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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..

Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..

Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.

Criminals don't have to steal guns in order to get them. Narcotics are illegal yet they're not hard to get at all and you aren't forced to steal somebody else's. Prohibition doesn't work.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..

Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.

You are technically correct.

This problem is better stated that (1) reducing the number of guns available does not have any demonstrable impact on criminals' ability to acquire weapons, and (2) reducing the availability of guns to law abiding citizens does not produce the desired effect of reducing crime.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..

Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.

You are technically correct.

This problem is better stated that (1) reducing the number of guns available does not have any demonstrable impact on criminals' ability to acquire weapons, and (2) reducing the availability of guns to law abiding citizens does not produce the desired effect of reducing crime.

But it does (3) reduce the number of idiots shooting themselves accidentally.

You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.

 agnosto wrote:

But it does (3) reduce the number of idiots shooting themselves accidentally.

I'm convinced that people who are literally dumb enough to shoot themselves accidentally, or leave their firearms in such a manner that a loved one does the same (without any kind of proper training or respect taught to that loved one); will find SOMEWAY of offing themselves. It is a Darwin Award for a reason.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.

I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.

Also really dont want big bro to storm everyone houses to find all the guns.

Edit: or worse case, a silly program to turn in guns for some sort of thing that will probably backfire horribly and waste time and money. like it always does.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns..

Of course it does. Reduce the number of people who have guns,and you reduce the number of guns that the criminals can steal.

And how do you propose America does that? How many gun-owning Americans do you really think are going to turn in their guns? And why should they?

As far as I understand it, the sheer number of guns in circulation already plus a border with a country happy to supply less than legal guns, would make prohibiting the ownership of firearms mostly affect those who would've held them legally.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
As far as I understand it, the sheer number of guns in circulation already plus a border with a country happy to supply less than legal guns, would make prohibiting the ownership of firearms mostly affect those who would've held them legally.

Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?

 Desubot wrote:
I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.

Probably not use guns, for the most part.

At least if most of the rest of the western world is any indication.



Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.

Probably not use guns, for the most part.

At least if most of the rest of the western world is any indication.



Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.

Id rather be shot then beat senseless or bleed out from multiple stab wounds. not that this doesn't happen already.

And i REALLY wouldn't want to be stabbed with a Phillips

 Hordini wrote:
Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?

It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.


I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.

 Desubot wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.

I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.

Also really dont want big bro to storm everyone houses to find all the guns.

Edit: or worse case, a silly program to turn in guns for some sort of thing that will probably backfire horribly and waste time and money. like it always does.

Criminals wouldn't do anything differently. You think that they are just sitting there thinking "If it weren't for guns everywhere I would totally go out and shoot some people or rob every shop I see"?

It's like the argument that decriminalisation of drugs will lead to increasing drug use. Which is demonstrably false in the countries which have gone through with it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You would have to reduce the number of guns a hell of a lot to make a difference. Guns are hard to come by in the UK, the majority of criminals wouldn't touch them because they're not easy to obtain and they're just unnecessary because the public and police don't carry them. You'd have to go through a process of mass disarmament in the US to get to the point of a culture change where criminals didn't frequently carry guns because the were both difficult to obtain and thought of as unnecessary.

I shudder to thing what criminals would start doing if guns where at hard to obtain.

Also really dont want big bro to storm everyone houses to find all the guns.

Edit: or worse case, a silly program to turn in guns for some sort of thing that will probably backfire horribly and waste time and money. like it always does.

Criminals wouldn't do anything differently. You think that they are just sitting there thinking "If it weren't for guns everywhere I would totally go out and shoot some people or rob every shop I see"?

It's like the argument that decriminalisation of drugs will lead to increasing drug use. Which is demonstrably false in the countries which have gone through with it.

Woh where did i say anything like that?

im talking about the other kinda crime these criminals would probably do anyway even without guns.

and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.

 insaniak wrote:

Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.

I call shenanigans... When your morning commute looks more like this:



than this:



I'd say there's a bit of a problem

 Desubot wrote:


Woh where did i say anything like that?

im talking about the other kinda crime these criminals would probably do anyway even without guns.

and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.

Not really. You're more likely to survive being stabbed than shot. I'd take that chance.

 Desubot wrote:
and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.

No more so than anywhere else, I would imagine.

But with less chance of being shot by the police when you go to them for help...

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?

It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.


I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.

Personally id prefer if CRIME was less prevalent then there would be less need for citizens to have guns in the first place.

but thats just a pipe dream.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Down here, we still have the odd issue with some guy with a gun doing bad things... But for the most part, our criminals (at least, the ones not in biker gangs) tend to content themselves with knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers instead.

