43 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

To all the people who say banning guns won't work, will cause more problems, etc., etc: If you're so sure of yourselves, let's try it and find out.

[Redezra]

Pretty much

[Manoka]

To all the people who say banning guns won't work, will cause more problems, etc., etc: If you're so sure of yourselves, let's try it and find out.

Let's all go jump off a bridge and see if that works.

 

Sewiously, that is one of the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Unless you know something will work in law, you don't do it. You don't just roll the dice on people's freedoms, and people's lives unless you have to. Not to mention there are already plenty of examples where it had little if any positive impact. Unless you can have a relatively high degree of certainty that something will work, you don't make huge sweeping changes that would effect millions of lives.

 

 

Once you've banned guns, it's kind of a huge hassle to get them back. Manufacturing plants close and shut down. Entire industries dry up. Workers leave and go work in other factories. Older factors get converted to produce new goods, or new guns to fit the new criteria. Very few gun laws ever get overturned, and in congress you need a 66% majority to overturn old bills that get passed. That means that if you get a 51% support for a law, you need a 66% support later on to get it removed. Further, when people don't have things, it's hard for them to miss it, and thus fight for it to be given back. There's a tendency to stick with the status quo, which is why elephant fire-hydrant laws and other silly things are still on the books. It's why civilians are willing to work for corrupt dictators in North Korea or in Russia; when you've never had a taste of freedom, of the good life, you don't know what you are missing. It's why they put a premium on cutting out all "foreign propaganda".

 

Even if you relegalized them, it's not like all the old workers and all the old companies will magically be able to make new factories to make the old style of guns again. You're setting people back decades in the best of circumstances. You better be sure you're right.

Edited by Manoka, 05 January 2016 - 06:35 PM.

[the rebel]

Even if you relegalized them, it's not like all the old workers and all the old companies will magically be able to make new factories to make the old style of guns again. You're setting people back decades in the best of circumstances. You better be sure you're right.

I think you underestimate capitalism it would be fairly easy for industry to change production to firearms when there is a market as it uses all of the same machinery.
Also people who are skilled at using that machinery can read drawings and blueprints and archived programs, so gun design for production is even easier than your previous point.

Drama queen, not decades at best but a few years at worse.

[Manoka]

Even if you relegalized them, it's not like all the old workers and all the old companies will magically be able to make new factories to make the old style of guns again. You're setting people back decades in the best of circumstances. You better be sure you're right.

I think you underestimate capitalism it would be fairly easy for industry to change production to firearms when there is a market as it uses all of the same machinery.
Also people who are skilled at using that machinery can read drawings and blueprints and archived programs, so gun design for production is even easier than your previous point.

Drama queen, not decades at best but a few years at worse.

It's not just the problem of creating "a gun". It's the problem of creating specific guns. Entire companies will shut down, and that means with it, it's patents. Specific types of guns that required specific types of machinery will disappear. Specific accessory manufacturers that created accessories for specific guns will have to change their entire designs to fit whatever the new guns are, if they know how to at all. The individual experts and armor smiths, who custom made guns, were trained to produce certain types of specific guns, designers such as Eugene Stoner or Mikhail Kalashnikov etc. would have found new businesses to work in. You lose all that skill, all that knowledge even if some new company comes along.

 

Someone will be there to make new guns, but it won't be the same. You'll kill off 100 year old companies, destroy entire organizations that made their living off of these specific accessories (which is largely what an assault weapons ban, would ban). That is the problem, not that somebody somewhere will be able to make something passable. Getting back up to the volume they had before will also take time. Billions of dollars don't just come out of thin air, you successively make more profits, allowing you to buy more machinery, to make more of a product, and sell it to more people. The fluctuations in the market will also make it an unstable business, meaning far less people will be willing to invest in to it, delaying it more so.

 

 

Un-Banning sodas for example might make it possible for sodas to come back one day, but you'll never have the brands you're used to. All this hassle, all the time it would take to get back, and you would achieve very little from it. It's not harmless to remove people's rights to own guns. At the very least, you cause whatever damage you would for the amount of time you can't get guns. This is true with almost any law, and banning a commodity in particular is the most damaging.

Edited by Manoka, 05 January 2016 - 07:43 PM.

[the rebel]

The USPTO publish all patents online for free and new patents submitted to them get published 18 months later.

The same machinery I used to use to make gears and components in engineering, is the same machinery used for making firearms.

