4
   

Banning Guns: What Difference Would It Make?

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 12:11 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Last year Chicago had some 500 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related.


The single variable which correlates most perfectly with every sort of urban pathology in America including the 500 croakings/year in Chicago is not gun ownership; it's the degree of demoKKKrat infestation. In other words, it is precisely the places in which old-style demoKKKrat machine politics prevails most powerfully which experience the most grief.

I don't normally walk around packing heat. The one place I normally ever go where I'd like to on general principles is the one place where the consequences of getting caught doing it would be the most horrific i.e. Baltimore Md. In fact the goofiest-looking people I ever see in NY or D.C. at least look like they came from this planet, but you can't really say that about Baltimore and this is not a racial thing since this judgment includes white people I see walking around that place too. Some of them really look like the description you hear of zombies in that Bob Hope piece:


H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 08:39 am
@gungasnake,


‘No Ma’am’
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 11:54 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

...Anti-freedom advocates claim to know what is best for the individual, they like to play God.


Hold your horses, pardner. Pro gun advocates also claim to know what is best for the individual. And, as many are aware, it is more often, I believe, pro gun advocates that even believe in a God. Anti gun advocates often are the agnostic progressive liberals? Please get your generalizations correct when slinging mud.

Since pro gun advocates are the folks that would have a gun to tell someone else to "stick-up your hands, or else," I don't see where that reflects freedom? Sounds like the freedom to intimidate people who are not the bad guys, so to speak, but don't want to have a gun, since there are too many accidents with guns.

Is the freedom that you mention the "freedom" to swagger with a gun? The "freedom" to intimidate people with any talk about one's guns at home? I would guess that non freedom loving people should be content to let their children have play dates with freedom loving households where a gun might be found, or it could go off while someone is cleaning that gun?

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 12:07 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

I don't normally walk around packing heat. The one place I normally ever go where I'd like to on general principles is the one place where the consequences of getting caught doing it would be the most horrific i.e. Baltimore Md.


"On general principles" it is someone "packing heat" that I avoid anywhere, since I cannot give people a sobriety test. Maybe, before you grow old and grey you might realize, in my opinion, how juvenile you sound to some people?

P.S.: If you are in NYC, and being a good guy you are "packing heat," based on the anti-gun laws there, you just don't belong in NYC, in my opinion, whether or not you would "get caught." Like a fart in church, or a ham sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah. Get it?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 03:07 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

...Anti-freedom advocates claim to know what is best for the individual, they like to play God.


Pro gun advocates also claim to know what is best for the individual.



Pro individual rights advocates look to the Constitution for guidance, the Anti crowd ignores the US Constitution.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 05:07 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Foofie wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

...Anti-freedom advocates claim to know what is best for the individual, they like to play God.


Pro gun advocates also claim to know what is best for the individual.



Pro individual rights advocates look to the Constitution for guidance, the Anti crowd ignores the US Constitution.


If you are alluding to the Second Amendment, then you need a militia to join, since the Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms, IN CONTEXT OF BEING IN A MILITIA.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 06:13 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:


If you are alluding to the Second Amendment


That is part of the US Constitution and it's intention is quite clear, but your interpretation is flawed.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 10:20 pm


Sheriff Scott Berry:

Quote:
Berry said he doesn't support any restrictions on assault-style weapons.

"The truth of the matter is that banning the object for the actions of the person to me is absolutely ridiculous,"

Berry says he doesn't support any kind of restriction on clips either. Bottom line for the six-time elected sheriff: the Constitution.

"You don't pick and choose, you either support the Constitution or you don't," said Berry.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 04:29 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Men with tasers have small penises. Men with GUNS however... well ok, they still have small penises, but with a nice BIG gun they can forget about their small penis for a while. Wink


What is it with Freedom Haters and childish name-calling???
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 04:43 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Gun advocates often claim that guns do not kill people; people kill people. However, I wonder how many gun advocates took algebra with the lesson on Venn diagrams, where the two circles intersecting show where two separate criteria are applicable. Meaning: guns do not kill people; people with guns kill people. The fact that people can kill people with another mode of killing does not negate that fact that in the hands of a person, a gun can be used for killing (at least until animals learn how to use a gun).


People kill without guns just as much as they kill with guns.



Foofie wrote:
Anyway, banning guns would, if I understand your post, possibly make us ripe for invasion by a foreign power that was not concerned about the military prowess of our armed forces, and would only be concerned with the straight shooting prowess of private citizens.


It is true that unless a government is willing to commit genocide, guerrilla warfare can be quite hard for them to overcome, even if they can easily overcome a powerful conventional military.



Foofie wrote:
Plus, self-defense situations would not have the benefit of an old western style quick draw shoot out (especially in "stand your ground" states).


