Why I am against getting rid of guns

[Taverner]

Because you can't.

If we banned guns tomorrow, every gun owner will suddenly have "misplaced" their firearms or had them "stolen."

Even if we took every legal firearm and melted them down into a statue of hippies singing kum-ba-ya, there would still be guns out there. The criminals aren't going to give up their guns, and just try and take them from the Zetas.

It won't work.

New regulations? They will be as effective as other prohibitions have been. Alcohol. MJ. E. Prohibition sure eliminated THOSE things didn't it?

Prohibition is NEVER the answer.

You want to get rid of something, do like they did for Smoking.

Public health campaigns - in the case of guns Public Safety Campaigns. The one thing NRA does right (and AFAIC the ONLY thing the NRA does right) is their gun safety classes.

Use the public safety campaigns to persuade people not to buy guns. Lobby movies not to fetishize guns and gun violence.

I do not own a gun, and I hope never to have to.

But prohibition is completely ineffective. That I know.

[GreenStormCloud]

1. Movies and TV NEVER show a legally armed civilian.

The only ones who have guns in film are LEOs & criminals.

[Trunk Monkey]

35. Not entirely correct

But generally when a legally armed citizen is shown they either aren't shown in a good light or one of the first things out of their mouth is "My gun is registered" or "I have a permit to own that"

[Missycim]

2. wow comparing cigarettes (that cause cancer and have no redeeming value at all)

to a self defense item, your idea is pretty silly.

[Taverner]

3. Why? They both kill...

[Missycim]

7. so you compound silly with more silliness.

Besides your point is moot, owning guns is a right, smoking not so much.

[Taverner]

8. Ahhh the "It's a right" defense

Completely forgetting the second part of the second amendment.

Even though I think gun control is useless, gun ownership is, constitutionally, a privilege, not a right.

The second amendment allows you to create neighborhood security forces, aka posses.

[Riftaxe]

14. Agreed, that's why the first 10 amendments

are referred to the Bill of Privileges.

[Taverner]

15. You have the right to form a posse. Not own a machine gun.

The second amendment says nothing about guns - the NRA has taken this out of context since day 1

[ileus]

16. 200 bucks gives one the right to own a machine gun.

Paid to the federal government. If it was true you can't own a machine gun, the feds wouldn't be selling tax stamps for class III firearms.

[Taverner]

17. Privlege to own a machine gun

[Reasonable_Argument]

20. Nope

It's a tax stamp not a license. Once you pay the money and pass the background check they MUST send you the stamp for the weapon.

[Starboard Tack]

39. A privilege for those with $200 to spend, plus a few grand on the gun.

Same as the carry permit being a privilege for those who qualify.

[Jenoch]

10. Cigarettes have really no redeeming

qualities. If they are used in the manner intended, they cause harm. Guns are not only used for killing people. Guns are used in positive ways such as target shooting, hunting, and collecting. None of those activities, when done in the correct manner, harms any people.

[Taverner]

13. Meh we could argue this all day

One might argue that cigarettes do make you more alert - and studies prove this

My point is that prohibition will not get rid of the problem, whether it's cigs, smack, guns, 420 or happy meal toys.

For anything, you need much more carrot than stick. Public Health campaigns since the sixties have SERIOUSLY reduced the numbers of smokers every year. Why they aren't patting themselves on the back more is a mystery to me. This, by far, has been the most successful public health campaign in history.

Imagine the same thing for guns - safety classes for kids, and in general a discouragement to buying guns. Let them be fully legal, but make customers think twice before they buy one.

90% of guns in America collect dust.

[Reasonable_Argument]

21. I would rather

Promote recreational and competition shooting than demonize it.

[Jenoch]

36. It does not matter

if cigarettes are calming or not. When cigarettes are used correctly, they are detrimental to the smoker's health.

I disagree with your premise about guns. Of course I believe in education about guns and gun safety. That alone would decrease the accidental shootings that occur. But your point about demonizing guns is not the answer, precisely because the problem is not guns, it is the people that use the guns improperly. I would go along with general discouragement about using guns improperly or especially, in an illegal manner.

[MicaelS]

37. So would you take the same position if Cannabis

Was ever legalized? If not, why not?

[Starboard Tack]

40. +100 Good post and excellent OP

It worked for tobacco. It worked for littering. It worked for AIDS. Why not guns?

[gejohnston]

42. Is there an Olympic smoking team?

Is there an International Smoking Sports Federation?

[Starboard Tack]

43. Your point being?

[gejohnston]

44. guns don't belong in that group

because they don't have redeeming value, guns do.

[Starboard Tack]

45. As an occasional smoker, I respectfully disagree.

[Missycim]

48. You can disagree all you want but that

doesn't make the op's asinine point any more right. I can't believe his OP wasn't blocked just on general principals.


You seem too be a intelligent person, don't make yourself look more dumb by agreeing with the topic.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Social pressure is not without merit.

but in this case, it misses the point.

