Originally Posted by tore (Post 1263409)

I believe the idea that if guns are outlawed, criminals will still have them at the same frequency, is basically wrong. I think in a society where the regular guy won't be able to legally own a gun, a lot of people who would commit criminal acts won't have guns either. One reason could be that, despite them doing something criminal, they don't have criminal connections that can get them a gun prior to the criminal act. As an example, let's say two guys crash their cars and they start a fight. If one of them has a gun in the car, that fight could escalate and become a murder. If none of them have a gun, the likelyhood of things going that far decreases.

Also, if noone has guns, a criminal may not need that kind of power to f.ex rob someone. The threat of a knife or unarmed violence could be enough. Or maybe, lacking guns, they'll more often opt for criminal activities which do not require confrontations.

So I'm a big believer that less guns in society in general means less guns in the hands of criminals. When I'm sober, I'm sure I can find some studies to back that up.

Originally Posted by blastingas10 (Post 1263433)

Pretty strange coincidence.

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR. (Post 1263439)

I understand all of that and even agreed with Duga on the fact. My point was that the people who would be handing over guns voluntarily would be people such as myself not criminals who are the basis for the argument originally. That is where the problem lays, you have to take away more civilian rights in order to attain this goal which then leads to more asinine takings of civil liberties.

I'm obviously against the taking of innocent life but I will never surrender to the fact that I should not have the right to bear arms. And drink up Tore its gonna be a long weekend, why search for URL'S that i'll never agree with anyway. :)

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1263449)

I think this seems rather close minded. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws and less violence which still has fair civil liberties. It's perfectly possible. Why not learn from that?

One could argue that some sort of principle that you should maximize your amount of civil liberties is anti-societal. After all, society is about giving up freedoms that you'd otherwise have for the benefit of everyone. You give up the right to kill and rob others because that makes it better for everyone, you included (unless you're a robber/killer). Similarly, you should be prepared to give up your right to own guns if that makes it better for everyone. That should be the principle; increased life quality for the people who live in society. Not maximum freedom.

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR. (Post 1263457)

I will point out one thing, you are clearly only looking at it from the gun law side of things. How is it better for a gun owner and one who follows the rules and does it recreationally to give up his guns? I paid my hard earned money to attain these weapons, took extensive classes on how to not only fire them but break them down. Where does this money come from to replace these said weapons the Govt? Obviously with the National debt skyrocketing that would create another problem and obviously involve some type of tax on the people which includes me. Would i be paying taxes to take my own guns away from myself to better the people?

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1263461)

I would imagine if stricter gun laws were enacted they wouldn't apply to the guns people already own but would rather be in effect for new purchases.