The thread about guns and stuff like that!

[zabu of nΩd]

Well it's a lot easier to make booze than it is to make guns and ammo.

 

[Zephyrus]

There's enough organized crime and black market pervasion to sustain production and sale.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I've never heard of criminals manufacturing guns themselves. When has this been found to happen before?

 

[Zephyrus]

I'd be surprised if there wasn't any underground gun manufacturing going on, on a small scale, which would only increase if gun manufacture were illegalized.

 

[Einherjar86]

Or, if it becomes legal for a criminal to buy a silencer, violent crime will increase, perhaps. Let's find out!

Yeah, we'll see. Personally, I don't think that crime will increase because of silencers. Criminals are going to shoot people anyway.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'd be surprised if there wasn't any underground gun manufacturing going on, on a small scale, which would only increase if gun manufacture were illegalized.

Well I could see it potentially happening - I've just never heard of it actually happening *at all*. Never read a story about cops finding a no-name gun off a criminal, or busting a secret gun manufacturing facility. I would imagine that making guns (ones that are safe to use, anyway) would require a pretty significant investment in machinery, and is not something that would be within the means of most criminals. Plus, they'd be expensive as fuck.

 

[Valerie]

I'm starting to wonder if banning the manufacture of certain guns and ammo would be a more effective way of reducing the crime rate through gun control than simply banning the possession of guns. It's pretty hard to argue that possession laws will hinder criminal activity. But if the industry behind handguns and machineguns were halted (outside of the military, anyway), and it became nearly impossible to find a working firearm, or safe-to-use ammunition for one, then the playing field would be a lot more level between criminals and non-criminals.

Thoughts, anyone?

The companies would go out of business. The military, ours at least, has specific demands in what they want in weapons, and in the end, only one single company's weapon will be adopted. Of course this is speaking for a specific weapon, like a handgun; for rifles there will probably be a weapon by a different company that the military adopts. So only one company out of the hundreds that make handguns, will be bought from. The rest will either try to make guns for other militaries, or simply go out of business. They don't want that.

Edit: I forgot about police and other non-military combat teams, like SWAT, HRT and others. So companies wouldn't necessarily go out of business, but they'd lose a huge chunk of revenue.

 

[Life Sucks]

Yes, a gun is certainly not something one can construct in one's basement with materials purchased at the local hardware store. I wonder: if guns could only legally be sold to the military and law enforcement, would the availability of guns to criminals drastically decrease? There could very well be half criminals working for the companies, illegally selling firearms to parties they are not supposed to be distributing them to.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The companies would go out of business. The military, ours at least, has specific demands in what they want in weapons, and in the end, only one single company's weapon will be adopted. Of course this is speaking for a specific weapon, like a handgun; for rifles there will probably be a weapon by a different company that the military adopts. So only one company out of the hundreds that make handguns, will be bought from. The rest will either try to make guns for other militaries, or simply go out of business. They don't want that.

Edit: I forgot about police and other non-military combat teams, like SWAT, HRT and others. So companies wouldn't necessarily go out of business, but they'd lose a huge chunk of revenue.

Well, money shouldn't be an issue when it comes to a matter of potentially saving lives. But I imagine our government would be more interested in cutting deals with the gun companies than in public safety.

Yes, a gun is certainly not something one can construct in one's basement with materials purchased at the local hardware store. I wonder: if guns could only legally be sold to the military and law enforcement, would the availability of guns to criminals drastically decrease? There could very well be half criminals working for the companies, illegally selling firearms to parties they are not supposed to be distributing them to.

I would certainly hope that the military and police can keep track of their weapons. After all, they've got much worse shit in their arsenals than just guns. I'm not sure if they're in the habit of releasing statistics on their gun stocks, but that would become a pretty important issue if the military and police had a monopoly on all handguns and automatic weapons. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to look up any extant statistics on this at the moment.

 

[PanzerKunt]

Probably. South Africa still serves as a good example of how very tight gun control laws still won't prevent criminals from getting them.

Yeah compare one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a shitty African riot-fest. Seriously.

 

[Valerie]

Yeah compare one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a shitty African riot-fest. Seriously.

Someone already brought this to our attention, thank you very much. Why don't you go fish for some fish, and drive your hydrogen car to go do it

 

[PanzerKunt]

you forgot the oil

 

[Matt]

Someone already brought this to our attention, thank you very much.

But it was a retarded comparison

 

[Valerie]

But it was a retarded comparison

Like I said before, it still serves as an example of how much fucking good South Africa's super strict gun control is doing. Why are you guys looking over that point just to make yourselves look smart?

 

[PanzerKunt]

It serves as an extremely biased example, that's what it does. Compare Norway to USA, compare Sweden to USA, compare Canada to USA, and you still get the exact opposite result and these mentioned countries have a lot more in common than Switzerland and South Africa. Your "proof" that guns don't simplify and encourage violence where it might not be needed is like saying bin Laden is a good man because he isn't as bad as Hitler was.

 

[Carcassian]

Say what you like about Hitler, but he was a snappy dresser.

I dont see Al Qaeda in spiffy SS uniforms. Nazis: hate the ideology, but stayed for the tailoring.

 

[Ender Rises]

Say what you like about Hitler, but he was a snappy dresser.

I dont see Al Qaeda in spiffy SS uniforms. Nazis: hate the ideology, but stayed for the tailoring.

Sigged.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

A LITTLE GUN-CONTROL HISTORY:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-------- ----------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945 , a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- -----------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control i n 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent. (yes, 44 percent)!

In the Australian state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

 

[skeptik]

You are a fucking idiot. Those things did not happen because of gun control. Learn about causality and stop immersing yourself in pro-gun propaganda websites.

 

[Zephyrus]

Seriously. It's not like state governments are doing this to more easily wipe out certain groups of people. That's ludicrous.