Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A gun ban would never work in the US because there are tens of millions of guns, maybe even a hundred million guns, that are in the hands of individuals and totally unaccounted for. Billions of ammo floating around too, completely unaccounted for.
So if you ban guns and ammo, make it illegal to have them, sure, the authorities will get some back. But most will just go underground and people will keep them hidden at home. Prices will sky rocket, and it will be just like the losing battle on the war on drugs.
Not to mention, you can 3D print a gun, make one out of a mold of plastic, etc. You can also make your own bullets, too.
It’s one thing to ban guns on a small couple of isolated islands, like New Zealand, but it’s another thing entirely to ban guns in a country of 330 million that is over 3.7 million square miles.
The best way to prevent gun violence? Stop and frisk people driving or walking around in public spaces. But of course, that’s racist, right?
He had a grenade launcher and will be held accountable.
Give us the situation of which you are trying to tell? You can have a grenade launcher, as long as you go through the governmental regulations. If they use the grenade launcher after being approved by the United States Government, well then you are talking about a different situation.
You can also have a fully automatic weapon, as long as you follow the guns laws for having a full auto weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
No law is perfect, why do we need the perfect law when it comes to guns.
Because criminals don't care about gun laws. Why is that so hard to understand?
Or wait. I just did a search for that and apparently it's some sort of political insult from 4chan. Wow, that's elevated.
My response to your last paragraph is going to be the same as the response to the other poster's statement (below).
So here's the concern. I'm sure Eric Rudolph and other domestic terrorists saw themselves as defending themselves against a "tyrannical" government (their definition of tyrannical being "I don't agree with it because it doesn't give me exactly what I want, when I want it, how I want it").
Do you see how it might just look to someone when a person says they're going to use the 2nd amendment to defend themselves against what they see as a "tyrannical" government? Under what specific circumstances do they decide to do that, and what gives them the authority to make that decision? This may sound simple, but it sounds more like a violent threat to me.
Well, I dont understand why there is such a problem with 'violence' today...if you look at history, 'countries and people resorting to violence' is mainly how change is ushered in!!!
for petes sake, its how America became a free and separate nation!!! LOL
What kind of country would we be living in today, had all the farmers and other militia men, NOT 'resorted to violence' against the British?!!
It seems to me, 'resorting to violence' is acceptable ONLY when a govt is the one doing it!! HA HA
Bans only affect those who would abide by such laws. There's no enforcement capability, and if you can't enforce a law, it only affects those who would voluntarily abide by it.
This guy was already on parole for assault with a machine gun, which have been effectively banned since the 1930s. He chose not to obey that law, and there's no mechanism through which that ban could be enforced against this person.
Gun bans don't work.
Actually.......the article also states he had an RPG. Imagine for a moment that RPGs were legal in this country and were the same price as many guns/rifles, etc, and imagine if everyone who owned a gun was buying them. They're not btw. They're banned, but what if they weren't banned? So far, only a small amount of ppl even own weapons such as this. Imagine they were being sold everywhere, legall, illegally, etc. Do you think maybe, just maybe, criminals would somehow be able to get their hands on these, as easily as any gun today, assuming they had the cash to pay for it? It seems very apparent to me, that bans would work. They work in other countries. Ease of assessability is what allows criminals to get guns. That age old saying now, "if you ban guns, then only the criminals will have them," is idiotic. Guns are banned across the globe. Why aren't all these countries being overrun by criminals with guns if they're so easy to obtain??
Please elaborate on what you mean by "tyrannical government" and under what conditions you would use a deadly weapon against whom you perceive as such. Please elaborate on exactly what you would do.
Gun Bans don't work (unless you are talking about zero tolerance gun seizeures, Australia/UK style, which isn't likely to happen in our lifetimes).
Butthreats of gun bans do charge up a significant chunk of the Democrats' base.
It remains to be seen whether Biden's threats will amount to much more than lip service or more widely acceptable restrictions like Trump's ban on bump stocks.
Most gun restrictions are enacted at the state and even municipal level, though, not federal. So pay attention to your state elections if you want to preserve your rights.
There's no evidence that Australia's gun ban worked, either. First, the vast majority of guns weren't turned in and second, gun related crime had been on a downward trend prior to the ban and continued on pretty much the same trend after the ban. Guns bans are just another knee-jerk, simple-minded "solution" for which liberals are famous. Gun bans don't work and intrude on our Constitutional rights. For some reason, liberals seem completely unconcerned about actual results or rights.
Guns are banned across the globe. Why aren't all these countries being overrun by criminals with guns if they're so easy to obtain??
Ignored the rest because it was redundant. Please read the OP and the linked article if you're going to comment.
Many of those countries ARE being overrun. Look outside your own home once in a while.
You can start with Mexico, if you're going to bother exploring the idea. I thought it was common knowledge that the entire country is pretty much run by the drug/crime families, especially in the north. Maybe it's not so common, though. The people have no way to fight against them, you see, because guns are effectively banned in Mexico.
Keep heading south. You'll find plenty of wonderful examples of that which you claim doesn't exist.
The best way to prevent gun violence? Stop and frisk people driving or walking around in public spaces. But of course, that’s racist, right?
Stop and Frisk is not racist. Stopping and frisking mainly Black people because 'Black man bad' is racist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
