Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guns are just a tool. I personally have never found it necessary to own one as I have no use for it. It does give some people a sense of security, and gives others an opportunity to use them in ways frowned upon by our society (like shooting people). It, like any other tool, should be judged by its use, not its existance. Ever seen Scarface? Banning guns means next we have to ban chainsaws. If we go further down this road we'll ban skateboards, tire irons, baseball bats, cycle chains, hammers... heck anything that, if used for the wrong purpose, could hurt someone... hmm. Goonies... that scene where they interrogate Chunk by threatening to put his hand in a blender. Let's ban blenders too!

I know I will never want to own a gun as I am just not scared of people breaking into my house and I would never want to take a life anyways. If that means I will die a violent death because I am unarmed then I guess that's just the way it is. It hasn't happened yet, though and I've lived in some crazy places and I'm just fine, and I don't forsee it happening in the future either. So I don't need a gun, but to not allow someone else to have one if they feel they need one would be unfairly forcing my anti-gun stance upon them. It's not the guns at fault, they are just a tool. It's the people who use the tool for wrong reasons that need to be banned. Oh yeah, that's called prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
you can't ban guns. people will shoot you if you try

Banning guns means next we have to ban chainsaws. If we go further down this road we'll ban skateboards, tire irons, baseball bats, cycle chains, hammers... heck anything that, if used for the wrong purpose, could hurt someone...

Thats the worst use of the slippery slope I think I've ever seen.

you can't ban guns. people will shoot you if you try

Tell that to all those countries that did.

Isn't it the case that there have been all sorts of knife bans and brass knuckle bans, etc., in the UK since guns were banned? I don't know if these things are related (or if I even have the chronology correct) but maybe there is some kernel of truth to this particular slippery slope. A slippery slope can be a self-fulfilling (or self-fulfilled) prophecy, after all. But of course, one polity's circumstances do not translate into another's.

Manchu wrote:Isn't it the case that there have been all sorts of knife bans and brass knuckle bans, etc., in the UK since guns were banned? I don't know if these things are related (or if I even have the chronology correct) but maybe there is some kernel of truth to this particular slippery slope. A slippery slope can be a self-fulfilling (or self-fulfilled) prophecy, after all. But of course, one polity's circumstances do not translate into another's.

Brass knuckles are banned in most areas of America and have little utility beyond aggressive violence, so there's not much surprise there. I was unaware of knife banning, that would be seemingly impossible to enforce.

I think double-edged blades (daggers) are banned in California, and maybe another jurisdiction. For some reason, I want to say butterfly knives as well but that may be for reasons of double edge (but certainly not here in the merry Commonwealth of Virginia). Switch blades are illegal in most jurisdictions as well, I believe. Anyway, maybe I am just using Virginia--where you can possess and publicly carry most weapons (but not switchblades--even little ones like the Californians can have!)--as my touchstone.

There's a movement in the UK to ban all knives that are pointy. I have no idea how well it's doing. (Hopefully not well.)

In any case, the fact that some kinds of knives are already illegal to possess or carry in some US jurisdictions has nothing to do with whether bans like Orkeosaurus mentioned could be related to a prospective limitation or outright ban on kinds of firearms--much less about the connection between the gun ban in the UK and (perhaps) subsequent bans on other weapons.

In the dark future of the UK, all buildings must be composed of linked moon bounces.

dogma wrote:In the dark future of the UK, all buildings must be composed of linked moon bounces.

How can that possibly be the dark future? That sounds amazing.

@dogma: I think that's what the NRA is telling people about the UK at least.

I think we can reach a compromise there. Moon bounce buildings, and legal pellet guns. Don't like your neighbor? Deflate his house.

dogma wrote:I think we can reach a compromise there. Moon bounce buildings, and legal pellet guns. Don't like your neighbor? Deflate his house.

The mental image of that made me sadder than I think anything ever has before.

There would be quite a bit of depression in world where your house/fun zone could be quickly deflated. Perhaps that's why its a dark future?

dogma wrote:There would be quite a bit of depression in world where your house/fun zone could be quickly deflated. Perhaps that's why its a dark future?

We need to ban those pellet guns!

And shoes.

No we keep the shoes. Think of the potential market for shoe cubbies, man!

Just not cleats or high heels.

blood red 1 wrote:Do you believe the UK did the right thing by banning guns?
What do you think America would be like without guns?
How would people react to such a law if it were put into effect in the U.S.?