Less doom porn and more facts please.

[WANA]

My question is, you look at school shooters, Lanza, Klebold, those type, would they have the connections and the know how to get those guns without it being 100% legal? The answer is no, if those folks didn't have access to weapons specifically designed to kill efficiently, some of these tragedies might have been avoided.

There's certainly a "can criminals still get access" question, but i'm fine with that reality knowing that cops also have that sort of weaponry.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Plenty of gunmakers would remain in business even if guns were made illegal in the United States. We're not the only country in the world. And even within our borders there are police and military demands for firearms. 

[Manoka]

My question is, you look at school shooters, Lanza, Klebold, those type, would they have the connections and the know how to get those guns without it being 100% legal? The answer is no, if those folks didn't have access to weapons specifically designed to kill efficiently, some of these tragedies might have been avoided.

There's certainly a "can criminals still get access" question, but i'm fine with that reality knowing that cops also have that sort of weaponry.

What made the weapons "specifically designed to kill efficiently"? Guns are far from the deadliest weapons. When used by the military, it's to avoid civilian casualties, not to simply be the deadliest weapon ever. A single bomb from an F-16 can wipe out an entire city block in a second. One second, anyone in the area is dead. But the problem is, that kills too many civilians, destroys too many buildings. So they send in infantry to specifically root out the bad guys who are armed, and take them down. Guns can take down just one person at a time, if you possess sufficient marksmanship to use them. One pull of the trigger does not mean one hit, and one hit does not mean one kill. In fact, it takes the average police officer about 6 to 10 rounds to land even one hit on the bad guy, and typically 2-3 rounds to take him down. Obviously, this doesn't always result in death. In fact, you only have about 5-15% chance of dying if you are shot with a gun, depending on the time of the response of emergency medical personnel. So no, guns are not super deadly. You could easily make a bomb which, do in fact, statistically kill far more. In fact, a single bombing attack, the Oklahoma City bombing attack, killed and injured more than every single mass shooting in the last 20 years combined in about two seconds, and all he had was a car, gasoline and fertilizer. It's not really something that's impossible to get ahold of. 

 

Furthermore, it's pretty damn easy to buy them illegally online, just like drugs. Although you might have heard of the silk road, it's not that difficult to get ahold of guns, drugs, or pretty much anything on it so long as you access the accounts. Given how difficult it's been shutting down file sharing sights, like mega uploads and how long these things last for despite obviously selling illegal goods, these sights can stay up for years before anything is done about it. Further, currencies like bitcoin allow people to buy things completely anonymously, which makes it just that much harder to track. They may find you eventually, but not until you've done your damage.

 

 

So, if the nutjob has access to a computer, he has access to anything a cartel might smuggle in, which includes fully automatic Ak-47's. Which by the way, range from 30-125 dollars globally. It's cheaper than the 600 dollars I spent for the civilian legal, watered down non-fully automatic Ak-clone that I have.

 

My recommendation is not simply to do nothing because cartels or other criminals can easily circumvent the laws. I understand trying to increase the strictness of background checks or mental health or what have you even if it's only for the sake of prudence, but it's incredibly naive to think that this will somehow stop the criminals. Disarming Americans just leaves them defenseless against criminals who won't be willing to follow the same rules and have just as much access if they're willing to break the laws. All those drug routes are used by the same people to smuggle in guns, if anything just for themselves, so they can fight police or other rival gangs. You wouldn't expect a guy shipping in a ton of cocaine to not carry guns with him and be armed with the teeth, especially considering how cheap they are, and how much money they make. At the end of the day, this is not a solution. Even if we want to argue that some criminal somewhere got their gun legally, that doesn't mean that by and large, this is normally the case or that other alternatives that are just as easy, if not easier don't exist.

 

 

Furthermore, so called "assault weapons" are far from actual military weapons, and are completely arbitrary features. Unless you can explain to me why an adjustable stock, forward grip, barrel shroud etc. make a gun so much more lethal, you don't have a leg to stand on. In fact unless you've read and understood the bill, you're just blowing smoke out your ass. 

 

Not to mention, military firearms are generally required by the Hague and Geneva conventions to lack certain deadly features; expanding, fragmenting or exploding bullets are banned. The average hunter is allowed a hollowpoint, which is considered both a fragmenting and expanding bullet. Military rounds are designed specifically to wound, not to kill, and leave cleaner wounds that are easier for surgeons to work on, by law. So, actually, military guns are less deadly and produce less traumatic wounds than what civilians are allowed, as ironic as that may seem to some.