You are confusing a duel with self defense. Not even close to the same thing.



Foofie wrote:
And, during hard times, folks would have to put out animal traps for food, rather than have the fun experience of shooting their dinner.


How would one go about trapping a deer or elk?



Foofie wrote:
Banning guns would also eliminate the many gun accidents at home,


There aren't all that many gun accidents.



Foofie wrote:
or the inebriated person deciding to do target practice not far from other civilians, who might be somewhere behind the target.


Has that ever happened?



Foofie wrote:
Banning guns would also eliminate the possibility of future vigilante style justice when there was some situation that totally offends the sensibilities of some group of people.


No. It would not do a thing to prevent vigilante lynch mobs.



Foofie wrote:
All in all, banning guns would force many people to try very hard to believe that civilized behavior needs to be the operating principal of society.


Not likely.



Foofie wrote:
It could eliminate a lot of "joy in Mudville," to quote a poem about baseball.


The loss of freedom would indeed be quite distressing.



Foofie wrote:
Oh yes, banning guns would make the lives of spouse, children and families of law enforcement officers much less stressful, since today they never know when the law enforcement officer could be shot while on duty. Now naturally, the bad guys have guns; however, banning guns could include all sorts of creative ways to take guns out of circulation, so the bad guys would not only have fewer guns, but many bad guys could not afford the inflated prices of guns on any "gun black market." In effect, banning and eliminating guns, from civil society will be like eliminating a disease with vaccines; it takes years until the disease is conquered (i.e., smallpox).


You are overlooking the fact that it is extremely easy to manufacture firearms covertly.

Banning guns would only result in criminals going into the gun making business.

It would also likely result in a big step up in lethality, as such covert manufacturers would not bother making handguns. They'd be making sawed-off double-barrel shotguns.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 04:44 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
amandanyc17 wrote:
...There's just this argument that once you outlaw the guns, the real outlaws will have more access to guns.


I do not believe that, since once guns would be outlawed, only a black market would exist for guns, and the cost of a gun would be inflated to the point where only the very wealthy criminal could afford a black market gun. The rest of us would not have to worry about the crazies with guns, since crazies are usually not able to afford inflated prices. Finally, inflation would have a good benefit.


It would be quite easy to set up a small workshop to manufacture sawed-off double-barrel shotguns for sale on the black market.

Look how successful Prohibition was, and the war on drugs is. Do you think ordinary people couldn't afford a drink then, or drugs now?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 05:06 am
@firefly,
Quote:
The third and most critical section was Appendix A, which listed every single hunting rifle and shotgun in use at the time — there were hundreds — that didn’t run afoul of the features test in the second component. Those firearms were unequivocally exempted from the bill.

At the time, gun-control advocates resisted the incorporation of Appendix A. But the idea behind it was and remains crucial to making any meaningful changes in America’s gun laws. They must gain the support of gun owners, most of whom are heartsick over senseless carnage.

By explicitly protecting hundreds of popular sporting guns, the bill enabled senators and representatives to push back against the tide of protests — many of them generated by the National Rifle Association — at town hall-style meetings in their states and districts. They could show their constituents that their ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns were protected in Appendix A or that their guns could be added to it, if need be. Proponents of the legislation distributed blue booklets describing all three parts of the bill, including pictures of the assault weapons banned by name and the full list of guns protected by Appendix A.

The nation’s principal law enforcement organizations, whose leaders testified and lobbied aggressively for the bill, also made great use of the booklets and Appendix A. In fact, it was a survey showing overwhelming support for an assault-weapons ban from police chiefs in and around his Congressional district that persuaded Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee at the time, to support the bill. His surprise yes vote offset the no vote of the committee’s conservative chairman, Representative Jack Brooks, a Texas Democrat, so that the bill could move to the floor of the House.

The existence of Appendix A also made it possible for Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Colorado Democrat and longtime N.R.A. member — coupled with his own reaction to a torrent of gun-lobby phone calls — to commit to supporting Senator Feinstein’s bill if it was essential. That moment came when a motion to table, or effectively kill, the bill came before the Senate. Although the motion would have failed with a tie vote of 50 to 50, Senator Feinstein asked Senator Campbell for his vote to show that a majority of senators supported the bill. He honored his commitment, and the motion to table failed, 49 to 51, paving the way for the ultimate passage of the bill by a vote of 57 to 43.


It might be noted that that "Appendix A" did not fool a single NRA voter.

And when election time rolled around, every single politician in a rural district was voted out of office if they voted for that unconstitutional monstrosity.

NRA voters will not be fooled by any such "Appendix A" this time, either.