There are countless studies on the impact of banning guns. Each shows a minor tick upwards in violent crime or a minor tick downwards, depending on what the study was geared to show. Looking across these studies I think the only conclusion is that violent crime is more or less unrelated to gun ownership on any measureable level. Culture, income inequality, unemployment, drugs and all manner of things are the big determinants of violence, not guns.

Clthomps wrote:Honestly I feel that its a terrible idea. Having an armed population is a good deterrent to potential invaders (see Afghanistan), and it also help keep the government honest.

What about spending as much money on your military as the rest of the world combined? What about the great big oceans between you and any possible attacker? What about the 5,113 nukes?

I imagine it would be nearly impossible for the majority population of the UK to overthrow their government at this point. (see Burma, North Korea, 90% of the African nations, etc.)

No, that’s an idea that floats around and gets brought up in these threads but is, basically, complete rubbish. Having a gun doesn’t make you capable of revolution, and not having a gun doesn’t make you incapable of having a revolution. A revolution needs a sophisticated organisation with national and local structure, independent cells that support each other without creating links exposing each other to harm.

That kind of organisational capacity, and the associated logistics, is really hard to create. Once you have that in placegetting some guns is easy. As the pro-gun people love to say, a gun is just a tool, and it takes a whole more than a tool to overthrow a government.

Cheesecat wrote:I guess you're right then, but less homicides overall does make UK a safer place, doesn't it?

True, the US certainly has issues with violent crime. But there’s no evidence linking the quantity of guns in a country with violent crime. While a culture of violence is related, and that culture does produce some of the fixation on guns, I think it is a mistake to think banning guns will produce a reduction in violent crime.

Honestly I think it distracts from the issue of how to actually lower violent crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:We need to ban those pellet guns!

No reliable study has ever shown a positive correlation between pellet gun ownership and the instances of moon bounce building deflation.

Honestly, banning guns probably will not help anything at all. Criminals will still get guns, they will continue to use them. It really just means that illegal arms trade gets a little more tricky and more profitable since they will be able to sell the guns for more because of the raised gun awareness.

Honestly, we will never ban guns in the US. It is a cute idea.

I have never been a victim of gun violence, unless you count the random drive-by spray ricochet that had nothing to do with me. Most people who have been victims of gun violence are probably not around to type on the internet about it. Just a thought.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Guitardian wrote:I have never been a victim of gun violence, unless you count the random drive-by spray ricochet that had nothing to do with me. Most people who have been victims of gun violence are probably not around to type on the internet about it. Just a thought.

being a victim of gun violence, and having dealings with people wielding guns are different things. I have been in my parents house, in a nice neighborhood, and been woken up by two guys forcing a door open, one of them holding a .38. I called the police, then came around the outside of the house with my Mossberg semi auto pump (with flashlight, laser sight and dual pistol grips, its badass) and all I had to do was rack it, not even point it at them, and they were audi 5000....I had told the police there were men outside my house trying to break in with guns................

.....they showed up 70 minutes later. I am not a red neck, I was born and grew up in the city, and I really don't like conservatives (or liberals, for that matter)....but banning guns is ridiculous. I own my mossberg, an SKS, a .45 1911, and a small collection of WWII rifles. Why does a civilian need these? Why does a civilian need a car with 1000 horsepower and a top speed of 187 mph?....that is a lot more dangerous than a gun.

sebster wrote:
What about spending as much money on your military as the rest of the world combined? What about the great big oceans between you and any possible attacker? What about the 5,113 nukes?

What about Nukes being useless, which is why even the baddest of the bad have not used them, even though they have had them....Nukes feth up the planet for everybody.

I should point out that guns are not banned in the UK, merely licensed; although certain categories are not permissible Assault weapons, handguns above a certain calibre etc.

So the British equivalent of the chap with the Mossberg would still be able to equip it redundant things like laser sights here as well.

Knife crime is the general headline grabber in the UK these days, although shootings will inevitably make the national news when they happen.

I don't think that the general lack of guns makes the UK a safer place than the US [although I believe that it is], but to get hold of an illegal firearm requires a little planning meaning that spare of the moment crimes/violent incidence will invariable be less lethal. Therefore those with the desire will still carry guns when the commit their crimes, what we don’t have are the tragic accidental shootings, invariably involving children. Crimes of passion will still probably happen as beating the life out of someone is well within the capabilities of most a gun would just make it easier.

