Gun Control

Can someone kindly provide a non-biased, definitive source showing that gun control has a negative effect? All the ones posted here are from NRA or some other obviously biased source with unbacked allegations.

>>1
criminals don't obey gun control laws

What is the fucking point of gun control laws
Do you think someone who is going out to kill someone is going to care about "gun laws" and why stop at gun laws, there are other ways to kill people!
Gun control has neither a negative or positive effect on soceity.
and I'll say here "Education, not Legislation"

>>2
Pithy, but pretty much sums it up.  Gun control would work just fine (for stopping gun-crime) IF there were no way of obtaining guns other than through legal means.  Even if we completely outlawed guns everywhere, no one would be able to stop gun runners from getting arms to the people who want them.  You can easily see this principle in practice in our drug prohibition.  Drugs are illegal, but there's just no feasible way to ever stop the influx of drugs into the country.  Guns and gun control is more or less the same.

And that's not even taking the whole 2nd Amendment into account.

>>and I'll say here "Education, not Legislation"
Seconded.

>>4
yes, drugs give criminals the ability to hurt others and people the ability to hurt themselves

this is not the case for guns, guns give criminals the ability to hurt others and guns give people the ability to protect themselves at the slight risk of them hurting themselves if they are stupid

In fact, conversely, it would be more logical to ban guns if there was little to no violent crime.

OP here, it's not that I don't agree with you guys here, I do, I think the philosophy makes perfect sense, but for one I'd like to back my opinion on hard evidence. Drug legalization, for example, I have done extensive research on and written several papers about. So I'd like to base my opinion on something other than nrafactsheet.org or whatever bullshit site gets linked here all the time in these types of threads. And a lot of people say that other countries like Australia have draconian gun laws and have more crime, but that doesn't really work because there are millions of reasons why a country could have a lot of crime and it could be completely unrelated.

If you take away legally owned guns only niggers will have guns.

Guns are out of control nd guns should be controlled see, too many people have them and not enough people use them the end.

One reason that gun control is wrong:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://www.billofrights.org/

Further:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

How are we to ensure our ability to overthrow oppressive regimes without sufficient arms?  Modern arms that are capable of overthrowing a modern military-state?

>>9
Guess we need some artillery and air superiority fighters down at the militia HQ.

Gun control is just wrong, because I said so and I want to shoot the MG42 at random objects in my back yard.

>>10
We need to make available to everyone the arms that our military has.

Also, irresponsible use of weapons is a reason why you, personally,  shouldn't have them.

>>9
Militia has nothing to do with civilians...

And the declaration of independence is not legally binding in any way whatsoever.

>>11
you are fucking insane. Seriously, there is something wrong in your head. Bombs, snipers, machine guns, biological and chemical weaponry, tanks, everything, fuck regulations, let everyone have them!!! ABSOLUT SECOND AMENDMENT, I LOVE IT WHEN KILLERS HAVE THE MEANS TO DO OVER 9000 TIMES MORE DAMAGE THAN NORMALLY!!


God shut up, a criminal is not going to assault your couldasack, you white suburban fat nerd.

Guncontrol laws are pushed by the Jews to disarm Whites in America in face of a hostile and rising non-White population through Jewish-pushed non-White immigration.

Whites are becoming minorities in their own homelands in the US, Europe, Australia, etc. Jews and political correctness are pushing it on Whites.

What do Whites in Europe have to gain from massive, non-White immigration from third world nations? Absolutely nothing.

Blacks and other peoples who never even had a wheel or successful society are flooding our countries and bringing up crime, rape, and all kinds of social ills.

Removing guns from law-abidding Americans simply forces more people to be at the mercy of a 15% Black population of the US which commits nearly 50% of the violent crime.

>>13

go back to bed, hal.

>>12
Militia: An army composed of ordinary citizens.

The Declaration of Independence lays out the Right of the citizenry to abolish a government, it couldn't be codified into law.  The Rights of the people are above the laws of the government.

Also biological and chemical weaponry are not used by the regular army and should not be available to citizens.  Any citizen that wants nuclear weapons would need to prove that they have the ability to store the weapons safely.

Finally, criminals already have weapons that can do over 9000 times the damage of legally obtainable weapons ... look at Tim McVeigh.

Hare Krishna!

Timothy McVeigh is not a representative of the ordinary criminal, he was, you know, one of the worst mass murderers in US history. That's like saying all criminals have the means to fly two planes into two skyscapers. The average criminal has access to a handgun and/or a rifle. That's about it. Think of if every citizen had the means to obtain shoulder mounted rockets etc. No matter how strong our military is they will never be able to stop 300 million or so people armed with handguns and rifles. Or even 100 million. If we really need to overthrow the government, that's all we need. Anything more is superfluous.

And all rights are delegated to the people by the government. They are not above the law. Do you think people in North Korea stand up and shout "I HAVE THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIBERTY"? Not a chance. Again, the Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration. If it were in the Constitution it'd be a different story.

i think everyone should get a gun
and whoever lives...lives.

