Ten Good Reasons To Ban Guns

[Strelnikov]

Ten Good Reasons To Ban Guns

1.) Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned.

2.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion.

3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.

4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.

5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere.

6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect them by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.

7.) Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of all the violent movies, TV shows, video games, etc!

8.) Guns owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.

9.) Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should
completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.

10.)Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights". No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is good.


Strelnikov

 

[MistressMia]

Somehow I get the feeling that this thread has a hint of sarcasm in it...hmmm...
Strel,
I have to admit that you shocked me on this one. I would never have taken you for a ban-the-guns supporter!

I don't have the time to address this post properly with my reply right now because I'm about to head out in a few minutes. But I do have 10 valid responses to your 10 reasons.

I hope everyone realizes that this is a HIGHLY controversal Subject and that posting a flame bait response to this thread will get your comments removed. Just a reminder: civil and supported answers only please.

Strel,
you've stirred up some interesting and important subject matter. I look forward to reading some equally interesting and important responses to it! 😀

I'll be away from my computer all day today (oh my!) but, I will post my stance on the matter tomorrow (Friday).

Be well.

 

[venray]

HMMMMMM

Sarcasm? I thought it was pretty straightforward and well written.
Controversial? Yes but a subject that should be discussed.

Myself..I am against the outright banning of guns (especially in these times), but I feel that those that choose to own them should have the proper training on how to use them as should all members in the household.

I have a very dear friend who owns a shooting range in CT and he begins training with kids age 6 and up. The more education we have the safer we become.


my 2 cents

 

[Dave2112]

I actually agree with Strel for the most part here, which is wierd considering my generally peaceful ways.🙄

I don't really have the problem with the right to own guns. The only problem I see a lot where I live is the "redneck" attitude toward firearms. I think gun use is a right, but it's also a responsibility, not an excuse to see if yer cousin Buford can shoot the empty beer bottle off'n yer shoulder.😀

The only real legal issue I've ever had it out with with NRA supporters is the waiting period. I don't think that if you wish to purchase a high-powered concealable weapon for no other use than personal protection, that a few days is too long to wait. Maybe it's reactive, but in this day and age, the chance to catch someone through a background check rather than "Investigate the crime after the fact 😉 " is worth a week of impatience. But that's just my personal view on the topic, and I don't claim to be right or wrong about it. I'm sure there is another view I don't agree with, but that doesn't invalidate it.

On another note, there is a reason I long for the days of hand-held weapons. When I was a Katana student, my instructor made a god point about swords one day. (Paraphrase) "Anybody can stand 50 yards away and pull a trigger, ending the life of someone they don't have to look at. But to stand 3 feet away from another man who also has three feet of sharpened steel and an attitude, look him in the eye and decide that you must kill him...you gain a new respect for life."

Not that this has anything to do with the price of a massage in Amsterdam, but you know me. 😀

 

[strtbottomjim]

The problem with swords and their various relatives is that major skill and strength is indeed needed...which takes us right back to "the strong rule the weak".

Every single advance in democracy was connected with an advance in weapons. Starting with the Magna Charta, in which the English king agreed that there'd be at least some rules *he* would have to live by, which was a major advance for the late middle ages. Y'all know why he signed it, right? Because a whole lotta peasants were camped outside with longbows that were cheap to make and own, but could take out his expensive armored knights at 200 yards.

No serious student of history would ever want every gun to permanently disappear. The results would be *ugly*...especially for women, who due to physical stature have spent most of human history as property.

 

[Haltickling]

One thing has always puzzled me: Why do practically all countries with less strict gun laws than USA belong to the 'Third World', whereas practically all countries in the 'Civilized World' enforce VERY strict gun laws - except USA? 😕

Yes, even many 'Third World' countries have strict gun laws as well, but rich people can bribe their way around laws in all these countries. Criminals everywhere do so anyway.

Just one thing worth pondering, isn't it? I know I won't be able to convince even one single gun supporter with it, but I'd be interested in your opinions. 😎

 

[shark]

Some of it has to do with the fact that the "civilized" countries are,
in many ways and to varying degrees,socialistic in their leanings.In the US the Constitution is the supreme law,and it is designed to avoid socialistic government behavior...socialistic meaning government controls and involvement.
As far as the third world,many of them are marxist,royalties,or other forms of nondemocratic or nonrepublican governments.They are also spending all kinds of effort murdering each other with a whole host of techniques.No law is worth the paper it is written on in the middle of civil wars and tribal conflicts....they usually become mob rule situations,as in Rwanda.
By the way,where was the UN in the Rwandan situation?Since they like meddling so much in other countries' affairs,why don't they go where they might do some good?
Of course,it was the UN who resettled the Jews in Palestine,wasn't it?

