Gun ban overturned.

[Braen]

Gun control laws only effect those willing to obey them. Those that don't can get their guns in other ways

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Kolle

so your argument is that usa citizens are simply more likely to kill one another regardless of gun laws?

Remember that the US has serious problems with gang violence - to a degree that simply doesn't exist in Europe and Canada. That can't be good for the statistic.

Gun laws won't do anything to fight gangs, there's only one way to take them down: legalize prostitution, drugs and gambling. Legislating morals isn't something the government should do anyway, this just has the added bonus of taking away the revenue streams for gangs. If they can't make money, they won't be around very long.

[Ninajrr]

Just gonna go out on a limb here, but I think the reason people don't like guns is because they can be used to kill people...?

[Kolle]

that's the major conflict that doesn't make logical sense. those opposing things like prostitution and drugs use similar arguments against banning weapons like handguns. the opposite side of the argument, i should say. for example in this very thread people supporting the decision say that people are going to kill each other anyways and if they want they can still get guns. somehow i don't see our politicians, conservatives especially, legalizing prostitution and gambling.

if you go back into some of the drug threads there will be people saying that since drugs are used anyhow, why not go ahead and make them legal and regulated? then of course others will reply with a remark regarding making murder legal since people do it anyway.

the region and weapon type is also what confuses me when some of these arguments are made. i'm going to assume that everyone in this thread agrees that certain weapons should be banned. i will also assume that they agree some areas should have weapon bans. the supreme court also believes this. it's also been pointed out that certain urban areas, especially those thick with gang activity, account for a large portion of the gun related violence. so it seems to me that banning additional weapon types for these areas should have much less opposition than it currently does.

you simply can't use those same arguments to oppose what i just typed. if you say that gangs will kill one another and get a hold of guns anyhow and that it violates the 2nd amendment...then you should also explain why it's ok to ban guns in other locations like schools and government buildings. any argument you use to support a ban for schools would also apply to urban neighborhoods.

[The Dauntless One]

Originally Posted by Kolle

If that were true then wouldn't Japan or the UK have a murder rate closer to the USA? Or some of the other countries. The facts seem to indicate that banning or severely restricting guns doesn't mean that citizens will compensate by killing others with different methods. At least among developed countries, the facts seem to show that tougher gun laws or gun bans can lower the overall murder rate.

Japan has a low murder rate is not solely because of the gun ban. You can't just look at the law and conclude anything. You also have to look at other factors to see why murder rate is so low. Things like culture and environment makes a whole lotta difference.

[The Dauntless One]

Originally Posted by Kolle

if you go back into some of the drug threads there will be people saying that since drugs are used anyhow, why not go ahead and make them legal and regulated? then of course others will reply with a remark regarding making murder legal since people do it anyway.

Are you seriously comparing the use of drug to murder?

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by The Dauntless One

Are you seriously comparing the use of drug to murder?

maybe you should try reading what i posted again


certain activities are not restricted by our constitution or bill of rights. those activities have been outlawed anyways. the argument has been made that those activities should be legal since they don't do a tremendous amount of harm and people engage in those activities regardless of them being illegal. even though, many people want them to be illegal. a lot of those same people support what the supreme court did today.

then on the flip side we have gun control. if you argue that gun laws should be stricter for certain areas (like densely populated urban areas) then the argument is made that people will get guns anyways and that they will find ways to kill others anyhow so guns might as well be legal. it's also said that the constitution allows this.

so here we have various arguments for different things being illegal or legal. the very same people are opposing on one topic while supporting on the other. they do this using the opposite side of the same argument. they completely go back on their own reasoning.

i'm not comparing drugs to guns, i'm pointing out the bullshit. besides, drugs being illegal indirectly causes a large number of murders.

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Kolle

maybe you should try reading what i posted again


certain activities are not restricted by our constitution or bill of rights. those activities have been outlawed anyways. the argument has been made that those activities should be legal since they don't do a tremendous amount of harm and people engage in those activities regardless of them being illegal. even though, many people want them to be illegal. a lot of those same people support what the supreme court did today.

then on the flip side we have gun control. if you argue that gun laws should be stricter for certain areas (like densely populated urban areas) then the argument is made that people will get guns anyways and that they will find ways to kill others anyhow so guns might as well be legal. it's also said that the constitution allows this.

so here we have various arguments for different things being illegal or legal. the very same people are opposing on one topic while supporting on the other. they do this using the opposite side of the same argument. they completely go back on their own reasoning.

i'm not comparing drugs to guns, i'm pointing out the bullshit. besides, drugs being illegal indirectly causes a large number of murders.