>>17
All Timothy McVeigh needed was fertilizer and some diesel; more common than guns and not exactly high tech.

What do you mean all rights are delegated to the people by the government?  Some of the principles expressed in the declaration of independence are in the constitution.  For example:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, ... and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our government was created by the people to help protect (not grant) our liberty.

>>17
Heaven knows our military has a problem with a few thousand, poor as shit Arabs and their cheaply produced IEDs.

Bringing the "we must have the power to overthrow oppressive regimes" argument is a dangerous one.  First of all, it makes you seem like a paranoid anarchist.  Second of all, if you truly have wide popular support (imo the only means of justifying overthrowing a government) you're going to succeed in overthrowing the government if the drive is strong enough, regardless of what weapons you have available.  Third of all, our government operates on the principle of peaceful transition of power, it's what makes us civilized, and distinguishes us from radicals.  Don't get started talking about the need to protect ourselves from tyranny when a revolution is not likely to happen anytime soon.  It makes you seem bloodthirsty and Seditious.

>>20

This whole post makes you sound paranoid. You're paranoid that someone will overthrow your comfortable government.

"Don't get started talking about the need to protect ourselves from tyranny when a revolution is not likely to happen anytime soon."

If it were raining balls outside, would you walk a mile to the store? No, but if it stopped raining, you would. Things happen quickly when human emotions are involved, and a revolution is a very emotional thing.

you know what the chance is of it raining balls? none.

>>10
STFU you never seen my backyard dummy!

>>21
So, you believe a revolution in America is right around the corner.

That makes you paranoid, there is nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo, and thats why conservatism exists.

>>24 thinks he's smart for sticking to grandpa's ways.

If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them.

That's all there is to it, really. No further arguments necessary, gun control is an idealist's fantasy thinking that banning guns will make violent crimes go away.

That is why we should keep these people from voting. By force.

Thread ended here >>2. Go home.

OP here. Once again, I agree with the philosophy that gun control does not work, but most people I try to convince want hard evidence, I thought the most pro-gun rights place I frequent would know of some such evidence.

The agurmen that 150 years ago some old guys sat down in a room and said eveyone should be allowed to own a weapon is not a good one.

>>29
Are you saying we should toss out the Constitution? Cause that is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Or should we just throw out the parts that you don't like, because the founding fathers were only political geniuses /some/ of the time?

When speaking of the Constitution, try to remember that the entire Bill of Rights was made out of duress to appease the states-rights leaders of the time. Furthermore, the founding fathers probably didn't envision automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, grenades, et al. Also, just you try to deny thousands of angry and now trained militiamen/farmers the weapons they used to defend their land and use for hunting food.

The 2nd Amendment, along with the outline of the powers of the President, were specifically left vague in order to dodge a lot of immediate problems; Let the future decide how to enforce certain aspects and how to interpret these tenets.

So, without any further remedial civics lessons, I believe that gun control issues are blown out of proportion thanks to the NRA. The NRA refuses to budge on any topic that has any leeway about personal freedom versus obvious danger. Frankly, they have to, because if they accept that one gun is dangerous and should be banned it sets a precedent that will cause a death by degrees.

Adressing what the OP wants, you would be hard pressed to find adequate hard evidence for casual conversation. If you were to cite what other countries condone, whatever you say is weakened by the fact that things intrinsically work different in America.

>>31
They did have cannons and artillery weapons. The constitution did nothing to ban the private ownership of these. Nor did it ban the private ownership of warships. Nor did it ban the private ownership of bayonettes. (Seriously Clinton... when was the last time you heard about a bayonetting incident?)

Whether or not the founding fathers could envision future weaponry is arguing a completely different argument than what is being discussed. Perhaps they could and did envision such weaponry. Any man with half a brain could see that man first warred with stones. Then he warred with spears. Then he warred with brass knives. Then he warred with iron swords and bows. Then he warred with cannons, and rifles.

Tell me then, what did the founding fathers believe? That weaponry would remain the same for the next thousand years? No. Of course not. What the founding fathers were arguing for is for an armed citizenry. A citizenry that could have the capabilities to overthrow a corrupt government and protect itself in case an armed militia failed to do so.

Yes, there is gun crime. Most crimes commited using firearms are with illegally procured firearms. To argue the case of gun control in terms of statistics(lies) is entirely beyond the point of the debate. Who cares is gun control is stricter in other countries and they have less gun crime. (Statistics 101, correlation is NOT causation) Who cares if Switzerland has lax laws yet extremely low gun crime (again, correlation is NOT causation). Because these countries are NOT America, and there is no RULE governing what the effects of gun control are. (Despite how either side will lie to you with completely unempirical "definitive statistics and facts" concerning case studies.) {Maybe we can just say nigras can't have guns and gun crime will drop. Okay, as a /b/tard I had to add that in.}

Should we, as law abiding citizens, be allowed to own a firearm to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes? That's my opinion on the subject.

