TOTAL Gun Control?

[KevinWestern]

Hey Guys-----I generally argue against excessive gun control laws (ie when it comes to real life situations), but was wondering what people thought about this:

If you had the power to remove all forms of guns, rockets, nukes, etc from our entire planet, forever, would you?

In other words, would you be for or against TOTAL gun control (if it were possible)?

Me? I could probably go for that but I'm still sort of undecided. Interested to hear your input.



.

 

[Katzndogz]

No.

 

[martybegan]

Hey Guys-----I generally argue against excessive gun control laws (ie when it comes to real life situations), but was wondering what people thought about this:

If you had the power to remove all forms of guns, rockets, nukes, etc from our entire planet, forever, would you?

In other words, would you be for or against TOTAL gun control (if it were possible)?

Me? I'd probably be pro total gun control.



.

You would have to eliminate the concept of combustion, as well as the ability to machine a tube capable of containing said combustion and propelling a projectile out one open end.

Remember Kirk did it against the lizard man with only rudimentary tools.

 

[KevinWestern]

Hey Guys-----I generally argue against excessive gun control laws (ie when it comes to real life situations), but was wondering what people thought about this:

If you had the power to remove all forms of guns, rockets, nukes, etc from our entire planet, forever, would you?

In other words, would you be for or against TOTAL gun control (if it were possible)?

Me? I'd probably be pro total gun control.



.

You would have to eliminate the concept of combustion, as well as the ability to machine a tube capable of containing said combustion and propelling a projectile out one open end.

Remember Kirk did it against the lizard man with only rudimentary tools.

Lol,

I realize that this proposal is completely hypothetical. You'd still have combustion, and all the tools necessary to make guns, yet (somehow) they just wouldn't exist.

No changes to life except for no more guns, missiles, etc...

 

[martybegan]

Hey Guys-----I generally argue against excessive gun control laws (ie when it comes to real life situations), but was wondering what people thought about this:

If you had the power to remove all forms of guns, rockets, nukes, etc from our entire planet, forever, would you?

In other words, would you be for or against TOTAL gun control (if it were possible)?

Me? I'd probably be pro total gun control.



.

You would have to eliminate the concept of combustion, as well as the ability to machine a tube capable of containing said combustion and propelling a projectile out one open end.

Remember Kirk did it against the lizard man with only rudimentary tools.

Lol,

I realize that this proposal is completely hypothetical. You'd still have combustion, and all the tools necessary to make guns, yet (somehow) they just wouldn't exist.

No changes to life except for no more guns, missiles, etc...

Ok, in that case we would be back to rule by the biggest and the strongest. Brute strength would win out over anything else.

Plus some liberal would start whining about mace/sword/arrow control.

 

[peach174]

Hey Guys-----I generally argue against excessive gun control laws (ie when it comes to real life situations), but was wondering what people thought about this:

If you had the power to remove all forms of guns, rockets, nukes, etc from our entire planet, forever, would you?

In other words, would you be for or against TOTAL gun control (if it were possible)?

Me? I could probably go for that.



.

NO !
It would still not stop the murderers and thieves in the world. They would use other things like bats, nail guns, knives. pitch forks and so on.
Did you know that you can make a bomb from ordinary cleaning chemicals from under your kitchen sink?

 

[KevinWestern]

You would have to eliminate the concept of combustion, as well as the ability to machine a tube capable of containing said combustion and propelling a projectile out one open end.

Remember Kirk did it against the lizard man with only rudimentary tools.

Lol,

I realize that this proposal is completely hypothetical. You'd still have combustion, and all the tools necessary to make guns, yet (somehow) they just wouldn't exist.

No changes to life except for no more guns, missiles, etc...

Ok, in that case we would be back to rule by the biggest and the strongest. Brute strength would win out over anything else.

Plus some liberal would start whining about mace/sword/arrow control.

I don't think it'd be totally back to "biggest and strongest". We'd still have a modern society full of modern rules along with a fully trained police force who could be called at a whim to take out any bigger/stronger folks abusing the little guys.

I think it would be interesting, and a LOT less people would end up dead for reasons that death was not necessary.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Hey Guys-----I generally argue against excessive gun control laws (ie when it comes to real life situations), but was wondering what people thought about this:

If you had the power to remove all forms of guns, rockets, nukes, etc from our entire planet, forever, would you?

In other words, would you be for or against TOTAL gun control (if it were possible)?

Me? I could probably go for that.



.

NO !
It would still not stop the murderers and thieves in the world. They would use other things like bats, nail guns, knives. pitch forks and so on.
Did you know that you can make a bomb from ordinary cleaning chemicals from under your kitchen sink?

Bombs are included in the outlaw.

Can't criminals use bats, knives, and pitch forks today?

Would you rather have them carrying a pitchfork or a loaded gun when they get into your house? I'd take my chances with the pitchforks.

.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Hey Guys-----I generally argue against excessive gun control laws (ie when it comes to real life situations), but was wondering what people thought about this:

If you had the power to remove all forms of guns, rockets, nukes, etc from our entire planet, forever, would you?

In other words, would you be for or against TOTAL gun control (if it were possible)?

Me? I could probably go for that but I'm still sort of undecided. Interested to hear your input.



.

Yes. I would also remove all hunger, poverty, inequality, injustice, and suffering of any kind. Next question?

 

[Katzndogz]

Lol,

I realize that this proposal is completely hypothetical. You'd still have combustion, and all the tools necessary to make guns, yet (somehow) they just wouldn't exist.

No changes to life except for no more guns, missiles, etc...