The difference is, Drugs are illegal, and Guns are not. Despite them not being illegal Criminals still go after illegal weapons because the legal aspects of ownership tie them to the law.

If drugs were suddenly legal tomorrow the Government would attempt to control and Tax them, people would still smuggle, grow or whatever to get drugs in because they could sell them cheaper and people will buy them.

Smokes are pretty cheap in the states, they are not at all in Canada and a popular thing to do here is either A smuggle them in from the states and sell them, or B buy them from Aboriginals because they are not subject tot tax. IE a Carton (10 packs) is 80 bucks or so for a premium brand, or you can buy the exact same thing from Natives for 20 bucks. Legal drugs would be no different, people who smoke medicinal weed still buy it from the kid down the street because it's better.

There isn't any argument, the same thing happens, outlawing guns won't do anything for gun crime the same as allowing people to buy drugs won't do anything for the drug trade. Little timmy selling 5 grams a week at high school will still be in business for fucks sakes because kids probably won't be able to buy drugs till X age like alcohol ....

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by The Dauntless One

Japan has a low murder rate is not solely because of the gun ban. You can't just look at the law and conclude anything. You also have to look at other factors to see why murder rate is so low. Things like culture and environment makes a whole lotta difference.

There's a few things with this that also don't seem quite right.


The argument has been made that criminals will get guns anyhow. Guns being banned doesn't stop them. They will get guns anyways and use them to kill people. Yet in these countries, like Japan, gun related crimes are lower than in the USA. So what doesn't make sense to me is that if strict gun laws don't prevent criminals from using guns anyhow, why isn't Japan (and other countries) gun related crimes just as high as the USA?

The other thing is that even this quote admits that strict gun laws do play a part in less crime and less murder. Other arguments are also made that other countries have lower rates for more reasons than just gun laws. However, gun laws are part of the reason. Given this fact, given that the supreme court agrees certain weapons can be banned, given that the supreme court agrees certain areas can have weapons bans, i fail to understand why certain areas (like densely populated urban areas with high gang activity) can't be allowed to have things like handgun bans.

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

The difference is, Drugs are illegal, and Guns are not. Despite them not being illegal Criminals still go after illegal weapons because the legal aspects of ownership tie them to the law.

If drugs were suddenly legal tomorrow the Government would attempt to control and Tax them, people would still smuggle, grow or whatever to get drugs in because they could sell them cheaper and people will buy them.

Smokes are pretty cheap in the states, they are not at all in Canada and a popular thing to do here is either A smuggle them in from the states and sell them, or B buy them from Aboriginals because they are not subject tot tax. IE a Carton (10 packs) is 80 bucks or so for a premium brand, or you can buy the exact same thing from Natives for 20 bucks. Legal drugs would be no different, people who smoke medicinal weed still buy it from the kid down the street because it's better.

There isn't any argument, the same thing happens, outlawing guns won't do anything for gun crime the same as allowing people to buy drugs won't do anything for the drug trade. Little timmy selling 5 grams a week at high school will still be in business for fucks sakes because kids probably won't be able to buy drugs till X age like alcohol ....

this simply isn't true. alcohol prohibition is one great example of why. it created gangs and violent gang activity that wouldn't have existed otherwise. if what you said were true there would be enormous moonshine problems and just as much illegal activity with alcohol as there are illegal drugs. that isn't the case.


besides this doesn't do anything against the point i'm making. you can't shoot down the argument of "pot is used anyways, why not make it legal and regulated" while also using the same argument for not banning guns, "criminals will get guns anyways so they shouldn't be banned in certain cities".

this is exactly what some people are doing, especially conservatives. how many times have people said that pot should be legal since people use it anyways only to have someone else shoot back, "murder happens anyways so why not make it legal?" those same people are 100% going back on their own reasoning.

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Kolle

There's a few things with this that also don't seem quite right.


The argument has been made that criminals will get guns anyhow. Guns being banned doesn't stop them. They will get guns anyways and use them to kill people. Yet in these countries, like Japan, gun related crimes are lower than in the USA. So what doesn't make sense to me is that if strict gun laws don't prevent criminals from using guns anyhow, why isn't Japan (and other countries) gun related crimes just as high as the USA?