Edited by Manoka, 06 January 2016 - 11:31 AM.

[the rebel]

Furthermore, it's pretty damn easy to buy them illegally online, just like drugs. Although you might have heard of the silk road, it's not that difficult to get ahold of guns, drugs, or pretty much anything on it so long as you access the accounts. Given how difficult it's been shutting down file sharing sights, like mega uploads and how long these things last for despite obviously selling illegal goods, these sights can stay up for years before anything is done about it. Further, currencies like bitcoin allow people to buy things completely anonymously, which makes it just that much harder to track. They may find you eventually, but not until you've done your damage.

I doubt many average criminals and would be criminals have the skills and know how to safely access the deep web without being traced and finding a non bogus site or even afford the price of bitcoins.

You think every criminal is a mastermind. You been watching too much films lol

[Manoka]

Furthermore, it's pretty damn easy to buy them illegally online, just like drugs. Although you might have heard of the silk road, it's not that difficult to get ahold of guns, drugs, or pretty much anything on it so long as you access the accounts. Given how difficult it's been shutting down file sharing sights, like mega uploads and how long these things last for despite obviously selling illegal goods, these sights can stay up for years before anything is done about it. Further, currencies like bitcoin allow people to buy things completely anonymously, which makes it just that much harder to track. They may find you eventually, but not until you've done your damage.

I doubt many average criminals and would be criminals have the skills and know how to safely access the deep web without being traced and finding a non bogus site or even afford the price of bitcoins.

You think every criminal is a mastermind. You been watching too much films lol

It doesn't really take a mastermind to just google "buy a gun" and be lead to a sight online. 

 

And it doesn't really matter if a criminal is traced or not. By the time a criminal commits his crime, the people he wants dead are well, dead. 66% of murderers will be caught whether the gun is traced or not. Most murderers aren't really trying to get away with murder so much as, just murder people. They know the chances of being caught are rather high.

 

 

There are also other forms of E-cash, Bitcoin is just one source. You don't have to buy a "bitcoin", per say.

 

The idea is that, if the gun wasn't legal, a suicidal, homicidal maniac couldn't kill a lot of people. A guy who knows he's going to prison or plans on getting himself killed doesn't really care if the purchase is traced to him months later. Guns are available all over the black market, and you don't have to be some kind of criminal genius to use google. Seriously, people buy huge volumes of drugs and other stuff over the internet. It's not that amazing to thing they'd buy a gun. And it doesn't take much intelligence to do it that secretly either. The main problem is sheer volume; cops let the small things go to focus on the big ones. You might be surprised just how many pictures of people smoking pot or doing drugs are on facebook, and how few times these people actually go to jail or get caught. How many people do drug deals over facebook. The sheer volume is too much to handle even if after the fact it would be traceable.

Edited by Manoka, 06 January 2016 - 05:22 PM.

[the rebel]

Yoi brought up the deep web and not google, but snce you changed the subject to the surface web. How does the gun in another country come from the store to get delivered to you without it being seized? The tracing part was in regards to obtaining firearms from the deep web, something which your average person wouldn't be able to find a legit seller or legit site. Seems you know nothing about the surface or deep web and you know nothing about surveillance. If the government outlawed firearms it would shutdown nearly all avenues of obtaining a firearm for most criminals and would be criminals. You watch too many hollywood films, you give your standard criminal way too much credit and enforcement way too little credit. You have a habit of using today with little restrictions for your answer of tomorrow with many restrictions. That doesn't work and is illogical.

[Manoka]

Making all guns illegal doesn't somehow stop online sellers from doing it illegally. That's been my entire point.

 

Seriously, I just showed you how easy it was to access these networks. The "deep web" isn't some kind of mythical magical entities that only super criminals know about and are possible for anyone to see. It's a collection of dozens of websites anyone has access to. Seriously, you can google "buy a gun from the internet" and find some of these websites, I even showed you a sight that listed some, that hadn't been shut down at that time. 

 

 

What in God's name makes you think that this is so difficult? They are already selling guns illegally right now. Guns that have been smuggled in. They don't sell them from legit businesses, they sell them on the equivalent of craigslist ads. Hell, some have been on craigslist ads. You can buy them over facebook or twitter or any social media sight so long as you find the right person. People evne advertise it, and they rarely get caught due to the raw volume. 

