USA Gun Ban... You Have to at Least Respect Their Opinions.

[Jetrel]

Gun control is silly.

It's very harmful when crime rates are high, because it disarms the victims.
It's useless when crime rates are low, because no one's killing anyone anyways.

[TheGreatRings]

I think it's actually a pretty good sign. I mean... if it is true, I don't see why would they sue them.

Because that sign is basically trying to provoke crimes against someone simply because they have a different political opinion? Though because of the First Amendment, they'll likely suffer no legal consequences.

The people who put it up are scum. They've crossed the line between defending their right to have guns and trying to persecute anyone who disagrees.

They're sick, and little better than terrorists.

[Midnight_Carnival]

I didn't get through all this, I don't live in the U.S. but I want to say the following:
I don't know about your country, but in mine there are very clear stats, more people die from motor accidents than are killed with firearms every year. I come from an African country said to have ridiculously high degrees of violent crime (too much for the authorities to effectively control -as in for assault, even serious assault you are likely to get a rap over the knuckles and be told "don't do it again"). Motor vehicles were not designed for the express purpose of killing people, nonetheless, they seem to do a better job of it than firearms. Do you trust other people to drive cars? (yes, that is a serious question)

Onto swords. I like it.

Yeah, but getting killed or wounded is a lot messier in hand-to-hand combat.

Exactly, this will discorage people from fighting. Furthermore, in a gunfight, people have the (completely mistaken) idea that they will either emerge unscathed, or die quickly and painlessly. Guns invite the deluded belief that it is easy to kill, just point and squeeze, nothing simpler. Guns create a false sense of invulerability (as do motor vehicles). I have spoken to people who have been shot, and I have spoken with people who have shot others. Surprise, surprise, being shot hurts like hell. But what may be surprising is that often, when you shoot someone, even if you know what you're doing, even if you have been trained in "responsible firearm use", even if you target vital areas, like heart, head, etc... sometimes, you point the gun, pull the trigger and the bad guy (or native American -sarcasm) doesn't die! Sometimes you shoot people again and again and they fall down spurting blood and they look like they should be dead, but they just don't die. And the worst thing is, this guy is trying to kill you, it's not like you can just stop shooting him and talk it over! Being shot can be traumatic, yes, but shooting someone, and it not being just like the moveis or computer games where they spray out gore and then disintegrate or vanish giving you 100 points, that can be pretty traumatic as well.

I say we ban all weapons and flame people on internet fourms

[Velensk]

Actually I don't have the opinion that gun duels are in any way quick or painless, nor that having one will necessarily protect you from a robber. Infact the one time our family suffered an armed robbery none of us would have had a chance to grab a weapon anyway. The only story which I personally know of a homeowner defending themselves from a robber with a personal weapon was actually one of the local bow hunters (there's a lot of those around where I live) putting an arrow into the back of the shoulder of the robber. For me the main point was that if I had to pick a house to rob though, I would not pick the houses of any of the hunters, nor the shop teacher, nor any of the people whom I know are armed so that I don't have to worry about watching my back or taking a hostage.

I think culture/social context is important to this issue. In the wild west pretty much everyone was armed and there certainly wasn't a lot of order, on the other hand in Israel many people are armed and although there are many disturbances I understand that they tend to be handled pretty quickly.

[pauxlo]

As I don't live in the USA and don't intend to visit there as long as these ridiculous visa regulations are in effect, I let the US guys decide what they want.

I live in Germany, we have quite a strict firearm control law (mostly only professional users and organized sport shooters, and they have to lock them good when not using them), and everyone is happy about this, I think.

The main problem here is not the criminals having firearms, but some crazy guy getting a firearm (or some of them) and doing an amok run, killing some dozens of people.
And accidental killing by lawful gun-owners (while cleaning the weapon or so).

So, there are some points to consider:

1. The organized crime has no problem to organize itself a weapon this way or another.
2. The non-professional criminal (who kills for some cause one time in his lifetime, and is usually caught quickly after) with a gun may have a quite easier way to kill, and could have thought this over if not in possession of a gun.
3. The family father, who wants to protect his house against robbers: He may be able to scare away or kill the robber, or may be killed by the robber since he does not hit and the robber yes did (and the robber may not have shoot him if he did not had a gun).
4. The family father who gets crazy and kills his family and himself.
5. The family father who kills himself or a family member on accident while handling his gun.
6. The amok running young man, who took the weapons of his father to shoot down people in the school.