>>32
Sorry to mislead you if it seemed I was attempting to argue that the right to bear arms should be a static definition from the Founding Fathers. My notion is that it is ridiculous to use the Bill of Rights as an explaination as to why someone should be allowed weapons of immense deadliness. Whether that is a correct interpretation or not of what the writers of the Bill of Rights intended is, and should, be up to interpretation for what is necessary to the situation. That said, nobody can, save for a miraculous time rift, correctly ascertain how the Constitution would have provided for our current weaponry.

I personally do not find a need to have an assault rifle as my primary home defense: I have a shotgun and a regular rifle for that. Of course needs vary, but most intruders would get the message to leave when they hear the cocking of either one. Spraying my household with a torrent of bullets probably would do more damage to my personal wealth than someone taking my TV. An artillery cannon would probably do worse, obviously, but I am getting off track to show an example. There is little (in my opinion) need for certain classes of weapons to be in the hands of civilians.

My opinion is (and yes, I am parsing carefully my semantics) that gun control is a ill-advised thing that only allows for greater abuses by those in control. The governments of the world should have a healthy respect and fear of their subjects, as we are the ones who grant them power and authority. I would enjoy a policy of gun moderation; that is, allow people to freely own weapons if they despire, to protect themselves and have for general utility.

>>33
Reasonableness on my 4chan?

>>26
Was your grandpa a fascist too?

>>31-33
Good posts.

>>35
Is your entire family incapable of sarcasm?

>>31
You are a fucking retard.  If the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets and not to Assault Weapons because the founders never could have foreseen a future with such weaponry, then the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, the radio, or the television because the founders could never have foreseen those items either. 

"I believe that gun control issues are blown out of proportion thanks to the NRA. The NRA refuses to budge on any topic that has any leeway about personal freedom versus obvious danger."

Also, the NRA is not in any way extreme or uncompromising.  The NRA actually supports laws CURRENTLY on the books, and CRITISIZES gun rights groups who they find to be too uncompromising. 

When was the last time you heard the NRA was pushing for legalizing bazookas? You are trying to paint the NRA as being a bunch of extremists when in reality they are really about the most moderate faction in the gun control debate I've ever heard of. 

Also, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with holding views outside the norm.  Your personal dislike for the NRA just shows me that your views of them are likely based on an irrational personal fear of guns and those who own them. 

The same kind of people screamed bloody murder when republicans in congress let the assault weapons ban expire, claiming there would be mass murder everywhere, terrorist attacks, and blood in the streets.  Guess what? The overall crimerate nationwide actually fell.  It did not go up. 

The same thing seems to happen whenever someone considers removing a gun control law - some eccentric irrational gun-fearing retards like you always scream doomsday and bloody murder, and typically the crime rate goes down in the end. 

The exact same thing happened in my state with concealed carry.  Thankfully, nobody listened to dipshits like you, and the law passed.  We are more free, and more safe as well thanks to the resultant lower crime rate.

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
In Kennessaw GA, they passed a law mandating that everyone must own a gun.  The same retards like you once again went nuts over it, and guess what? The statewide crimerate dropped 10%.  The crime rate in Kennessaw dropped 89%.  Moreover, after the initial massive drop in crime, it has STAYED DOWN for the last 16 years.  (see link)

If you want to control crime, proliferating guns is the solution, not restricting them. 

"An armed society is a polite society."  -Robert Heinlein

>>12
"Militia has nothing to do with civilians..."

Gb2 high school:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=militia

"1.  An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."

If you own a gun, have ever applied for a firearm license, or are thinking about purchasing a weapon...

You need to see this urgent message : http://agorafinancial.com/research/video/tek_clickprint_0713

Well, I'm sorry to tell you I can't remember at all where I got these facts, but their not so much facts relating directly to gun control so much as their just things that people have pieced together to come up with the most logical opinion they can. Apparently in England and what not guns are actually illegal, but crime rates are higher than ever and are especially higher than the U.S. and as a result of the outlawing of guns people have few effective ways of protecting themselves, since criminals will obviously still smuggle guns into the country for their own purposes. As far as the 2nd ammendment goes, I honestly don't it's detailed enough to really be able to effectively interpret whether outlawing automatic weapons is unconstitutional so its not really an effective argument for those who support automatic weapons. As far as my own opinion goes on the subject, I'm actually rather torn. As an American I want to preserve the freedoms of the people even though a part of me definitely realizes that automatic weapons are unnecessary for protection.  Another issue is that I want children to be safe a=in schools while people still have the freedom to guns, but the fact is that both goals are impossible to reach together and they both have consequences. And the bigger problem is that I worry that people fail to see is that by outlawing automatic weapons or even if we outlawed ALL weapons, it still wouldn't prevent these tragedies from happening.

I don't even know what this here thread is all about, but I'm anti gun control! TEXAS #1 USA USA USA WOOOOOH GO DALLAS!!!!

Guns don't kill people : http://funjak.com/post/7611

Penises don't rape people. It is people with penises who rape people. Or penes if you want to get technical.

TEXTBOARDS ARE SHIT :EDDD

nigger