Another reason banning guns won't work

Besides this...



Banning guns won't work, cause even if people can't buy them, they will just friggin make them.

This guy makes an AK out of a shovel.....

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulle ... mi-warning

I'm cool with that - anyone who can make a gun solely out of the parts of a common shovel can own and carry his gun. Anyone else can get his ass arrested for having an illegal gun before he uses it on someone.

how do you prove that they are the one that made it?

Melathys wrote:Besides this...

<pic>

Banning guns won't work, cause even if people can't buy them, they will just friggin make them.

This guy makes an AK out of a shovel.....

A shovel... and $230 of AK parts. (and some serious knowledge of how this works)

Besides, the point of banning guns is not to stop criminals from getting them. It would make it harder but of course not impossible.
The point is that with fewer firearms lying around, you'll have fewer fatal incidents and people in general will be less dangerous.

If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. Which makes it really easy to identify the outlaws - they'll be the ones with the guns. Just arrest anyone with a gun, and job done.

Our police down here don't even carry guns. There's a shotgun locked up in the car, but the officers only carry tasers and pepper spray.

That doesn't mean you can't own guns. My brother-in-law collects machine guns and has everything from a Browning potato-digger to a .50 calibre AA gun. He lends out parts of his collection to the army museum in Waiurou. He just doesn't have one slung across the back window of his pickup when he goes to get groceries.

well neither do we, but we own several guns that are used for hunting and target shooting

I'm glad other nations manage to find law enforcement officers who are willing to bring tasers and pepper spray to gun fights, or even knife fights. I want to go home every day too much to risk that, I want to bring a gun to a gun fight. Tasers can be effective, but they are not unbeatable, I've seen videos of guys who manage to slap the barbs off of them before they can shock him much, they fall down, but then get right back up. And some people are straight immune to pepper spray. We had one guy at the academy, when after being sprayed, he opened his eyes and asked when they were going to spray him.

I'm a federal agent, so we get sensitive information regarding certain trends. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that people get creative when it comes to killing/hurting other people. You don't need an extensive knowledge of how guns work to figure out how to fire a bullet at someone.

The whole Gun Control debate is one of the most stupid arguments there is. On both sides.

The evidence shows that neither gun control, nor gun possession, have any significant impact on crime either way. The only thing that matters is cultural attitudes towards violence.
For every Switzerland (almost no limits on firearms, and common ownership, with low crime) there is a Germany (extremely strict limits on firearms, very little ownership, and also low crime).
For every city you name with gun control and high crime, there is another city with widespread gun ownership and also high crime.

So, when it comes to crime, restrictions on guns don't really matter either way.

Statistically, you are more likely to be disarmed and shot with your own weapon by an attacker/intruder, particularly if you are an average civilian with no police or military training. But 80% of people think they are smarter than average, and that this wouldn't happen to THEM, even if it happens to other people. And sometimes it does make a difference and the victim having a gun does save the day, so do we just call the other people stupid and just say it's survival of the fittest?

Statistically, if guns are banned then criminals will still have guns, but they will certainly have less of them, which might be worth something, but largely the same crimes are committed, just with different methods. You start seeing knife murders instead of gun murders. In some cases a knife assault is more potentially survivable with modern medicine than a gunshot wound, but it all depends on the circumstances, making it largely a wash. A determined murderer is going to kill you, one way or another.


In a perfect world, I'd favor guns being banned for the average civilian for the same reason that explosives and dangerous chemicals are banned for the average civilian; they have no real legitimate need for that material, and the potential for misuse and dangerous accidents outweighs any utility they would get out of them. Give licenses to registered sportsmen, reenactors, farmers, and hunters, and tell everybody else no.
But it isn't a perfect world. Gun worship is too strong a part of the American culture, so it's just not worth pursuing. It would make too many people upset, for too little tangible benefit, and we have far too many guns in circulation already for them ever to be collected up and controlled.

Most of the people who care deeply about gun control either know very little about guns, very little about statistics, or do so as an emotion-based reaction to a firearms death or a robbery of someone they know.