[Gambit]

[Glenn Beck voice whilst drawing on chalk board]
Who do we not want to have guns? Criminals.
What don't criminals do? Follow laws.
Who don't we mind having guns? Law abiding citizens.
What do law abiding citizens do? Follow laws.
Who loses their guns to an anti-gun law? Law abiding citizens.
Who won't care and will still have guns? Criminals.
[/Glenn Beck imitation]

[Telaron]

[Glenn Beck voice whilst drawing on chalk board]
Who do we not want to have guns? Criminals.
What don't criminals do? Follow laws.
Who don't we mind having guns? Law abiding citizens.
What do law abiding citizens do? Follow laws.
Who loses their guns to an anti-gun law? Law abiding citizens.
Who won't care and will still have guns? Criminals.
[/Glenn Beck imitation]

Is that real? If it isn't, It's a pretty good imitation.

[Sapient]

Also consider that if a such a law were approved restricting sales, a lot of people who have no good reason to own a firearm would immediately go out and buy one (or more) before the law comes into effect. Then you would have an influx of unsecured weapons in the hands of poorly trained owners. Maybe if this was a country like China they could just say "no more gun sales!" but in the United States Congress it would be a much longer and more visible process, allowing plenty of sales to occur in the interim.

[Zachron]

...
f)The amok running young man, who took the weapons of his father to shoot down people in the school.

Most of the young people "running amok with guns" in this country come from houses where their parents do not own guns. And even most of those, whose parents own guns, get their own guns from other places. Columbine and numerous other school shootings were perpetrated by children whose parents did not own guns, who procured guns from non-legal sources. (For one thing, it is not legal for civilians to even touch half the guns that were used to perform the Columbine shootings.) The reason I bring up Columbine is, the anti-gun law activist tout it as their poster child, while the circumstances of the event are as such that gun laws would have done nothing to stop it. The weapons those kids had were illegal to begin with. Their suppliers were thugs who worked with domestic terrorists, who have, since 9/11, been linked to Al Queda. That's right folks, Osama Bin Laden was indirectly and unknowingly responsible for Columbine. With or without guns, most of the deaths that day were directly the result of home made bombs anyway.

A large portion(not the majority) of gun-related crimes in the United States are performed with firearms that are not legal for civilian use. A lot of them come across the Mexican-American border, or are smuggled in at unlicensed ports. (Someone with ocean-front property and a small dock) Some are even brought in from Canada after having been smuggled from Russia or China to Alaska. (Yes I know Alaska's part of the United States, but by land, you have to go through Canada to get to the Continental United States.)

[Telaron]

With or without guns, most of the deaths that day were directly the result of home made bombs anyway.

I know a guy who has a neighbor who is a gun smith. He gives this guy and his friends the old gunpowder barrels (full ones) that he doesn't need anymore. The guy and his friends light the barrels on fire and hide behind logs... You can guess what happens.

[doofus-01]

A lot of them come across the Mexican-American border

This statement flies in the face of my understanding of what is happening in Juarez (example: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 2lsb4EHTcc).

Wesnoth Off-Topic forum... What am I doing here?

[Zachron]

For one thing Juarez is only one city on the Mexican-American border, for another, nothing in that article mentions anything about the Mexican-American border being very good at screening contraband. The flow of guns is not Uni-directional. Different guns come from different sources. And one of those sources is the United States... I never insinuated that we did not have our own native criminal element... And a lot of goods that come into the U.S. through Mexico are Russian or Chinese in make. Even guns that could be legally imported from various countries can more easily filter through Mexico than be sent directly to the U.S.

[artisticdude]

Wesnoth Off-Topic forum... What am I doing here?

What is anyone doing here?

I saw a documentary not all that long ago about how they were actually using unmanned radio-controlled aircraft (drones) to increase security along the US/Mexican border. Even despite these efforts, gun smugglers will find all sorts of ways to slip past the security measures. It's practically impossible to seal off all gaps that criminals can use.

[Midnight_Carnival]

I just threw that bit about how using a gun isn't necesarrily "zap! dead!" because I wanted to appear more open minded, and also becasue it looked like the pro gun-controll guys were taking shots.

As for firearms and violent crime, look at Switzerland...

With regard to the sign though: I try not to break laws wherever possible, but if I was into that kind of thing I'd rob the guy who put up the sign and dump his legal firearm through the other guy's mailbox.

With reference to the border thing, it's sad that Skynet gets created, not to save a country which is losing a war, but to stop poor people from finding work to support their families. -just being controvertial...

[Tonepoet]

And accidental killing by lawful gun-owners (while cleaning the weapon or so).

