Thread: Here is why banning guns wont work

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Really, you don't see a difference between a gun ban and other laws? Would this law that you would vote for equally apply to government? Or do you fundamentally hold that we should live by double standards; that equal protection under the law only applies to the little people and explicitly NOT to the government elite?

The difference between gun bans and other laws is that history shows it is the 1st offense in allowing government tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson said, it (the right to gun ownership) is, as a last resort to prevent tyranny. Nothing but the Appeal to Force has ever or will ever keep a civilized society civil. Democracy is tyranny of numbers and Liberty is a well armed lamb vs 3 wolves contesting the vote.

All I'm saying is I prefer the UK gun laws over the US gun laws which is surely unsurprising given where I live? I completely disagree with you about a lack of guns in society being linked to tyranny as we seem to manage fine without them.

So, that is your way of avoiding my questions. I see.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Firstly I'm asking that people follow the law after a democratic process where a discussion is had and a vote is taken and guns are banned I'm unsure why you find the idea so unbelievable. I won't be forcing my own view but I will be adding my view to a political process just as with any other.

Yes, you would be forcing your view. How do you think laws are enforced? With a kind request? No sir, there would be men with guns going house to house to take whatever guns others might have.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Secondly you seem to have a rather odd view about WW2 and the purchasing of weapons by one ally from another and claiming the UK had to beg is pretty darn insulting.

If the shoe fits...

Can't help it if your nation's actions in the past are now cause for embarrassment. Guess I probably shouldn't remind you about Chamberlain, huh?

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Simply giving everyone in the UK a gun would not have stopped Germany had they been able to launch an invasion and more than saying the general population of the US with guns would have helped fight off a Russian invasion during the cold war.

That statement is partially true - simply giving everyone in the UK a gun would not have stopped a thing. The reason though is not what you would expect. You see, simply having the gun means nothing - one must also have the will to use it.

Incidentally, yes, the general population of the US which is armed could easily fight off ANY military invasion by ANY nation. The numerical disparity alone is insurmountable.

History is full of stories of all manner of societies warding off invaders simply because they had an armed populace. That continues into the modern day unless you haven't been paying attention to what is going on in the middle east.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Guns in private ownership will not save you in the event of war.

Not to rub it in, but I seem to remember that privately owned weapons made a certain King back around the late 18th century decide that maybe The Colonies were too expensive to keep...

You may also wish to consider such non-events as the current bit in the middle east, the Soviets and Afghanistan back in the 80's, the Vietnam War, the French resistance in WWII, Switzerland in WWII, Japan's well documented apprehension of invading the US Mainland due to a '...rifle behind every blade of grass", the War of 1812, etc...these are all examples of privately owned weapons having a very big effect in the event of war.

Do they not teach history in the UK anymore?

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

All I'm saying is I prefer the UK gun laws over the US gun laws which is surely unsurprising given where I live? I completely disagree with you about a lack of guns in society being linked to tyranny as we seem to manage fine without them.

Hey - you think you're free in a nation with cameras on every corner, so be it. That's your choice.

Golden chains are still chains my friend.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Firstly I'm asking that people follow the law after a democratic process where a discussion is had and a vote is taken and guns are banned I'm unsure why you find the idea so unbelievable. I won't be forcing my own view but I will be adding my view to a political process just as with any other.
Secondly you seem to have a rather odd view about WW2 and the purchasing of weapons by one ally from another and claiming the UK had to beg is pretty darn insulting. Simply giving everyone in the UK a gun would not have stopped Germany had they been able to launch an invasion and more than saying the general population of the US with guns would have helped fight off a Russian invasion during the cold war.
Guns in private ownership will not save you in the event of war.

Not to get bogged down into this too much but the civilian defense done by home guard units and the equivalent of the national guard at the time in the UK were instrumental in finding 5th agents, quislings and conscientious objectors. They were mainly armed civilian units that protected the homeland, were they not?

But i don't think anybody is suggesting giving everybody in the country a gun either. Let people decide for themselves if they want to own one to protect themselves or not.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Protecting your family from harm is one thing but risking your life for a few bits of paper and plastic that can be replaced within days seems like a potentially pointless waste of a life. Unique POV also didn't say anything about not defending herself just that he wouldn't be prepared to kill someone over a wallet which seems like a fair enough statement to me.