Ok, in that case we would be back to rule by the biggest and the strongest. Brute strength would win out over anything else.

Plus some liberal would start whining about mace/sword/arrow control.

I don't think it'd be totally back to "biggest and strongest". We'd still have a modern society full of modern rules along with a fully trained police force who could be called at a whim to take out any bigger/stronger folks abusing the little guys.

I think it would be interesting, and a LOT less people would end up dead for reasons that death was not necessary.

.

The fully trained police force would not have any guns either. How long would it take someone to get there? A 98 pound woman trying to protect 3 kids from a 6'3" 250 pound assailant with a machete would do what? Wave around her nail file?

 

[martybegan]

Lol,

I realize that this proposal is completely hypothetical. You'd still have combustion, and all the tools necessary to make guns, yet (somehow) they just wouldn't exist.

No changes to life except for no more guns, missiles, etc...

Ok, in that case we would be back to rule by the biggest and the strongest. Brute strength would win out over anything else.

Plus some liberal would start whining about mace/sword/arrow control.

I don't think it'd be totally back to "biggest and strongest". We'd still have a modern society full of modern rules along with a fully trained police force who could be called at a whim to take out any bigger/stronger folks abusing the little guys.

I think it would be interesting, and a LOT less people would end up dead for reasons that death was not necessary.

.

Whats to stop the big guys on the police force from taking over?

We put the biggest and strongest in the police, make them a single group. It would be like feudal times all over again with knights.

 

[PaulS1950]

If you list the weapons used in homicides you will find that the human body is #1. Hiting and kicking causes more deaths each year than rifles. I carry a gun because I am too old to take a beating and too young to die.

It might also be interesting to remember that 2.5 million people defended themselves last year with guns. Where would those people be without guns - not all attackers had guns so it is safe to say that without any guns there would be a lot more victims of violent crimes - just like in England.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

If you list the weapons used in homicides you will find that the human body is #1. Hiting and kicking causes more deaths each year than rifles. I carry a gun because I am too old to take a beating and too young to die.

I don't know if that statistic is accurate or not, but I would appreciate a link to it nonetheless.

 

[KevinWestern]

Ok, in that case we would be back to rule by the biggest and the strongest. Brute strength would win out over anything else.

Plus some liberal would start whining about mace/sword/arrow control.

I don't think it'd be totally back to "biggest and strongest". We'd still have a modern society full of modern rules along with a fully trained police force who could be called at a whim to take out any bigger/stronger folks abusing the little guys.

I think it would be interesting, and a LOT less people would end up dead for reasons that death was not necessary.

.

Whats to stop the big guys on the police force from taking over?

We put the biggest and strongest in the police, make them a single group. It would be like feudal times all over again with knights.

It's a good point. So, the argument then would be; are guns somewhat responsible for creating the level-playing field, (relatively) nice environment we're experiencing here in modern America?



.

 

[peach174]

Lol,

I realize that this proposal is completely hypothetical. You'd still have combustion, and all the tools necessary to make guns, yet (somehow) they just wouldn't exist.

No changes to life except for no more guns, missiles, etc...

Ok, in that case we would be back to rule by the biggest and the strongest. Brute strength would win out over anything else.

Plus some liberal would start whining about mace/sword/arrow control.

I don't think it'd be totally back to "biggest and strongest". We'd still have a modern society full of modern rules along with a fully trained police force who could be called at a whim to take out any bigger/stronger folks abusing the little guys.

I think it would be interesting, and a LOT less people would end up dead for reasons that death was not necessary.

.

Just as many would end up dead by having their necks broken with one simple twist, or people who would use rocks to bash people in the head.
You can't eliminate those that want to kill in this world, no matter what you do.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think it'd be totally back to "biggest and strongest". We'd still have a modern society full of modern rules along with a fully trained police force who could be called at a whim to take out any bigger/stronger folks abusing the little guys.

I think it would be interesting, and a LOT less people would end up dead for reasons that death was not necessary.

.

Whats to stop the big guys on the police force from taking over?

We put the biggest and strongest in the police, make them a single group. It would be like feudal times all over again with knights.

It's a good point. So, the argument then would be; are guns somewhat responsible for creating the level-playing field, (relatively) nice environment we're experiencing here in modern America?



.

Firearms are the great equalizer. Its a skill that can be learned by anyone who is physically capable of holding a weapon. Guns removed the warrior class from political power, as no longer did warfare require the biggest and the strongest. Cannons did the same on a larger level, removing the ability of smaller rulers to hole up in thier castles and defy national authority.

The transition of europe from feudalism to modern states required the development of firearms.

 

[PaulS1950]

If you list the weapons used in homicides you will find that the human body is #1. Hiting and kicking causes more deaths each year than rifles. I carry a gun because I am too old to take a beating and too young to die.

I don't know if that statistic is accurate or not, but I would appreciate a link to it nonetheless.

That statistic has been linked to more times than I want to mention. Links don't change minds they just offer the doubters more room to side-step the issues.
I used to offer links to all the statistics I used but nobody really reads them anyway.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

If you list the weapons used in homicides you will find that the human body is #1. Hiting and kicking causes more deaths each year than rifles. I carry a gun because I am too old to take a beating and too young to die.

I don't know if that statistic is accurate or not, but I would appreciate a link to it nonetheless.

That statistic has been linked to more times than I want to mention. Links don't change minds they just offer the doubters more room to side-step the issues.
I used to offer links to all the statistics I used but nobody really reads them anyway.

Because a majority doesn't mean everybody doesn't. Don't jump to conclusions as to what my intentions are. I happen to agree with you.