40 Reasons guns should be banned

[m26]

Precisely. Look at the Soviets and Afghanistan. They got their asses handed to them by a bunch of guys with AK's---half of them barely knew which end the bullets came out of. The United States civilian population would be one holy hell of a formidable opponent, especially when you consider how many are retired military or law enforcement.

Soviets invading the US. I vaguely recall a movie about this...

 

[statesman]

Precisely. Look at the Soviets and Afghanistan. They got their asses handed to them by a bunch of morons with AK's---half of them barely knew which end the bullets came out of. The United States civilian population would be one holy hell of a formidable opponent.

Careful here.

Most insurgent actions never reach the goals they set out to achieve.

In many cases the value of insurgent action was only felt in conjunction with regular military force. IE Vietnam, American Revolution, and even Afghanistan.

In the case of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan it is true that in the beginning the insurgents were using dated weapons to fight a modernized military, but it is also true that they were loosing that fight. It was not until they were augmented by the US with modern weapons that they were able to force Soviet withdrawal. That being said insurgent tactics were still being used but were supplemented with modern weaponry.

In the case of the American Revolution, it was the regulars that won the war, and the guerrilla tactics you see in movies like "The Patriot" were not horribly successful in the grand picture. Neither was the commerce raiding of John Paul Jones, but it did display to the world (namely France) that there was some legitimacy to the American cause.

In any case I am a huge fan of the value of insurgent action. Insurgent action often gives the impression of being far more effective than it actually is due to the frustration in generates within the opposing force.

 

[NUFO06]

Viva La Resistance

 

[HueyCobra8151]

The problem with limiting citizens is that the government, by definition, is cumbersome, slow, and not alltogether all that smart. The government does things like ban artillery shells, and whackos do things like fill vans up with fertilizer...

I guarantee you if I had the desire I could ALWAYS come up with a way to circumvent the controls government tries to put on us. (You could do)
---
As for the gun violence in England, it has been reduced substantially...but property crime and violent non-gun crime have increased dramatically. Stabbings and assault are relatively common.

The difference is that when grandma has a .38 special in her purse, the playing field is equalized. Give grandma a switchblade and tell her to fight off some mugger who also has a switchblade and that is a different story alltogether.

By eliminating guns they have set it up so the biggest guy wins. Which is only nice if your a big guy...with a big knife.

Ok, I'm off to bed, secure in the knowledge that if someone busts through my window tonight I have a Glock within arm's reach...and that if he has a gun, it can't legally have a bayonet lug. Thank God for that.

 

[mmx1]

Precisely. Look at the Soviets and Afghanistan. They got their asses handed to them by a bunch of guys with AK's---half of them barely knew which end the bullets came out of. The United States civilian population would be one holy hell of a formidable opponent, especially when you consider how many are retired military or law enforcement.

AK's.....and RPK's....and RPG's....and Stingers....and a steady stream of volunteers, cash, and weapons from the Middle East and the US.

Sans a nation-state backer they aren't doing so hot this time around.

The problem with limiting citizens is that the government, by definition, is cumbersome, slow, and not alltogether all that smart. The government does things like ban artillery shells, and whackos do things like fill vans up with fertilizer...

I guarantee you if I had the desire I could ALWAYS come up with a way to circumvent the controls government tries to put on us. (You could do)

By your logic we'd do away with child-resistant caps because you can ALWAYS find a way around them. The question is not whether a restriction is foolproof but whether or not the effect outweighs the cost.

 

[Spekkio]

If the cost is violating someone's rights, then the effect is never justified.

As for armed citizens providing national defense: If a country were to attempt to invade the US, the official military would still be around. The fact that firearms are prevalent among private citizens would help to augment their effectiveness.

 

[eddie]

And helmet laws, seatbelts, etc. are a product of insurance company lobbying... aka money...

So what? They also save lives, which causes you a problem when it comes to gun control.






I actually think falling back to the Constitution is actually a common failing when it comes to arguing against gun control.

a) Know the enemy. For what it's worth, Constitutional arguments smell and often operate like scriptural ones. Such arguments really tend to shut down any remote receptivity in the audience you should be most worried about trying to convince. We all fall prey to irrationality of certain flavors. There are plenty of (usually) rational, educated, and intelligent people who are waaay into gun control. They cannot fathom owning one. They are your enemy, and some can be converted.

b) So what if the Constitution says. It says nothing, because I can read it any damn way I please when it comes to #2, as the original post suggests! This just propigates the nonsense and rhetoric. Is the Amendment, read the right way, not satisfied if you are issued a musket at birth and everything else banned?

c) The Constitution is a castle, and it CANNOT fail. It is the zero-defect service that is so-often lamented here. Once you bring it up and framed yourself around it, you've backed yourself into an ideological corner and you can no longer compromise. "God DAMMIT, why did you actually say that to your mother! Now I actually have to stand by her and take the car away!"