Accidents happen with everything you can do in life really and there is a rather large lot of things people could accidentally kill themselves doing from crossing the street to self-electrocution. While I do believe we should do our best to prevent them, I think it's primarily a factor to consider when the same means could be achieved via safer methods. Since we're talking about whether people should be able to use such potent weapons as guns at all, as opposed to proposing how to potentially make them safer.

1. The organized crime has no problem to organize itself a weapon this way or another.
2. The non-professional criminal (who kills for some cause one time in his lifetime, and is usually caught quickly after) with a gun may have a quite easier way to kill, and could have thought this over if not in possession of a gun.
3. The family father, who wants to protect his house against robbers: He may be able to scare away or kill the robber, or may be killed by the robber since he does not hit and the robber yes did (and the robber may not have shoot him if he did not had a gun).
4. The family father who gets crazy and kills his family and himself.
5. The family father who kills himself or a family member on accident while handling his gun.
6. The amok running young man, who took the weapons of his father to shoot down people in the school.

Most of the points against fall under the general banner of "Crimes of Passion". They very well are the best point for ammunitions bans because not everybody would be able to actually commit the murder on a moment's notice. The victim could more conceivably struggle and escape.

With point B. I'm not so concerned about them "thinking it over" because by the time somebody is willing to pull the trigger in this way, they have both the intent and commitment to act violently and may come to commit a murder anyway.

Concerning point D and F a gun could be used by another person to prevent these atrocities as easily as it could be used to commit them. Consider for a moment the abusive husband who may eventually decide to go completely over the edge one day, break his bottle of whisky and start stabbing at the kids or the chic metropolitan woman attending a social function with many of her supposed friends who suddenly get a bit too tipsy and decide to start a little party game called "gang rape." In either of these cases if the woman has a gun she can avoid victimization by preempting her perpetrators, perhaps even with the mere threat of using it. If she doesn't well...

With points C and E, I addressed that largely in the above point. However so long as we've mentioned self-victimization, I really do think the Darwin Awards show how the problem is far more widespread than simply the use of guns. Due to their especially lethal nature though, I think we should approach the issue in some way. This would most favorably be dealt with in the same way we deal with cars; make everybody get an operator's permit only ascertainable after receiving the appropriate training. In this way while the accidents would still happen, they'd be greatly reduced since regardless of the law's state, I very much doubt people want to shoot themselves in the foot and they'd be more knowledgeable as to how they may best prevent it. They'd also be less apt to miss.

With point A. it'd be worse off to have gun ban because those criminals who do ascertain gun could be further emboldened to use it. On the note of emboldenment, reducing the number of law abiding citizens with guns may further encourage armless brutality, most particularly with those who possess great physical strength.

Overall, I think it'd not be an improved overall state but instead a rebalancing of the powers already in play.

Restricting armaments in such a way that the government has a clear tactical edge puts us in a rather poor position to combat such a threat.

That might have been a valid concern in the 18th century, when cannons and muskets was all the government had, but now when the government has tanks, fighters, bombers, helicopters, aircraft carriers, submarines and nuclear weapons, the government will always have an "tactical edge", no matter what the gun control laws say. If there ever will be an armed uprising, it will be asymmetric warfare, and for the underdog, the most potent weapons will not be firearms but IEDs.

Furthermore, it would be silly to rise in arms against the government, when civil disobedience is all you need. A general strike will put any government on its knees within a week or two, no matter how many weapons it has.

I do think you have some good points here but I do disagree with them.

Concerning the tactical state, the people do have some advantages on their side, namely in terms of raw numbers. Since nuclear bombs are rather blunt tools and tanks are rather hard to maneuver, they're not completely flawless. It'd probably play out in large like a Drakes versus Northerners match, with the government having greater reach and firepower but the citizens would have overwhelming presence. I will admit that it'd likely be an uphill battle but why make it even more so? I doubt anybody would like to play a game of Wesnoth with all of their units slowed, which is more or less what the removal of guns would be like.

On the note of civil disobedience, the only thing I disagree with for that particular statement is the "Any" part. Without citing anything potentially controversial, all I can say is that there is far too much injustice in the modern world and throughout all of history for me to believe that. In order for civil disobedience to work, there has to be a great concern for maintaining public image for civil disobedience to be truly effective. On the part of the protesters, it also requires resolve that goes far up above and beyond every personal interest, otherwise the protesters could be manipulated into compliance. Not everybody would choose liberty over death and even if they could make that decision for themselves, what if the life of another is brought into the equation?