That is her prerogative. She doesn't have to defend herself even, if she doesn't want to. The point being made though, is that stopping everybody else from defending themselves or their property is where you infringe on their liberty and that is not fair on every law abiding citizen that may wish to keep themselves, their family and their property safe.

So you wouldn't give up your guns if they were banned then I take it HonorsDaddy?

I'm going to ignore your comments about the UK as they really are quite insulting.

Originally Posted by Chloe

Not to get bogged down into this too much but the civilian defense done by home guard units and the equivalent of the national guard at the time in the UK were instrumental in finding 5th agents, quislings and conscientious objectors. They were mainly armed civilian units that protected the homeland, were they not?

But i don't think anybody is suggesting giving everybody in the country a gun either. Let people decide for themselves if they want to own one to protect themselves or not.

I must admit I'm not sure as the home guard tend to get a relatively bad rap here as a bunch of old busybodies with grandiose visions of the role they were playing. They probably did find enemy agents and lots of other hugely important stuff but the program Dad's Army which gets repeated here annoyingly often has done them no favours whatsoever.

Dad's Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

Yes, you would be forcing your view. How do you think laws are enforced? With a kind request? No sir, there would be men with guns going house to house to take whatever guns others might have.

If the shoe fits...

Can't help it if your nation's actions in the past are now cause for embarrassment. Guess I probably shouldn't remind you about Chamberlain, huh?

That statement is partially true - simply giving everyone in the UK a gun would not have stopped a thing. The reason though is not what you would expect. You see, simply having the gun means nothing - one must also have the will to use it.

Incidentally, yes, the general population of the US which is armed could easily fight off ANY military invasion by ANY nation. The numerical disparity alone is insurmountable.

History is full of stories of all manner of societies warding off invaders simply because they had an armed populace. That continues into the modern day unless you haven't been paying attention to what is going on in the middle east.

Not to rub it in, but I seem to remember that privately owned weapons made a certain King back around the late 18th century decide that maybe The Colonies were too expensive to keep...

You may also wish to consider such non-events as the current bit in the middle east, the Soviets and Afghanistan back in the 80's, the Vietnam War, the French resistance in WWII, Switzerland in WWII, Japan's well documented apprehension of invading the US Mainland due to a '...rifle behind every blade of grass", the War of 1812, etc...these are all examples of privately owned weapons having a very big effect in the event of war.

Do they not teach history in the UK anymore?

Will to use the weapon ... a case addressed by BG Marshall. Training was given to ensure more troops engaged their targets. That will would increase in your own front yard.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

So you wouldn't give up your guns if they were banned then I take it HonorsDaddy?

Nope. Sure wouldn't. Be happy to give the bullets to whomever came to collect them though. Just hope that person can catch stuff moving at 1000fps or greater.

All humor aside, I would not give them up - at least not while I was still able to draw breath and pull a trigger.

Neither would anyone in my family - 8 year old daughter included - and yes, the kid can shoot.

Just FYI the government would run out of people willing to confiscate firearms LONG before people like me would run out of bullets - and no, I don't mean just Texans either.



Give up my guns....hmmph....that would be funny if you hadn't asked the question seriously....

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

I'm going to ignore your comments about the UK as they really are quite insulting.

I'm not trying to insult you. Facts are what they are. Is there some crap in my nation's history of which I am not proud? Sure. I just don't take personal offense at it as I didn't actually do any of it.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

So you wouldn't give up your guns if they were banned then I take it HonorsDaddy?

He isn't the only one who wouldn't tamely hand them over because people like you are afraid of people able to think for themselves. Come to my house after mine people will die, almost certainly quite a few people, including my family and as many as we can take as an honor guard with us.

The tree of liberty must needs be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots. I'd just as soon water it with the blood of would be tyrants.

Freedom can only exist when men will stand against tyranny. You choose to submit to tyranny, we do not.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

I'm going to ignore your comments about the UK as they really are quite insulting.

The truth frequently hurts. Ignoring them won't change the truth.

I don't think I will ever understand why so many Americans are so attached to guns and would be willing to kill to keep them.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

I don't think I will ever understand why so many Americans are so attached to guns and would be willing to kill to keep them.

We aren't willing to kill to keep our weapons.

We're willing to fight to keep our freedoms.

Do you understand the difference?