 

The laws have already made it illegal. Even if every single gun was banned, it doesn't stop criminals from selling them illegally. Selling them on the street, even over the internet. The raw volume of sales and the inherent anonymity over the internet means they can't catch all of them. Seriously, how many people have talked over invicta about taking drugs and never got arrested for it? All a person has to do is buy a phone with prepaid minutes, go in to an internet cafe or library, or just borrow someone else's computer for a few moment's and a trace, if it's ever done, if the sale is ever known about, if anyone even ever knows where you got the gun, would lead to some random computer or phone. You live in a fantasy world if you think it's even possible to begin to regulate this stuff just by making it illegal.

 

 

You're a complete idiot if you think it takes some sort of master criminal to buy drugs off the internet, or guns or any other commodity. It's done every day. 

Edited by Manoka, 06 January 2016 - 07:38 PM.

[Redezra]

Ugh, please don't conflate the deep web and the dark web.

[WANA]

Using and accessing the black market on the internet is actually surprisingly difficult. These type of kids who weren't well adjusted, had mental health issues, weren't going to be able to secure these types of weapons online.

[the rebel]

Making all guns illegal doesn't somehow stop online sellers from doing it illegally. That's been my entire point.

Seriously, I just showed you how easy it was to access these networks. The "deep web" isn't some kind of mythical magical entities that only super criminals know about and are possible for anyone to see. It's a collection of dozens of websites anyone has access to. Seriously, you can google "buy a gun from the internet" and find some of these websites, I even showed you a sight that listed some, that hadn't been shut down at that time.


What in God's name makes you think that this is so difficult? They are already selling guns illegally right now. Guns that have been smuggled in. They don't sell them from legit businesses, they sell them on the equivalent of craigslist ads. Hell, some have been on craigslist ads. You can buy them over facebook or twitter or any social media sight so long as you find the right person. People evne advertise it, and they rarely get caught due to the raw volume.

The laws have already made it illegal. Even if every single gun was banned, it doesn't stop criminals from selling them illegally. Selling them on the street, even over the internet. The raw volume of sales and the inherent anonymity over the internet means they can't catch all of them. Seriously, how many people have talked over invicta about taking drugs and never got arrested for it? All a person has to do is buy a phone with prepaid minutes, go in to an internet cafe or library, or just borrow someone else's computer for a few moment's and a trace, if it's ever done, if the sale is ever known about, if anyone even ever knows where you got the gun, would lead to some random computer or phone. You live in a fantasy world if you think it's even possible to begin to regulate this stuff just by making it illegal.


You're a complete idiot if you think it takes some sort of master criminal to buy drugs off the internet, or guns or any other commodity. It's done every day.

Sure banning doesn't stop all but it stops most, just because some would get through the net doesn't mean there shouldn't be a net.

Firstly if you search for sites on google for those unsearchable sites you find some but nowhere near all of what's hidden (I am certain most of what you see listed on the surface web for those sites would be bogus and or scams) and then choose your chosen application to access said site, you're creating a link/trace between the two.
Also you would need to have a pretty good understanding on how to make tracking you hard to do, for example TOR even though it sends you through multiple IP addresses before hitting your final destination that isn't enough to stop a trace.

Legitimate sites wouldn't be found on a google search as the success of the site relies on it remaining hidden for the extra security of the provider and customers.

Not forgetting that the legitimate sites are invite only.

So given what I've just said how is your average criminal and would be criminal ever going to get access to those sites, let alone get a damn invite?

--------

Manoka you stupid? You cannot use today's situation for tomorrow. So you can already do this that and the other, is irrelevant as that is happening while guns are legal dumbarse.

Yeah and its the dumbarses selling stuff on social media are the dumbarses sharing a cell with their new lover.

[the rebel]

As for you Invicta comment, I can't think of one instance someone has tried selling drugs and firearms to other members.

[Manoka]

I'm not saying someone can do it and be untraceable, that's never been my argument. My argument is two-fold, one people can still do it, so anyone who plans on being caught by the police after murdering 20 people can get the guns anyways, and number two that the sheer volume of these sales means that the time it takes do a trace, if someone ever figures out it happened at all, is ridiculous. 