I call shenanigans... When your morning commute looks more like this:

Spoiler:

than this:

Spoiler:

I'd say there's a bit of a problem

Yeah, the problem is that the American one sucks compared to the Australian one

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.

No more so than anywhere else, I would imagine.

But with less chance of being shot by the police when you go to them for help...

Or you know just follow there instructions.

IF they say get on the ground or come at you with weapons drawn. get on the ground hands on head and let them do there thing.

You are going to win Darwin points if you get confrontational in any manner

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?

It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.


I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.

I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, and consider the impossibility of that expectation to be a severe failing on the part of society.

There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.

 Desubot wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.

No more so than anywhere else, I would imagine.

But with less chance of being shot by the police when you go to them for help...

Or you know just follow there instructions.

IF they say get on the ground or come at you with weapons drawn. get on the ground hands on head and let them do there thing.

What about when they tell you to drop your gun when you're not holding a gun? How do you follow that command considering it is physically impossible to drop something you do not have?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
and it sounds like running into crime down under is horrible.

No more so than anywhere else, I would imagine.

But with less chance of being shot by the police when you go to them for help...

Or you know just follow there instructions.

IF they say get on the ground or come at you with weapons drawn. get on the ground hands on head and let them do there thing.

What about when they tell you to drop your gun when you're not holding a gun?

you go into not threating modo?

Ya know show your hands are open. dont reach for anything and follow on from there.
and dont get closer to the thing pointing guns at you?

common sense?

 Hordini wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?

It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.


I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.

I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, and consider the impossibility of that expectation to be a severe failing on the part of society.

There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.

It's funny how other countries do pretty damn okay with their personal security without needing to own guns to do so.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Exactly. And what is the point of penalizing law-abiding citizens, when it's the criminals who are they problem?

It's less about 'penalising' anyone, and more about the fact that if guns aren't so prevalent amongst the criminals, there's less need for the law-abiding citizens to have them either.


I find it a little mind-boggling that, in this day and age, anyone in a non-third-world country should feel they need a firearm to protect themselves. That's a pretty severe failing on the part of the society that person lives in.

I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, and consider the impossibility of that expectation to be a severe failing on the part of society.

There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.

It's funny how other countries do pretty damn okay with their personal security without needing to own guns to do so.

It's funny how other countries, particularly in Europe, have more urban areas and much greater population density than the US. It's funny how many European countries have much more homogeneous populations than the US. It's funny how the US has an open southern border with a country that features large swathes controlled by drug cartels.

In some parts of the US police response time can be 30 minutes or more, so you'll have to excuse some of us for being reluctant to give up the responsibility for our own security. If you don't want to take responsibility for your own security, you're free to refrain from doing so.

 Hordini wrote:
I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, ...

Solely responsible? No, not really.

Responsible enough to provide a system whereby I don't feel like I need a firearm to protect myself from the nasty world outside my house? That's not an unreasonable expectation. It's pretty much the reason for having government in the first place.

 Hordini wrote:
There are also reasons to own firearms other than for protection from criminals.

Sure. But whenever the subject of gun control comes up, that's the main one that gets bandied about.

Well, that, and the need to protect yourself when your government inevitably turns on you.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I find it mind-boggling that someone would realistically expect the government to be solely responsible for their personal security, ...

Solely responsible? No, not really.

Responsible enough to provide a system whereby I don't feel like I need a firearm to protect myself from the nasty world outside my house? That's not an unreasonable expectation. It's pretty much the reason for having government in the first place.

Plenty of people in the US don't feel like they need a firearm. Some do. Not everyone's situation is the same, and individuals are free to choose what they feel they need to protect themselves.

And that's great. But at what point do you stop and say 'Holy crap... look at all of the problems that are caused by allowing that particular freedom...'

For us, that point was the Port Arthur massacre. One loony with a gun went on a shooting spree, and Australia said 'Nope, let's not do that again.'

Not without some disagreement, admittedly. But for the most part, it was accepted that for the majority of Australians, guns simply weren't something that was necessary enough to allow for this sort of craziness to happen again.


But that's probably far enough with that little tangent. My last few posts were probably verging a little far over towards 'murica-bashing, and that was never my intention. I just find the casual acceptance of this sort of thing (well, yeah, some guy got shot... but hey, we have a right to own guns, so what are you going to do?) to be more than a little baffling.

 insaniak wrote:
And that's great. But at what point do you stop and say 'Holy crap... look at all of the problems that are caused by allowing that particular freedom...'

I think it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

We didn't have nearly as many guns when Port Arthur happened, so it was easy for us.