The other thing is that even this quote admits that strict gun laws do play a part in less crime and less murder. Other arguments are also made that other countries have lower rates for more reasons than just gun laws. However, gun laws are part of the reason. Given this fact, given that the supreme court agrees certain weapons can be banned, given that the supreme court agrees certain areas can have weapons bans, i fail to understand why certain areas (like densely populated urban areas with high gang activity) can't be allowed to have things like handgun bans.

There are a couple American States, just a single state, that out populate the entire Nation of Canada. Those charts don't seem to take these things into account. You can do the per 100,000 people thing but outside of a border/port city in Canada you would have a hard time finding a town with more than 50,000 people it . Nearly half of our nation lives in towns no bigger than 20,000 people, most less than 10k.

If we had 9 million people in one are like Vancouver than our crime rates in terms of guns would be much much higher. Our population is dispersed over a massive body of land and the smaller areas just don't have the gang crime, and interestingly enough in those same smaller northern communities most people own guns. They use them on wildlife, though you do get your occasional drunk guy shooting his wife cause she looked at the only school teacher in town a little funny.

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

There are a couple American States, just a single state, that out populate the entire Nation of Canada. Those charts don't seem to take these things into account. You can do the per 100,000 people thing but outside of a border/port city in Canada you would have a hard time finding a town with more than 50,000 people it . Nearly half of our nation lives in towns no bigger than 20,000 people, most less than 10k.

If we had 9 million people in one are like Vancouver than our crime rates in terms of guns would be much much higher. Our population is dispersed over a massive body of land and the smaller areas just don't have the gang crime, and interestingly enough in those same smaller northern communities most people own guns. They use them on wildlife, though you do get your occasional drunk guy shooting his wife cause she looked at the only school teacher in town a little funny.

today's ruling wasn't about banning guns everywhere. my stance isn't about that either. it's about certain areas having more strict gun laws than others.

as it stands, the 2nd amendment is already being "broken". This is supported by politicians and the supreme court. They agree that certain weapons can be banned and that certain areas can have weapon bans. the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can't carry a gun into a school. yet, it's illegal anyways and that's supported by our government branches. from my point of view, this is no different than outlawing guns in larger areas where it's a serious problem like gang infested urban areas.

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Kolle

this simply isn't true. alcohol prohibition is one great example of why. it created gangs and violent gang activity that wouldn't have existed otherwise. if what you said were true there would be enormous moonshine problems and just as much illegal activity with alcohol as there are illegal drugs. that isn't the case.


besides this doesn't do anything against the point i'm making. you can't shoot down the argument of "pot is used anyways, why not make it legal and regulated" while also using the same argument for not banning guns, "criminals will get guns anyways so they shouldn't be banned in certain cities".

this is exactly what some people are doing, especially conservatives. how many times have people said that pot should be legal since people use it anyways only to have someone else shoot back, "murder happens anyways so why not make it legal?" those same people are 100% going back on their own reasoning.

Yeah it is true. If I could duplicate a Bottle of Sleeman's Honey brown I would have my own distillery brewing right now. Alcohol is not produced through government corporations, pot is. The guy that gets to produce it is the guy that bid lowest.

I can grow pot ten times better than medicinal. People can make Meth and Crack and whatever else way better than whatever watered down version of drugs the government would allow.

Didn't you even think before you posted that?

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

Yeah it is true. If I could duplicate a Bottle of Sleeman's Honey brown I would have my own distillery brewing right now. Alcohol is not produced through government corporations, pot is. The guy that gets to produce it is the guy that bid lowest.

I can grow pot ten times better than medicinal. People can make Meth and Crack and whatever else way better than whatever watered down version of drugs the government would allow.

Didn't you even think before you posted that?

it can be pot. it can be prostitution. the argument has been made by those wanting these activities to be legal that "people do it anyways regardless of it being illegal. they aren't even that harmful. why not make them legal and regulate them better than they currently are?" then, in this very thread, it's said that gun bans don't make sense since criminals get them anyways. guns might as well be legal. politicians, and others, have used these arguments. they are completely going against their own logic.

and as i pointed out what you posted is incorrect. as we saw last century, outlawing alcohol created a lot of gang activity and violence that wouldn't have existed otherwise. it does not exist at that level currently concerning alcohol.

therefore, you can not successfully argue that making drugs legal wouldn't do anything against gangs or drug cartels. it most certainly would. some people may grow/sell it illegally anyhow, as i'm sure some people still make types of alcohol illegally and distribute it illegally.

[Kreugen]

So the states have to follow that constitution thingy too, eh? Well I'll be.