4
   

Americans bought over 1,000,000 guns in August

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:07 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
The point is that yes the US gun market is fueling conflict elsewhere, which you had disputed.


It's the "war on drugs(TM)" which is fueling the conflicts.
If guns weren't being used in the ensuing turf wars, something else would be.
That 's a very good point.
It really IS the War on Drugs that does that.

The unkindest cut, kick below the belt against
drug dealers is to LEGALIZE their merchandise.

That is the stuff of NIGHTMARES for the drug dealers.

The floor woud drop out from under the price of those weeds.





David
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:23 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
It's the "war on drugs(TM)" which is fueling the conflicts.


Perhaps, but that doesn't change something pretty simple that I speculated about: that the number of guns purchased in America aren't just for Americans.

Quote:
If guns weren't being used in the ensuing turf wars, something else would be.


That would be a good thing, as it would likely result in fewer deaths due to the strategic implications. It's much harder to do a drive-by on some cops with knives and clubs and more lethal weaponry is harder to acquire than guns.

Still, I agree that legalization of drugs would do more to solve that problem than criminalization of gun sales.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:38 pm

AK 47s are so cheap and easy to make (retailing for $12)
and so freely available and super-rugged that it is surprizing
that Mexican druglords 'd bother with American guns at all.





David
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
they know they suck too, dave...

(they intend to use them)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:45 pm

My tri-partite panacea
to (almost) end crime:

1 ) End all government control of guns.
Restore the status quo ante as of c.1925

2 ) Repeal all anti-drug laws, restoring the status quo ante.

3 ) Permanently ISOLATE violently recidivistic criminals from decent society
(preferably not on the North American Continent).





David
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:49 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Legalizing abortion has had the largest impact on crime in modern America. That should make you consider purely social things like employment and education as being on the front lines of crime fighting.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:49 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
my apologies, suck was not the right word to have chosen, and the time limit was up.

other guns better meet their needs.

please not with the island again, dave.

we have done that one before, no?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:51 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
That would be a good thing, as it would likely result in fewer deaths due to the strategic implications. It's much harder to do a drive-by on some cops with knives and clubs and more lethal weaponry is harder to acquire than guns.


Chingis Khan never owned a gun and neither did any of his employees or contractors.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 01:58 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

they know they suck too, dave...

(they intend to use them)
Thay don 't suck.
Thay are good guns.
AK 47s are an actual improvement on the Sturmgewehr.
Indeed, Kalashnikov had Hugo Schmeisser standing next to him,
as his prisoner, helping with the developement of the AK 47,
so minimally, it had to be as good as the Sturmgewehr; very respectable functioning.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 02:00 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
That would be a good thing, as it would likely result in fewer deaths due to the strategic implications. It's much harder to do a drive-by on some cops with knives and clubs and more lethal weaponry is harder to acquire than guns.


Chingis Khan never owned a gun and neither did any of his employees or contractors.
Boms are easier to make than guns.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 02:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
they are much less practical in the environment they will be used in my humble opinion than what they are currently buying with no difficulties.

this is not a major component of the argument, and I regret teeing you off on it.

0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 02:21 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Chingis Khan never owned a gun and neither did any of his employees or contractors.


And this severely limited his ability to do drive by shootings. I'm not saying that nobody dies without guns, but it certainly would limit the strategic options some of these gangs face.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 12:39 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Chingis Khan never owned a gun and neither did any of his employees or contractors.


And this severely limited his ability to do drive by shootings.
I'm not saying that nobody dies without guns,
but it certainly would limit the strategic options some of these gangs face.
He was known for annihilation of defensive armies, after surrender.
He made piles of skulls before the communists in Cambodia
began making skull pyramids.

Some of the world's worst massacres were executed without
use of guns, e.g. 9/11 and Tim McVeigh 's bombed edifice.





David
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 07:40 am
Come to think of it, Jack the ripper and Elizabeth Borden never owned a gun between them, and neither did Lucretia Borgia for that matter...
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 07:44 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Come to think of it, Jack the ripper and Elizabeth Borden never owned a gun between them, and neither did Lucretia Borgia for that matter...

Also note how they were able to constrain their killing to just the people they intended.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:26 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Come to think of it, Jack the ripper and Elizabeth Borden never owned a gun between them, and neither did Lucretia Borgia for that matter...


You guys aren't making a very intelligent point. I've never argued that it's not possible to kill people without guns, just that it would limit the available options to do so quite significantly. You guys are taking arguments for the banning of all guns and trying to apply it to a situation where they are fighting people (cops) who do have guns and who nobody is arguing shouldn't.

The point is a simple one, the kind of attacks they have been making would be limited if they did not have guns. This should be self-evident to gun nuts more than anyone else. After all, if guns provided no tactical difference from other weapons there would be no point in fighting to keep yours, right?

So bringing up examples of people who have killed without guns is not that relevant of an argument at all, and you should at least bring up examples where their victims had guns to make it barely relevant. The cops they are killing do have guns and quite frankly they'd welcome the huge difference it would make if their killers were deprived of them, and armed with knives and hatchets. And quite frankly you guys are making comical arguments to the contrary.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:20 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
The point is a simple one, the kind of attacks they have been making would be limited if they did not have guns....


Problem is, the usual formula for taking guns away from criminals is to take them away from everybody, and that is flatly unacceptable in the United States.

Worse, the history of the thing is such that there is no trust on the side of ordinary citizens who own firearms for whatever purpose, nor should there be.

You want to end the gang-banging? Get rid of the "war on drugs". Simple particularly given the present total democrat control of government, and a hell of a lot easier than trying to ram Oinkbama's ideas about health care or cap/trade down the nation's throat. That would be something which would actually look good on the democrat side of the ledger in history books.

But leave firearms alone unless your goal actually is to start a second civil war. Basically, I really don't care how many people get killed with guns in America in a given year. That number simply doesn't amount to anything compared to the numbers of people who have died in the last century because citizens WEREN'T allowed to own guns in the countries in question.

The worst case says that the gun toll is simply a price worth paying; the best case says you could eliminate 95% of it by simply bagging the war on drugs.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:22 am
@gungasnake,
you know what's funny gunga?

the odds on Mr Obama ending the drug war are much higher than on him taking your guns.

give that some thought while you are oinking...
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 06:44 am
@Rockhead,
Quote:
the odds on Mr Obama ending the drug war are much higher than on him taking your guns....


Don't count on it. I mean Slick had eight years in which to end the drug war and could easily have done so without a thought or care as to congressional approval using his "stroke of the pen, law of the land(TM)" technique and Obama could as easily do so with or without congress, his choice. You have to assume that there is a big reason why you haven't seen this, i.e. that the drug war and the illicit industry it creates engender a massive generator of funding for corrupt pols.



Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 09:37 am
@gungasnake,
it certainly helps keep the prison system profitable.

(and lawyers like it as well)
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 08:50:53