Mr Khan said:
bouzane said:
Mr Khan said:
bouzane said:
xwan said:
Even if guns are "NOT" the problem it provides a easy mean to kill alot of people quickly, It should be completely ban amongst civilians like in Japan. They haven't had a gun death forever. |
1. Gun prohibition would be impossible to implement in America today.
2. Gun prohibition would allow gangs to expand further into lucrative gun trafficking.
3. Gun prohibition rarely impacts crime rates in a positive fashion.
4. Gun prohibition removes the public's ability to defend against tyranny.
5. Successful gun prohibition requires an extremely large and powerful central government, something that is easily abused.
6. Guns have other purposes, home defense, hunting and sporting are great reasons to own guns. Just because you don't enjoy these freedoms doesn't mean you should be calling for others to forfeit their rights.
Why not address the actual issues at hand instead of applying a band-aid solution to a symptom? America's gun violence problem stems from a culture of fear coupled with drug prohibition. The elimination of drug prohibition would result in drastically reduced organized crime (it's their main source of income) which in turn would result in less gun violence. Properly addressing the fear culture would be much more difficult to achieve in an ethical fashion. The most effective way would be to create a regulatory body to prevent the media from publishing so many hysterical and sensational news items. This would be difficult to achieve without causing state sponsored censorship which I oppose strongly.
Next, we can look to nations such as China to see what prohibition achieves in less than ideal circumstances. Without guns criminals simply use explosives in the PRC and to great effect. Additionally, explosives are far more effective in acts of terror as well. The complete elimination of firearms would do little to limit acts of terror as the components required for an IED are easy to access and impossible to ban.
Unless you correct the underlying problems than American society will never be like that of Japan, ever. Finally, I'd rather live in Russia than a nanny-police state like Japan so even if you could do so, I'd never want to see it happen.
|
I will continue to ridicule the bolded point. Because it is not reflected in any way by modern history, unless its an action of regional government against national government (the American revolution doesn't count, because for all intents and purposes that was a rebellion of local government versus national government, not of people versus government. Nor for that matter does our Civil War)
|
Open your history book and turn to World War II. Hitler was a proponent of gun prohibition and for good reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
Maybe you should start looking at European history for examples of gun prohibition implemented by tyrannical leaders?
|
What did the Ghetto Uprising achieve for them? Nothing. In a grand military strategy sense, it does make sense to not have to deal with armed rebellion at home while fighting a war elsewhere, but rational rebels won't fight unless they know they're going to be destroyed anyway (as in the Ghetto uprising) or if they think they have a shot at winning (which, against Nazi Germany... nah...)
Armed resistance to tyranny is usually counterproductive for a couple reasons. One, tyranny is usually going to be better-armed, unless you're going up against an inept failed state of some sort, so you're probably just going to get killed. It is thus that tyrants really aren't "afraid" of armed rebellion, so much as they find it a nuisance to be avoided. Two, as i said before, armed rebellion gives too much representation to the people with guns, so you end up with warlordism, or severely divided militia factions that lead to future violence (like the Irish Civil War, or the groups running around Libya currently).
Peaceful and/or substate-sanctioned revolutions are what lead to liberty. Liberty will not happen before it is ready to happen.
|
I'd rather die fighting tyranny than simply be led to a concentration camp. How do you fail to see the importance of an individual having the ability to resist those who would take everything from you?
Of course the tyrants are usually much better armed, they implement gun control and prohibition. Hitler's gun prohibition was quite effective and as a result the resistance was very poorly armed. They should never have allowed it to reach that point. Those who would take your power never have your best interests at heart.
Both of your examples of rebellion gone wrong involve sectarian religious terrorism, hardly applicable to modern day America. Look at how the British mistreated the Irish for centuries and just look at the religious divisions present there, of course the region is unstable. If you took away the IRAs crappy semi-automatic AR15's they'd simply use more nail bombs and home-made flame throwers anyway so again, gun prohibition is not the solution rendering the point moot.
Also, want to discredit any of my other points supporting gun ownership?