That's why House Democrats are choosing to oppose any ban on assault weapons, and are going to try focusing on magazine bans alone.



Although I admit there is one interesting advantage to assault weapons legislation: If an assault weapons ban were to pass, the odds of it being struck down by the courts are 100%.

And in striking down the assault weapons ban, they would likely also strike down any limits on magazine sizes.

But if the courts were facing a stand-alone ban on large magazines, I am less sure that they would strike it down.

So in a way, assault weapons legislation may be the best way of guaranteeing that there are no limits on magazine sizes.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 05:08 am
@firefly,
Quote:
The right to bear arms typically invokes the romantic image of a cowboy toting a rifle on the plains. In modern-day America, though, the more realistic picture is that of a young black man gunned down in his prime in a dark alley. When we celebrate gun rights, we all too often ignore their disproportionate racial burdens. Any effort to address gun violence must focus on the inner city.

Last year Chicago had some 500 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. In the city’s public schools, 319 students were shot in the 2011-12 school year, 24 of them fatally. African-Americans are 33 percent of the Chicago population, but about 70 percent of the murder victims.


The problem is that in our largest cities, people are prevented from carrying handguns even though that is their Constitutional right.

The solution is on the way. We are within a couple years of the US Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the right to carry handguns when they go about in public, even in our largest cities.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 05:09 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
P.S.: If you are in NYC, and being a good guy you are "packing heat," based on the anti-gun laws there, you just don't belong in NYC, in my opinion, whether or not you would "get caught." Like a fart in church, or a ham sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah. Get it?


New York is not immune from the US Constitution.

And we are within a couple years of the US Supreme Court ordering that people in New York and Chicago (and any other large American city) have to be allowed to carry handguns whenever they go about in public. It's their Constitutional right.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 05:16 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
If you are alluding to the Second Amendment, then you need a militia to join, since the Second Amendment talks about the right to bear arms, IN CONTEXT OF BEING IN A MILITIA.


You can't limit the Second Amendment to members of the militia unless you first have a militia that people can try to join.

No militia = no limiting anything to members of the militia.


That said, the Ninth Amendment protects the right of non-militiamen to carry handguns whenever they go about in public.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 07:38 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Men with tasers have small penises. Men with GUNS however... well ok, they still have small penises, but with a nice BIG gun they can forget about their small penis for a while. Wink


What is it with Freedom Haters and childish name-calling???


There must be a 'small penis' tax credit or something because these
same haters of freedom have a thing about measuring male genitalia.
0 Replies
 
DavJohanis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 07:55 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
You are overlooking the fact that it is extremely easy to manufacture firearms covertly.

Banning guns would only result in criminals going into the gun making business.

It would also likely result in a big step up in lethality, as such covert manufacturers would not bother making handguns. They'd be making sawed-off double-barrel shotguns.


If the world standard of ammunition manufacture became designed around more dense material, also with barrels designed for usage deterioration after x rounds through the same, then creation of ammo to match the barrels would not only be harder, but would possibly be more monitor-able, based on sales of metals in conjunction with the powder or sub components.
More monitor-able too, becomes the entirety of the remainder through re-purchase of components.

Just a thought.

Going into the arms business then, leaves one with inferior weaponry if technology can bend the curve of performance with hyper powders and strengthened chambers. I also like the appeal of tranquilizer, laser, secondary attachments.

On the smaller scale though, why are they not issuing tazer licences to more people in place of gun sales?. Long range tazer design, could include the hunters rifle with tranquilizers if they prefer instead.

Why the hell are tranq guns not common?
This had not occurred to me til today for the reasons that I leave people with their guns normally, it just does not worry me, that attitude does not get a hole blown in you by even the most random characters, so I answer my own question.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 09:02 am
@DavJohanis,
Quote:
Going into the arms business then, leaves one with inferior weaponry....


You might want to ask somebody from Afghanistan or Pakistan about the state of weapon manufacturing in those places. It isn't that hard to do and they do not rely on the US or Russia for arms.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 09:11 am

It's doubtful there will be a ban of anything with this congress. It would also be doubtful they'd ever try to prohibit transfers.
The Fed doesn't have that authority at the state level and any attempted prohibition of this type presents a severe
constitutional issue under property rights. You can possess your property but not sell it? This would never pass legal muster.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 09:22 am
What I find interesting is that pro-gun advocates do not admit there are any downsides to having a gun? I therefore cannot believe all the pro-gun arguments are intellectually honest. Meaning, there are some definite downsides, such as possible gun accidents at home, or elsewhere; inebriated people with a gun; or for that matter losing social intereaction with those that think being a gun owner is just not what Jesus would have done.

So, as the saying goes, we make our beds, and then have to lay in them.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/02/2020 at 07:44:42