I like shooting and firearms, and have been shooting since I was 13 but I am quite happy with having no firearms in the house or more importantly in the hands of people this I am not sure should be given access to cars much less tools designed to kill.

IG_urban wrote:being a victim of gun violence, and having dealings with people wielding guns are different things. I have been in my parents house, in a nice neighborhood, and been woken up by two guys forcing a door open, one of them holding a .38. I called the police, then came around the outside of the house with my Mossberg semi auto pump (with flashlight, laser sight and dual pistol grips, its badass) and all I had to do was rack it, not even point it at them, and they were audi 5000....I had told the police there were men outside my house trying to break in with guns.

Kudos to your for taking responsibility for your own safety.

Learn a lesson from this boys and girls. Police aren't there to defend you. They are there to pick up the pieces and hopefully bag the bad guys. That's it.

notprop wrote:I should point out that guns are not banned in the UK, merely licensed; although certain categories are not permissible Assault weapons, handguns above a certain calibre etc.

So the British equivalent of the chap with the Mossberg would still be able to equip it redundant things like laser sights here as well.

Knife crime is the general headline grabber in the UK these days, although shootings will inevitably make the national news when they happen.

I don't think that the general lack of guns makes the UK a safer place than the US [although I believe that it is], but to get hold of an illegal firearm requires a little planning meaning that spare of the moment crimes/violent incidence will invariable be less lethal. Therefore those with the desire will still carry guns when the commit their crimes, what we don’t have are the tragic accidental shootings, invariably involving children. Crimes of passion will still probably happen as beating the life out of someone is well within the capabilities of most a gun would just make it easier.

I like shooting and firearms, and have been shooting since I was 13 but I am quite happy with having no firearms in the house or more importantly in the hands of people this I am not sure should be given access to cars much less tools designed to kill.

Shhh! Quiet! They're misrepresenting us 'redcoats' - let them have their fun.

Furymuff.

Bloomin Colonials an' their new fangled ideas on self governance!

Best we don't mention our plan to invade from Canadia either then. [hides tactical-nuclear-wood with nail in it]

notprop wrote:Furymuff.

Bloomin Colonials an' their new fangled ideas on self governance!

Best we don't mention our plan to invade from Canadia either then. [hides tactical-nuclear-wood with nail in it]

We are wise to your Canadian invasion plans, and have installed anti Brit trip wire systems. Basically, any Brit that crosses the border, except at certain checkpoints will launch the QTS mines. When activated, hidden speakers will begin playing "God Save the Queen." An automated coach with an animatronic Queen Elizabeth followed by a cart full of Earl Grey Tea and scones will appear. All Brits will uimmediately follow said vehicle in a paradelike fashion, which will lead them towards Qebec. Upon seeing the French, er Qebec they will immedtaely forget which country they were invading and instead spend all their time making fun of the French. See, its a win win for all (except the French).

I like that idea so much I don't even care which fool revealed the secret plan!

TO CANADIA!

Frazzled wrote:

notprop wrote:Furymuff.

Bloomin Colonials an' their new fangled ideas on self governance!

Best we don't mention our plan to invade from Canadia either then. [hides tactical-nuclear-wood with nail in it]

We are wise to your Canadian invasion plans, and have installed anti Brit trip wire systems. Basically, any Brit that crosses the border, except at certain checkpoints will launch the QTS mines. When activated, hidden speakers will begin playing "God Save the Queen." An automated coach with an animatronic Queen Elizabeth followed by a cart full of Earl Grey Tea and scones will appear. All Brits will uimmediately follow said vehicle in a paradelike fashion, which will lead them towards Qebec. Upon seeing the French, er Qebec they will immedtaely forget which country they were invading and instead spend all their time making fun of the French. See, its a win win for all (except the French).

DAMN! These Americans are clever!

Better not let them get their hands on any guns....




Oh, wait...BUGGER!

IG_urban wrote:What about Nukes being useless, which is why even the baddest of the bad have not used them, even though they have had them....Nukes feth up the planet for everybody.

What? I pointed out that the US having almost complete military dominance, a couple of big oceans between you and any possible attacker, and a stockpile of nukes all play massive roles in the US not being invaded, to the point where small arms owned by civilians are entirely unnecessary for national defence.

You respond with a thing about how the baddest of the bad haven't used them. Despite nukes having been used in war. Despite no country with nukes having been threatened with occupation. And you didn't even consider the sheer impossibility of anyone getting a fleet over the Pacific or Atlantic to start an invasion.

Your comment makes no sense. Why are you making no sense?