongly advocate the 1st Ammendment but then dismiss all of us 2 Ammendment advocates as just "Gun Nuts".

The 2nd ammendment was designed for us to form town malitias, in case our government attempted to mirror that British government that we had so recently escaped from. In modern time, the 2nd Ammendment is outdated and has been perverted to include owning as many guns as someone can lay their hands on.

In my opinion, gun nuts are generally people who have never joined the military or done a man's job in there life, and they regret it. Owning lots of guns somehow makes them feel better about themselves, somehow making them more of a "man."

The insult you tacked onto the bottom of this post doesn't give and credit to your argument. I have a decent job, I am in college, and I am studying for a very challenging degree. I have a good family, a nice home, and a beautiful girlfriend who loves me very much. What is it in life I am missing again that I am filling up with firearms?

I own most of my guns for the reasons of historical significance. I collect WWII era weapons, and I shoot them on a regular basis. Why? It's fun. It's a unique way that I feel I can get in touch with history. Sure, I have a .45 and an AR15 as well. So I'm automatically a menace to society now? To believe that all guns in the United States need to be taken away from every citizen, you would have to also believe that every citizen and gun owner would most likely at some point in their lives go out and kill someone with said gun, and that's just foolish.

[QUOTE="DeerhunterIA"][QUOTE="11Marcel"]

The point is really that all those people owning guns makes killing so much easier I quess. If you have to buy a gun through the illegal market, you'd think twice before trying all that, or killing someone with another weapon. Getting a gun is just a treshold people have to pass to kill someone. Of course people can kill with knives, but in the case of knives, people can still defend themselves or run away (see: school shootings).

Then again, banning guns might have no effect in the US. I just wanted to say that you didn't see the problem people have with them clear enough.

swizz-the-gamer

Running didn't help all the people that have been getting stabbed in Japan lately has it?

Haven't mastered reading comprehension yet have you? What made you think I was talking about the one incident involving the guy with the van and not the numerous other stabbings that have been taking place?

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm

"While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals."

Clearly, removing guns from the hands of private citizens does nothing to control crime.

SIapshot

That's pretty interesting. That really puts a stone in gun-control advocate standings.

[QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="Luminouslight"][QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="Luminouslight"]

I am not saying that there is one large conspiracy. I am just saying that if you take guns out of the hands of the people, people will take advantage of it. We lose yet another safeguard against tyranny.

Once we lose the ability to make the government accountable for its actions, we lose our freedom.

Luminouslight

I'm still not getting how we make the government accountable for it's actions by possessing handguns. Many of the countries that don't allow the firearms we do aren't having a huge problem with governments. And look at Africa, they have loads of guns and their government is... well... I don't even know the word for it.

That is because their governments lacks stability. They lack a constitution in which their government must abide and which the people accept. I can imagine their government to be less "fair" because they lack safeguards that protect people. Just because people have guns doesn't mean that it is a good government; there are many other safeguards to protect from tyranny as well.

Exactly. I'm getting tired of people trying to say that having guns is somehow protection from the big bad evil government.

its not garunteed protection, its just something that evens it out. Politicians really wouldnt want an active rebellion going on in this country because its gonna be their lives, not the military's.

having a gun is a lot like having a body guard in an unsafe area. sure its a good idea, but does it always work? no. but its certainly better than not having anything.

It doesn't even anything out. Read this formula:

Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns Vs Artillery, Tanks, Uparmorerd HMMV's, M240B Machine Guns, Missles, Rocket Launchers, Aircraft, Gun Ships, Bombs, Mines... shall I continue?

As for it being a "body guard," the only reason that it's "better than not having one" is because EVERYONE has a gun.

Let's say you are in a room with someone else. Someone has a gun and you don't; so basically, that person has power over you. He has the power to control your life and death. So basically if he were to threaten you and tell you to do someting, you would do it, right? Power can defined as a person's ability to control someone else. Does that person have power over you. Surely.

You realize that the two of us can be in a room together - naked - and one of us still has the power of life and death over the other. Guns have nothing to do with it. What a strange argument/point? you attempted to make.

[QUOTE="SIapshot"]

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm

"While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals."

Clearly, removing guns from the hands of private citizens does nothing to control crime.

Luminouslight

That's pretty interesting. That really puts a stone in gun-control advocate standings.

it really comes down to liberals wanting a massive powerful government. kind of scary, and kind of ironic since liberals complain about the evils of the US government so often it makes me wonder why they want it bigger?

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"][QUOTE="SIapshot"]

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm

"While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals."

Clearly, removing guns from the hands of private citizens does nothing to control crime.

H8sMikeMoore

That's pretty interesting. That really puts a stone in gun-control advocate standings.

it really comes down to liberals wanting a massive powerful government. kind of scary, and kind of ironic since liberals complain about the evils of the US government so often it makes me wonder why they want it bigger?

Liberals in the past felt that the oppressor was the government. But after the industrial revolution they more or less fell that Big Business is the oppressor and believe that the government is the lesser of two evils.

I'm not going to debate, but it's all a matter of perspective. I live in North Philadelphia and I see shootings everyday and lots of innocent by-standards get killed including children. If we could somehow help alleviate that then I am all for that which includes banning guns. There's no reason any civilian needs a gun.-Dionysus-

My father, on two occasions, has had to defend himself with a firearm. He, (and I) both strongly disagree with you.