 

[MadKalnod]

I may be completely off base here, but I was always under the impression that membership in the "Third World" classification had more to do with economic and political factors than it did with gun ownership.

The Way I Heard It:
"First World" = Countries with dynamic economies, many industries, leaning towards Democracy and Capitalism; i.e. the U.S., Western Europe, Japan, etc.

"Second World" = Countries with State-controlled economies and industries, leaning towards Communist governments; i.e. the U.S.S.R., China, Eastern Europe, etc.

"Third World" = Countries with minimal economies and few if any industries, leaning towards Anarchy & Dictatorships, i.e. everybody else.

It's a woefully imprecise system, I realize, and I don't pay it much heed myself, but that's the way I remember it being explained.

And Hal, if you admit that criminals are going to get around the gun laws that are meant to keep them in check, then what is the point of keeping the gun laws? If you freely admit that gun laws don't stop the people they are meant to stop, why keep them around to the detriment of people who had no intention of abusing their ownership of firearms?

 

[Oblesklk]

In the US the Constitution is the supreme law,and it is designed to avoid socialistic government behavior...socialistic meaning government controls and involvement.

Actually shark, I'd argue that the United States is a very socialist country. Sure we like to tout ourselves at the last bastion of pure unadulterated capitalism, but it's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. In reality, anyone who knows anything about the theory of economics knows that capitalism, socialism, or communism will never work as written. So we, just like everyone else, use hybrid systems. Don't believe me?

Tell that to Microsoft, who was under investiagation by our government for anti competitive practices a couple years ago(not capitalist)

Tell it to the tens of thousands of farmers in the US right now that pull in almost as much cash each year from government subsidies as they do from crops (not capitalist)

Tell it to the federal reserve, which constantly alters our prime interest rates, trying to control inflation (not capitalist)

Tell it to anyone who has ever collected social security benefits without having paid into the fund (not capitalist)

And perhaps the best one yet, just take a look at the single most critical component of our government - the manner in which it collects taxes from its citizens. Long story short: flat tax = capitalism, while marginal tax rates = socialism. I'll give you two guesses which taxing system we use 😉

I am very much a socialist at heart. I think that's why I love northern Europe so much, and love the United States so much. We do encourage hard work, but we also know when to take care of each other when the shit hits the fan (and it usually does in each of our lives at least once).

At that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is commonly referred to in internet lingo as a "thread hijacking" where one participant (i.e. me) takes one topic posted in another's response (shark) that has very little, if anything, to do with the original topic posted by Strel, and just runs with it.

Sorry about that...I just find economics, fiscal policy, and the history of government more interesting than guns.

So shoot me.

Oh wait...

 

[kurchatovium]

Love your post Strel. I have a few additional comments though. You are right Haltickling "Third World" countries don't allow gun ownership because they don't want the populace to revolt and overthrow their corrrupt goverments. A friend of mine once told me that when Ghandi was asked what the most evil thing the British empire did to India he replied "They took away our guns". Sort of a suprisng comment from such a peaceful guy. The point is though as Ghandi understood that the right to defend youself, to protect yourself is the most basic right a person has. In a world where the pizza delivery man comes faster than the police this is food for thought. There is a pun there somewhere.

 

[CDFGA]

Gun ban,.....

Ahhhh, yes. Another case of the majority suffering because of the minority.
Oh yeah, since sarcasm abounds, one little statement noone else posted, thought it might be interesting, I heard it somewhere, something like: The RIGHT to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Hmmmmm.

 

[Krokus]

Nope.

I think that the idea of banning guns is absurd. Just my opinion. 😎

 

[Haltickling]

Actually, none of you managed to answer my question so far… 😕

Shark, to consider the whole European Union plus Switzerland and Japan 'socialistic in their leaning' is a highly questionable statement. You won't find many economists to support that view.

MK, you're completely correct about your definitions concerning the economic and political factors. This doesn't answer my question. Let me reformulate it: Why do practically all democratically ruled countries have strict gun control laws - except USA? Surely not because they fear insurrections…

To most Europeans, anything less than a very strict gun control sounds just as absurd as our European rules do to American gun supporters. I'm just trying to find out how to better understand Americans. 😎

 

[shark]