[Eleanors38]

11. Prohibition. America's Most Addictive Drug. nt

[Eleanors38]

6. There is a strong effort to push tobacco use into a drug-prohibition category...

Especially here in Austin where you cannot smoke within some-odd feet of a business door, even if you are outside. The anti-smoking web sites are pretty hard to penetrate, so I don't know what their next moves are, but the expensive ad campaigns now have an outside, jogging-in-the-park bent, suggesting the desire to prohibit smoking even outside. At least 2 California cities now do this. Moves beyond that may be to prevent smoking in your own home if there is a child in residence there. This would be hard-line made-in-the-USA puritanical prohibition. Whether its Guns, Gays, Ganja, Gin or Tobacco, the same dynamic seems at play: Supply finds an illegal (and usually violent and corrupt) means to meet the demand. And "taxes," btw, is just another way to spell "prohibition."

Please google up "cigarette smoking." One site after another.

[Taverner]

9. Yes, I know

And it's a stupid idea

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. The most important thing you could do to rid society of guns is eliminate the need for them

I focus on teaching LGBTs and women firearms on the weekends. Many would just as soon not have one, but have come to the realization that they are the best way to keep them and their loved ones safe. I would give up teaching them if I thought the need had disappeared.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. and there you have it - pretty much in a nutshell --

to those who call Guns evil, I will not argue but, a necessary evil all the same.

[former-republican]

23. It's not guns that are evil

A gun is metal and plastic.

It's people.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. yeah but, I am tired of arguing that point. You can take it up with 'em. I'm tired.

[ileus]

22. You'd still have target shooters and hunters.

I'd love for there to be zero need for SD firearm inside or outside my home. I'd be perfectly happy with my AR's, rifles, pistols, and shotguns serving for recreational purposes only.

[ileus]

12. I lost all mine in a boating accident last month. I only have a Hi-point and RG 22 left.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. Mine were stolen last weekend by my drug addicted ex brother-in-law.

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

[trouble.smith]

25. I'm sure similar things were said of slavery. Look how wrong they were. nt

[holdencaufield]

27. Are guns enslaved?

[trouble.smith]

29. I think maybe you missed the point.

But that's my fault, I was being indirect. That's just how I roll.

[holdencaufield]

30. I was just having a hard time ...

... understanding your moral equivalency between a human-being in bondage and inanimate object of metal and plastic.

[trouble.smith]

31. I guess some people aren't good with indirection.

They need everything spelled out for them with bold text and underlining.

[holdencaufield]

32. Or ... some folks ...

... confuse obfuscation with just not having a point.

[trouble.smith]

33. OK then.

Nice talking to you.

[Missycim]

34. lol

that was good, he was trying to be cute but failed.

[fascisthunter]

26. time

hopefully there will be a day you do not feel the need to own one in order to defense yourself.

[Reasonable_Argument]

28. That would be nice

But human nature being what it is, I think all of us will be looooooooooooong dead before nature decides to change the species.

[Bocks Car]

38. Those who beat their guns into plowshares will end up plowing for those who didn't. nt

...

[Starboard Tack]

41. Got any data to back up that prophecy?

[Berserker]

46. Well there is this

In the years prior to the Revolutionary War, the British, in response to the colonists' unhappiness over increasingly direct control and taxation of the colonies, imposed a powder embargo on the colonies in an attempt to lessen the ability of the colonists to resist British encroachments into what the colonies regarded as local matters. Two direct attempts to disarm the colonial militias fanned what had been a smoldering resentment of British interference into the fires of war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

What do you think would have happened if the colonists' had given in to the British attempts to disarm them in 1775? This gun control attempt by the minority of Americans will never work it never has and it's been
237 years and counting. I am just happy as and American that believes in the Bill of Rights as does most of the country. We will keep our guns no matter how much whining we have to endure.

[Starboard Tack]

50. Well, it's water under the bridge, but to answer your question....

"What do you think would have happened if the colonists' had given in to the British attempts to disarm them in 1775?"
I think we would probably be living in a parliamentary democracy like Canada and we'd have tens of thousands of people not killed by guns every year and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, as I said, water under the bridge. Ah well.

[gejohnston]

51. but

Iverglas once said that in Canada, an MP can't vote outside of the party platform, party before constituents. I think the separation of powers federal system, like we have, is better. But then, if I were a Brit I would be a republican (if I understand the UK definition correctly).

Oh yeah, in case someone hits the alert button
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Starboard Tack]

53. There are party whips in both systems.

They are stronger in the parliamentary system, which results in more platform legislation getting passed. They elect MPs, not PMs. Republicans are a tiny minority in the UK, about 13%. Tried it before with Cromwell and his Puritans. Didn't work out too well, so we shipped them off to New England. Big mistake. We should've sent them to Pitcairn Island.

[Berserker]

52. I have fantasys too

but I live in the real world. I am very happy it turned out the way it did I love my country. Blame guns all you want guns are not the problem.
Ah well.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Not my fantasy. Just answering a hypothetical question.

I blame guns for nothing. I blame fools for doing foolish things. I'm happy about how some things turned out and I love no one country more than another. I love the planet we live on.

[Bocks Car]

49. The record of human nature is pretty clear but no I don't have any data you would accept

I imagine.