I own a gun because I like the sound they make and it makes my penis feel really big when I shoot it. Also I like to fantasize about some totally unrealistic Zombies/Mad Max-type dystopian scenario. I'd be willing to bet that, deep down, if they were really honest with themselves, that's why most gun owners have guns as well.
The whole concealed carry group is a cult of people who have little dicks and a hero complex.

One of the best legitimate arguments for some gun control is the situation in Mexico.

In many states in the US, there are almost no limits on firearms purchasing. Fully automatic machineguns are tightly controlled, but it's not hard to get one (or convert one) if you want it badly enough and have enough money (it's very expensive). And getting extremely high caliber sniper rifles is easy.
I know people who routinely sell firearms behind a Walmart dumpster, no names, no questions asked, and think that is no big deal "because 2nd Amendment". That kind of attitude is extremely common in the South and Midwest.

As a result, the Mexican narco-terrorist cartels have been enabled to the extent that their equipment is on par or better than the actual Mexican military. They send agents over the border into places like Arizona and Texas, loaded with cash, and pay homeless people to go buy them advanced military-grade weaponry. And the state governments don't care "because 2nd Amendment".

That's basically what happened with the whole "Fast and Furious" scandal that conservatives like to rage about. It was actually an indictment of their lackadaisical attitude towards weapons sales. The ATF Agents repeatedly went to the Republican-appointed State officials and presented their findings that a bunch of homeless dudes with nonexistent income were going into gun stores and buying $200,000 sniper rifles, in cash, or hundreds of individual firearms in the span of a couple months. These weapons were obviously being siphoned to the Mexican cartels, but the Republicans in the state government took the attitude that a private citizen is entitled to buy whatever and as many firearms as he wants, so there was nothing suspicious about that activity to justify the ATF seizing those weapons. And, once bought, a private citizen can re-sell those weapons to whomever he wants, and monitoring those sales would be unacceptable "big government overreach". So the ATF's hands were tied, and they were forced to watch tracker weapons walk. Sure enough, they ended up in the hands of cartels.

Meanwhile, in Mexico, tens of thousands are being killed every year, the Mexican military struggles to regain control, and the country is on the verge of becoming a failed state. A failed state ruled by terrorists, armed with guns purchased, legally, in the United States.

Melathys wrote:I'm glad other nations manage to find law enforcement officers who are willing to bring tasers and pepper spray to gun fights, or even knife fights. I want to go home every day too much to risk that, I want to bring a gun to a gun fight. Tasers can be effective, but they are not unbeatable, I've seen videos of guys who manage to slap the barbs off of them before they can shock him much, they fall down, but then get right back up. And some people are straight immune to pepper spray. We had one guy at the academy, when after being sprayed, he opened his eyes and asked when they were going to spray him.

I'm a federal agent, so we get sensitive information regarding certain trends. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that people get creative when it comes to killing/hurting other people. You don't need an extensive knowledge of how guns work to figure out how to fire a bullet at someone.

A friend is a police detective here in New Zealand. I asked her about the issue and she said the police don't want to carry guns, because if they do then the criminals will arm themselves. Police are happy enough to have taser/spray backed up by the shotgun in the car.

When there is a gun-related incident, there is an armed-offender squad that gets called in instead of the regular cops.

im all for gun ownership, but there is no reason for a private citizen to have a semi-auto assault rifle, a high caliber sniper rifle or anything like that
police? yes in certain circumstances
military? yes, they have the training for such weapons
anyone who wants one? hell no
there is no need for it, most of the time they have no training for such weapons, and no argument for them to have one

i agree with brekkies idea, sportsmen, reenactors, farmers and hunters ONLY
to get one, you have to have training, and they are limited to under a certain size, and fire rate
sadly, we dont live in that world, and even if a gun ban is enacted, there are way too many guns out there to round up and police

some people say 2nd ammendment!
well i say fine, you can have hunting/sportsmen rifles...with training
we didnt have that restriction 200 years ago because hunting was a major source of food for most non-city dwellers and you were raised with guns and learned how to shoot, how to take care of the weapon, and how to respect it

we also have an amendment that grants us the right to not quarter military in our homes against our will....since when has that been an issue?
are you going to push for that right too?

friend of mine posted this one Fb earlier today



this makes my head hurt

How do you mess up quotation marks that badly?