Oblesklk, don't worry lol.I actually agree that we are at least becoming a socialist state.All I said was that our Constitution is designed to prevent it.There has been a growing battle over the tenth amendment in recent years as the feds try to gobble up more power through the bureaucracies,and alot of people(especially in the west) are getting plenty pissed over it.Nobody elected,or apparently has any effective supervision over,these people,and they will do as they see fit to satisfy their little agendas.
I'll try to explain my last post for Hal.All countries have 3 systems
social,political,and economic.They don't always work in conjunction with each other.An economist will say that capitalism is the way it works in Europe,as will I.However,the topic in question here (guns) is not part of the economic system.At least here,it is part of the political and social systems.Many would argue that the European countries are socially socialistic,and some very much so.Politically,
it would be a case by case basis.
Isn't the European continent trying to install its own currency throughout the various countries?And squawking at those who don't want to participate? And developing a trading bloc(EU)where all members have their own little niche to fit in?Where is the democracy or republican representation in that?Surrendering your own currency is a sure way to make your economy dependent on the new issuers of currency....central control=socialism.
As far as Japan,they strictly control imports,govern their banks, and actually have the police "inspect" homes to see that everything is to their liking.Are you telling me that this form of control is not socialistic?TRY that in the US.We have steel and auto industries that are a fraction of what they were largely because the Japanese government was subsidizing their industries where the US didn't do the same for theirs.This isn't socialism?
Anyway,the gun thing. Unlike many,or possibly all,of the European nations, the US was born out of violent revolution. We have always been the place where the unwanted could go and live productive lives without someone trying to ridicule or control their lives.Our founding fathers developed a system to try to prevent a central system
that could,and historically has,tried to take their lives over.We always have been an independent people,and the original intent was to keep the US isolationist.Not possible in today's world,but the intent and the value of independence is there.No matter how you see it,it is damned hard to control an armed population,especially when a large part of it has been in the police/military.There are numerous examples of US bureaucrats stepping on people,and some are getting damned tired of it.The Ruby Ridge/Randy Weaver example will suffice quite well.How do you trust a government that breaks the law roughly 4 times and then tries to say they are enforcing it?Then kills your wife and kid in the process? By the way,one of the heads in this attack was also involved in the Waco incident,and was forced to resign over Waco.He now is a head of our national security effort.This is how the government deals with their own.And we should trust them?Compound this with the constant attack on the 2nd Amendment by leftist administrations(Clinton),and you can see what their ideas are.
The US was designed to be,and as a whole are,distrusting of government.Since gun control means letting those you distrust take your only reliable means of resistance should the worst happen,it doesn't wash.
After the 2000 election,the democrats visited 5 states which were historically theirs in popular vote...I'll try to look them up.When they asked state reps why they lost,the reply was the Democrats' support of gun control.These 5 states had the votes to nullify any result in Florida.Many Dems are bitching that even union members won't vote for Dems if they are pro-gun control,and I can tell you that many won't.
Sorry for the length of post.Too much to say about these topics,and much more too.I'll digress for a bit and see what else surfaces.

 

[shark]

Boy I hope that came through.I just tried to submit reply and found out I was moofed somewhere.

 

[TicklingDuo]

Sarcasm from Strel? Who'd a thunk it? 😀

I'm am very much in favor a our right to bear arms. In fact (hold onto your socks folks), I think it should be a requirement that every citizen, once they turn 16, be trained in the proper care and use of firearms.

Now, before someone jumps down my throat, let me explain that.

Many of the accidental shootings in this country take place because of improper securing and/or use of a weapon. If we were properly educated and took proper care of weapons, that would decrease drasticly. And, if weapons were an ordinary thing and not a novelty that tempts our young people, they wouldn't go seeking improper and unsupervised handling of weapons as much as they do...unless it's for illegal purposes, in which case, they do it anyway.

This would mean a form of gun-control where-in people would apply for a license as they do for driving. They would have to study, pass a written test, take firearms training and THEN be licensed to carry a firearm. This license would be reapplied for every few years as with a drivers license. A refresher course and test would be taken before relicensing. (Actually, IMHO, this should be the case with cars as well.) Anyone with a criminal record would be refused a license. Anyone shooting while intoxicated or stoned would have their license immediately revoked and the gun confiscated.

While this doesn't solve all the problems, I consider it to be much better than taking guns away form those who are actually carrying them legally.

just my opinion.

Ann

 

[Strelnikov]

I'll try to answer Hal.

The first real gun restrictions in the UK were enacted right after the Labour Party first elected a government in the aftermath of WWI. When the Tories got back in, they passed gun control to disarm the people, hoping to prevent a Bolshevik Revolution at home. In most European countries, the start of gun restrictions date from the same period, for the same reason.

The Bolsheviks disarmed Russians after they won the Civil War. They wanted to prevent a counterrevolution at some later date. Later, the Soviets disarmed their subject nations.

Germany had gun licensing requirements between the wars. Hitler's government was the first to impose a (selective) total ban. Enough said on that.

Australia was founded as a penal colony and has always had gun control. After they became self governing in 1910, they extended it to the police as well. Their thinking is, a policeman's job is to serve and protect. Only occupying armies need guns. An Aussie policeman friend is one of about 10 men in his department authorized to carry arms on duty. They always carry concealed. If a citizen spots the gun, there is guaranteed to be an irate call to the police station: "The copper's carrying a gun!"