Yes, I'm saying (and really deep down believe) if you want to keep anything in the end, you will eventually have to compromise on what the "reasonable" definition of "arms" is and put up with comprehensive background checks. I'm surprised Virginia Tech was not a stronger rallying cry.


Just thoughts, although we all know how dangerous those little things can be...

 

[Pugs]

Honest question. Why do you need a gun (other than a hunting rifle), except to protect yourself from other people with guns?

To shoot hi-power metallic silhouette. (my .308)
To shoot small bore metallic silhouette (my target .22)
To hunt squirrels, rabbit and ground hogs (my other .22RF)
To hunt prarie dogs and groundhogs (my .17 HMR)
To hunt deer/bear/elk in good weather (my wood stocked 7mm-08)
To hunt deer/bear/elk in bad weather (my synthetic and stainless .257 Roberts)
To shoot sporting clays (my 12 gauge over and under)
To hunt upland birds with my lab (my light weight 20 gauge over and under)
To hunt ducks and geese (my synthetic 12 gauge pump)
To target shoot paper targets at the range (my .45 ACP)
To carry as a personal defence gun in the field (my .357)
To carry as a kit gun for plinking in the field (my .22 revolver)
To defend my wife, dog and house (my 9mm pistol)
To carry in the woods hunting small game (my .32 flintlock)
To hunt deer/bear/elk blackpowder season (my .50 Hawken or .50 in-line)
To destroy tin cans and targets in rapid succession (my M-4 in 5.56)

So that takes us about halfway through the safes. Why overall? Because I want to. Why do you need anything? Because I enjoy them and take pleasure in using them as tools to do a job. Same reason I have a 68" long tablesaw, because I can and I enjoy using it.

You need to investigate your irrational fear of inanimate objects.

 

[Rocketman]

So that takes us about halfway through the safes. Why overall? Because I want to. Why do you need anything? Because I enjoy them and take pleasure in using them as tools to do a job. Same reason I have a 68" long tablesaw, because I can and I enjoy using it.

You need to investigate your irrational fear of inanimate objects.

Yea buddy. When ever someone asks me why I need more than 1 gun I ask'em how many golf clubs they have in their bag. Then I ask them, why?

 

[m26]

You need to investigate your irrational fear of inanimate objects.

I was just curious, because I couldn't think of anything. "For fun" and "because I can" seem to be the only ones I didn't think of (seems obvious in hindsight).

Of course, the ones I had in my head (protection and hunting), are enough on their own.

But don't be ridiculous. Irrational fear? The thing on its own can blow off a toe (or worse) if I didn't know what I was doing. Not to mention, the fear isn't so much guns, as bad people with guns. And then it's anything but irrational. Bad people with guns kill people.

 

[statesman]

But don't be ridiculous. Irrational fear? The thing on its own can blow off a toe (or worse) if I didn't know what I was doing.

Usually they need a finger to squeeze the trigger. I have NEVER heard of a gun killing a person "on its own". Poor gun safety results in death from time to time, but then again so does poor auto safety.

Bad people with guns kill people

I thought you said a gun 'on its own' can kill someone.

 

[phrogpilot73]

The thing on its own can blow off a toe (or worse) if I didn't know what I was doing.

On its own? What crack are you smoking? How 'bout this, we'll do a little test - make it a wager. I'll put my life savings on it if you do the same. We'll take a handgun, make it a condition 1 weapon and lock it in a safe. 20 years from now we'll open the safe and see all the bullet holes (or I'll limp up with my missing toe). Want to take that bet? If so - PM me with your bank account info, since you'll owe me your life savings.

 

[Makk85]

Guns kill people like spoons cause obesity

 

[usmarinemike]

Humor me on this one. The thread started to go in the direction of insurgency a few posts ago. Could there possibly be a fear deep down inside some of the leaders in the federal government that if things get bad that there would be a chance of insurgency in America, what with all the guns and all? 4th generation warfare is really the only way that the people could own back the state if the government decided to really get away from being a republic as some other thread is ranting about right now. The citizenry attempting maneuver warfare would be complete folly, and an insurgency is the only type of warfare that has given our conventional forces trouble.

So I would put forth another reason for gun ownership. Not one that I or most people have here of course. To defend against a runaway government. A little bit like our country was formed.

 

[bubblehead]

More gun control and stricter gun laws will do nothing to protect the citizenry in the United States. Enforce existing laws.

I would question anyone who says otherwise; unless, of course, they can point me to verifiable statistics and to cited sources that are to the contrary (READ: check your personal opinions and religion at the door).

I'm open to reading more on the matter.