The internet cares not for your foolish notions of 'correct punctuation'.

The single quotes in it aren't inherently wrong. The way most of the double quotes are facing is.

As we all know banning things is how we stop people from using them

.....

or we create an illegal black market

found this, and I thought it was an interesting idea.

AMERICA'S HUNTERS ---

The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all but a handful will return home safely.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

A friend is a police detective here in New Zealand. I asked her about the issue and she said the police don't want to carry guns, because if they do then the criminals will arm themselves. Police are happy enough to have taser/spray backed up by the shotgun in the car.

Like I said, I'm glad that they can find people willing to endanger themselves like that. Criminals have the benefit of the doubt by knowing that we do not want to hurt them, much less kill them. We don't get that benefit, we have to assume that they want to kill us, because the moment we stop assuming that is the day we don't go home at night. Complacency kills.

Melathys wrote:found this, and I thought it was an interesting idea.

That's not really a new idea. Of course there's a whole bunch of things about that to take with a grain of salt.

well that is the reason Japan never invaded
they had talked about it but due to the gun toting nature of the west, they felt it was going to cost too many lives to try it

Melathys wrote:Like I said, I'm glad that they can find people willing to endanger themselves like that. Criminals have the benefit of the doubt by knowing that we do not want to hurt them, much less kill them. We don't get that benefit, we have to assume that they want to kill us, because the moment we stop assuming that is the day we don't go home at night. Complacency kills.

I'm pretty sure unarmed police forces have some of the lowest casualty rates around. The effect that criminals don't go around armed all the time is real.

If it would work for a police force to suddenly stop carrying weapons is a different matter.

Note: Norway has both unarmed police and a higher firearms density than the US - we got tons of hunters too.

bldavis wrote:well that is the reason Japan never invaded
they had talked about it but due to the gun toting nature of the west, they felt it was going to cost too many lives to try it

So they kamikazed our ships instead?

you are comparing different times in the war
when they were considering it is in the planning stages, before pearl harbor

they didnt start kamikazi-ing until we had started pushing them back. (44 i believe is when it started, might have been late 43)
it was more of a desperation tactic. trade 1-4 pilots for an aircraft carrier, carrying thousands of sailors and the launch point for most of our naval might

and when compared to the number of lives that would be lost invading, kamikazi was a drop in the bucket
remember what finally got them to surrender - losing 2 cities to the only atomic weapons ever employed in anger. at the end of the war, we were facing the same choice they had contemplated, do we invade and run the risk of losing untold numbers of troops, or do we leave it alone and go for a different tactic?

bldavis wrote:you are comparing different times in the war
when they were considering it is in the planning stages, before pearl harbor

they didnt start kamikazi-ing until we had started pushing them back. (44 i believe is when it started, might have been late 43)
it was more of a desperation tactic. trade 1-4 pilots for an aircraft carrier, carrying thousands of sailors and the launch point for most of our naval might

and when compared to the number of lives that would be lost invading, kamikazi was a drop in the bucket

WWII is a far more interesting discussion than the original, which is inevitably going to devolve into "Well I don't see why what works for *us* wouldn't work for *everyone*." I approve of this threadjack.

youre welcome

Melathys wrote:America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Without the military to back that up... that firepower won't mean much. If that was all we were relying on, then all it'd take are some foreign aircraft and a good launching point and none of those hunters would even have a chance to fight back.



*Puts on "what if" hat*

If Japan hadn't attacked the US when they did and assisted Germany (more) with the conquest of the Soviet Union instead, do you think:

a) the US would have gotten involved anyway?
b) we'd all be speaking German/Japanese/Italian today?