(We also hunt to put food on our respective tables.)

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Luminouslight"][QUOTE="SIapshot"]

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm

"While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals."

Clearly, removing guns from the hands of private citizens does nothing to control crime.

Luminouslight

That's pretty interesting. That really puts a stone in gun-control advocate standings.

it really comes down to liberals wanting a massive powerful government. kind of scary, and kind of ironic since liberals complain about the evils of the US government so often it makes me wonder why they want it bigger?

Liberals in the past felt that the oppressor was the government. But after the industrial revolution they more or less fell that Big Business is the oppressor and believe that the government is the lesser of two evils.

id have to disagree there, you can boycott businesses regardless of how powerful.

If you took away legal means of obtaining a firearm, all that would be left is illegal means of obtaining a firearm. The average law abiding citizen isn't going to steal for a gun; but the criminals who got their guns illegally anyway are still going to have their guns.

And the gang violence that was mentioned earlier would still be going on since almost all of those weapons are obtained illegally. Banning guns in the U.S. is a stupid idea. What we should be doing is making it harder to ilegally obtain guns. THAT would cut down on gun violence.

If you took away legal means of obtaining a firearm, all that would be left is illegal means of obtaining a firearm. The average law abiding citizen isn't going to steal for a gun; but the criminals who got their guns illegally anyway are still going to have their guns.

And the gang violence that was mentioned earlier would still be going on since almost all of those weapons are obtained illegally. Banning guns in the U.S. is a stupid idea. What we should be doing is making it harder to ilegally obtain guns. THAT would cut down on gun violence.

rockon1215

you should post more often

[QUOTE="rockon1215"]

If you took away legal means of obtaining a firearm, all that would be left is illegal means of obtaining a firearm. The average law abiding citizen isn't going to steal for a gun; but the criminals who got their guns illegally anyway are still going to have their guns.

And the gang violence that was mentioned earlier would still be going on since almost all of those weapons are obtained illegally. Banning guns in the U.S. is a stupid idea. What we should be doing is making it harder to ilegally obtain guns. THAT would cut down on gun violence.

H8sMikeMoore

you should post more often

Banning guns in the U.S. wouldn't solve anything. tsb247

You don't need a gun to kill someone. It's just as easy to do it without, but apparently the average person doesn't realize this. In most of these malicious incidents involving firearms the perpetrators are so poor with a firearm that they would do more damage with a knife.

None of you have ever made a homemade gun? They're easy to make. Not as extravagant as a manufactured gun, but they work just as well.

You could kill a person with a potato projected at high velocity. Homemade launchers and guns are fun. You would be better off to ban science. This way nobody would realized a high velocity projectile will pass through organic tissue. And they wouldn't know how to launch a projectile. So blame science, not guns.

With freedom comes personal responsibility. It's fine the way it is. If you can't behave we either kill you or lock you in a cage. It's not my responsibility to control nor protect the population.

Banning things in general never solved anything. Jello Biafra from the Dead Kennedies once said "For every prohibition you create, you also create an underground." And thats exactly what will happen if we ban guns.

[QUOTE="tsb247"] Banning guns in the U.S. wouldn't solve anything. MagnumPI

You don't need a gun to kill someone. It's just as easy to do it without, but apparently the average person doesn't realize this. In most of these malicious incidents involving firearms the perpetrators are so poor with a firearm that they would do more damage with a knife.

None of you have ever made a homemade gun? They're easy to make. Not as extravagant as a manufactured gun, but they work just as well.

You could kill a person with a potato projected at high velocity. Homemade launchers and guns are fun. You would be better off to ban science. This way nobody would realized a high velocity projectile will pass through organic tissue. And they wouldn't know how to launch a projectile. So blame science, not guns.

With freedom comes personal responsibility. It's fine the way it is. If you can't behave we either kill you or lock you in a cage. It's not my responsibility to control nor protect the population.

All very good points.

People who witness or even hear about homicide involving a firearm are always quick to blame the gun. "This would never have happened if that gun wouldn't have been available," is the usual remark out of the mouths of those who are on the anti-gun side of the debate. However, I find it silly to blame a piece of machinery for someone elses' acts. If someone was to get hit by a car, do we blame the car or the person driving it? Obviously we blame the driver, but apparently people seem to think guns are somehow different... Like the can think and act on their own, and they intend no other purpose than to harm us. Yeah... No...

It is indeed to responsibility of every gun owner to know what is right, wrong, safe, and acceptable conduct. Owning a firearm is a right and a privilege that should not be taken lightly.

This has been an awesome conversation, great points were made.:DMarineJcksn

I'm glad you think so. That's what I was hoping for. :D

[QUOTE="rockon1215"]

If you took away legal means of obtaining a firearm, all that would be left is illegal means of obtaining a firearm. The average law abiding citizen isn't going to steal for a gun; but the criminals who got their guns illegally anyway are still going to have their guns.

And the gang violence that was mentioned earlier would still be going on since almost all of those weapons are obtained illegally. Banning guns in the U.S. is a stupid idea. What we should be doing is making it harder to ilegally obtain guns. THAT would cut down on gun violence.

H8sMikeMoore

you should post more often

Ditto

Score one for the responsible gun owners!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/