Every Swiss man enters the Army at age 18. When he finishes his active service, he's assigned to a reserve unit and goes home with his weapon, to speed up mobilization. These days, the weapon is an automatic rifle, i. e. a machine gun. When his reserve obligation is over at age 45, he is encouraged to buy his weapon. Sometimes, if the weapon is no longer current, it's presented to the former reservist as a gift.

Do you notice a common thread here? Gun control is PEOPLE CONTROL. Our Bill of Rights was designed to prevent that, by denying the Government a monopoly on the means of doing violence. A disarmed populace are SUBJECTS. An armed populace are CITIZENS. It's really that simple.

Strelnikov

 

[strtbottomjim]

The gun control ideas we have in the US can *all* trace their roots back to measures originally designed to prevent first slaves, then minorities in general, from access to arms.

See also historian Clayton Cramer's "The Racist Roots Of Gun Control":

http://www.law.ukans.edu/jrnl/cramer.htm

His most shocking evidence came out of Florida, which had a "discretionary" (up to the whim of the Sheriffs as to issuance) gun permit system between 1893 and 1985. In 1941, a white dude was busted under the ordinance, and was released by the FL Supreme Court - Justice Buford gave his reasoning thusly:

"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." — Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) from Clayton Cramer’s "Racist Roots Of Gun Control"

What you're seeing here is a racist law that appears race-neutral on it's face, in order to escape scrutiny under the 14th Amendment. Before the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, gun control laws such as this Mississippi statute of 1865 were common:

"[N]o freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and pay the cost of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed to trial in default of bail."

There is also STRONG evidence that the 14th Amendment had a "gun rights connection" built in, in that it was intended to pass the "privileges and immunities of US citizenship" on to freed blacks, and prevent states from infringing on those "privileges and immunities" - and the right to arms was a key component as understood in 1868 when the 14th was passed.

 

[shark]

Training/licensing

The problem I see here is who will conduct said testing/licensing.
It is no secret that bureaucrats or other powered people will subject any applicant to whatever little pet peeve they care to.You could well imagine how testing/licensing will go when you encounter some Clintonista holding a job until retirement,or some ATF jerkoff who doesn't understand laws and due process.The further you go down the line to the locals,the more you will run into appointed sheriffs, power drunk commissioners,etc. The general idea is sound,but the implementation is the fatal flaw.
There are numerous gun safety classes one can take. It is a great idea for the youngsters to take them,and I wouldn't mind seeing hunting/shooting courses in the high schools(fat chance huh?).And courses for adults could help erase any question as to current laws pertaining to concealed carry and home defense,as these vary widely from state to state.Again,though,the implementation...........

 

[MistressMia]

Actually...I've reconsidered...I will not post in this thread in direct response to the subject matter. It's too passionate a subject for me to share my personal opinnion right now.

I'll just monitor it from the sidelines for the time being. Carry on.

 

[strtbottomjim]

As long as it's handled fairly and in a fashion with no "hidden agendas", I have no basic problem with training standards.

Ironically, the number one thing necessary to create trustworthy training requirements is that the "powers that be" finally abandon the lie that the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right. Once the US Supreme Court recognizes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA for short) as an individual right that must be recognized by local, state and Fed-level gov't agents, THEN we can start talking about reasonable training standards and how to get there.

But we sure as hell ain't there yet.

 

[Strelnikov]

Aw, come on, Mia. This is supposed to be a discussion, but so far no American has disagreed with me, and even Hal hasn't beaten me up too badly. We need some dissenting views, even foolish and misinformed ones. Do like I do, put on your asbestos undershorts and dare your opponents to flame away!

Strelnikov

 

[kurchatovium]

Just in case anyone is interesed this is the second amendment of the US Constitution. I got it off this website:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Pretty good stuff written there in case you want to read the other amnedments as well.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[MistressMia]

Thanks for the encouragement Strel, but I had to retire my asbestos undies when I pledged my loyalty to modhood. I try my best to stoke out flames and disarm flame baiting.

Pryo, guns and weapons of any kind are prohibited in the TMF...only instruments of tickling allowed.😛 😀

Enjoy! Be well.🙂

 

[shark]

Since we're still going...

The 5th Circuit court has already ruled the 2nd amendment to be an individual right. This court is only superceded by the US Supreme Court.Please correct me if i am wrong,But I understand that the US Supreme court has decided not to hear the case.If this is correct,the 5th Circuit court ruling is law.
A Louisiana court has also ruled that governments have no rights, only people have them.This will dispel the asinine notion that the 2nd amendment means that states have the right to keep a national guard or state police,as they have no right to keep or form them.