Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

Supposing, for argument's sake, that crime does spike. At some point, would it not decrease as guns age, the supply of ammo dwindles, etc.? Even if we don't reap the benefits of a relatively gun free society for another 100 years, I think it makes sense to get rid of guns.

And how many helpless victims have to wait out this type of deterioration?

Do you have the right to defend yourself SSG?

And how many helpless victims have to wait out this type of deterioration?

Do you have the right to defend yourself SSG?

#1. I doubt that the country would become the Mad Max World that you are predicting it would be.

#2. I have the right to defend myself, but I should not have the right to possess a weapon that can kill dozens of people should I decide to flip out.

I read this quote and became severely heated:

"It is a big loss for the American people and I think that this is a message from Allah to them to stop and think of what is happening in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis lost their sons or fathers and all of this was because of the so-called American democracy being exported to Third World countries."




All though misguided, it is very important to understand how other countries think, so we can all come to a better understanding and remove the misconceptions we have of each other.

In my opinion, its going to be VERY VERY easy for other countries to make the connection with the Iraq war, to Bush, to this event, even though they aren't that connected...or are they?

I think that's being a little too selective though. I'm talking deaths in general. I think that would even be marginal because say someone ends up in a shootout, there's no guarantee they still walk away.

See, I don't think this is really a rational scenario. It's like saying, "what if there were no disease" ?

The horse is out of the barn as far as guns go. Weaponry for defense was a natural creation among human beings since the dawn of time.

I mean what are we going to do? Send SWAT teams out to raid every home in America to confiscate all firearms? Come on, that's never going to happen.

Beems, do you think the readily available supply of weapons in Iraq is doing a good job of deterring crime?

See, I don't think this is really a rational scenario. It's like saying, "what if there were no disease" ?

The horse is out of the barn as far as guns go. Weaponry for defense was a natural creation among human beings since the dawn of time.

I mean what are we going to do? Send SWAT teams out to raid every home in America to confiscate all firearms? Come on, that's never going to happen.

So, you don't take issue with our central premise (e.g., that in a perfect world guns would be banned). Rather, you believe that it is impossible to get firearms out of circulation?

First off, most handguns and assault weapons can be tracked. Second, as guns are confiscated they would be destroyed. Third, guns would no longer be manufactured. Fourth, a more limited supply of guns would drive cost up and, as cost goes up, the ability of criminals to access them decreases. The supply would run out to next to nothing over time.

BTW, I love how you discuss the matter intelligently and civilly. We disagree, but I've gotta give you props for style.

Supply and Demand; busting out micro econ!

SGG does have a point. This would mean only rich people would be able to access guns and, in turn, be able to "defend" themselves. ;)

#1. I doubt that the country would become the Mad Max World that you are predicting it would be.

#2. I have the right to defend myself, but I should not have the right to possess a weapon that can kill dozens of people should I decide to flip out.

1. You only have to look at recent events to recognize the capability of evil in the human heart. If you cannot envision a state in which the law-abiding won't be at the mercy of the lawless, then I don't know what else to say.

2. What if a dozen people mean to do you harm? Is your right of self-defense limited to the type of weapon your opponent has? i.e. they have a knife, so I can defend myself with a knife, but if they have handgun with a magazine capacity of 15 rounds, legally, I may not possess such a weapon.

Beems, do you think the readily available supply of weapons in Iraq is doing a good job of deterring crime?

Since the state of Iraq's government is in complete disarray and there's no semblance of a police force to adequately address the problem of crime, I'd say this is a poor comparison to use.

I will say that if guns were outlawed amongst the general public, there would still be crime, wouldn't you agree?

Since the state of Iraq's government is in complete disarray and there's no semblance of a police force to adequately address the problem of crime, I'd say this is a poor comparison to use.

You predict that, absent legal gun ownership, the streets of America would be unbelievably chaotic with death everywhere. As a corollary, you believe that the U.S. government is incapable of protecting the people by itself (i.e., it needs gun owners to assist). So, with regard to Iraq, I don't see how you can simply blame their ineffective government for the violence. After all, you already believe that our government is incapable of keeping us relatively safe.

Obviously, there are many other problems in Iraq (sectarian strife) that we do not have. So Iraq, of course, is not completely analogous. But, I don't think there is a single person who believes that the proliferation of weapons in Iraq has deterred criminals.

I will say that if guns were outlawed amongst the general public, there would still be crime, wouldn't you agree?
I certainly agree. But, I also think that gun crimes would decrease as the availability of guns decreases and their cost increases.