 

The cops don't just have a magical way to monitor all internet activity all the time. How much of a chance do you think there is of a police officer or NSA officer monitoring this conversation, right now? Or any conversation you have on facebook? It's close to nothing. They don't just have a magical way to let them know that someone is discussing buying a gun, and then bought a gun. People often arrive in person and pay for it in cash, or use e-cash which doesn't take a lot of input. By the time a sale happens, it can be months before anyone finds out, if anyone finds out. You understand that this is why so much illegal downloading happens over the internet, right?

 

Also my point was people talking about using drugs, not selling it over Invicta. Nobody's come and shut these forums down. Nobody likely even knows or would think to care. 

 

 

Not to mention, all anyone has to do is go borrow a computer, from a friend, from a library and if a trace is ever done, it's traced back to some random computer. By a 20 dollar cellphone and 10 dollars worth of pre-paid minute to get a burner cell. It's the easiest thing in the world to. 

 

Assuming he couldn't find a local drug dealer, who was hooked up with the gangs, who are hooked up with smugglers, to buy a gun from. These people sell guns on the streets. 

 

 

Other than the complete lack of evidence to support your position, you also lack any common sense or basic logic. 

 

It doesn't take a lot of skill or being some kind of criminal genius to find someone willing to sell you drugs or guns, even online. Again, it isn't some kind of magical, mythical super website where people go to, to get super sekrit sales that only hackers who know how to "hack back in time" can figure out. People do these sales on craigslist, facebook, even twitter. Any form of social media where the raw volume of conversations is too much to be monitored all the time. They find a guy willing to sell them a gun and boom, you got a gun. It's honestly not that hard. If you're a suicidal crazy person, I imagine that in far less than a year you could find someone to buy a gun from illegally. 

 

But, since common sense alludes you, about 79% of guns used in the commission of crimes are already illegally obtained. Not all of course are from the internet ,but many are. Many of these guns are illegally smuggled, most are sold on the street. Now, with that in mind, does it take much to imagine that someone could easily obtain an illegal firearm? In fact even if all of that 21% that might be legal was completely closed up, that market would get filled in an instant, since people won't simply stop looking for weapons to commit crimes with. So, given the overwhelming volume of guns that are already obtained via illegal means, less than 15% of which are stolen weapons (I.E. obtained from a legal source of some kind), and the some 300 million odd firearms currently already in civilian hands, one for every American, what makes you think that simply making it illegal will stop the criminals who already have a flourishing blackmarket trade going on? I've already shown you the evidence, shown you just how easy it is. If you want to lie to yourself and pretend that it must take some kind of master criminal to be able to buy something over the internet, there's nothing left in this conversation. 

 

Assuming the cops even knew that you bought a gun illegally over the internet, the trace could lead to a computer you borrowed or a 20 dollar burner cell you threw away right after. You can surf the internet with a phone these days, and you can pay for minutes in cash. They're called pre-paid cellphones, and pre-paid minutes. So, even if they did "do a trace", there's no way for anyone to find you with a phone you threw away in a trash-can 2 minutes after the sale. Do you live in a fantasy world where you honestly believe that within days the cops will just know that you bought something illegally off the black market, or have you seen people buy drugs and the like? Making it illegal doesn't make it impossible to get ahold of, it just creates a black market. And given the raw volume of people involved, you know 50% of highschoolers having tried illegal drugs and such, it shouldn't take that much for you to be able to imagine that guns are just as accessible. 

Edited by Manoka, 07 January 2016 - 10:44 AM.

[the rebel]

@Manoka: You're continuing to use the present instead of the future, so you're debating events today and using it as evidence for tomorrow which is stupid.


Since the late 60's government intelligence agencies had the ability the monitor telephone lines with a system that would monitor the communication lines and would flag up when certain keywords were used. You think there is no undisclosed system in place for monitoring the internet? Its not magic its technology which doesn't any man to monitor.


I wouldn't be surprised if the server that hosts these boards has been checked by a system before, now or in the future.


Tracing works both ways the potential buyer and seller, if firearms were banned tomorrow. Online advertising from sellers within the country would soon stop whether that's via adverts on forums or posts in social media, because selling would become illegal. So the market would dry up fast and people would have to resort away from the surface web and for that go see last post.


Considering most drugs can be made in the country you're in, they don't have to be smuggled into the country to hit the streets. Unlike if firearms get banned then they would have to be smuggled into the country.


---------------

My final comment as you are just repeating the same arguments you have used for years and ignoring any new counter argument and just blindly repeating the same argument or flat out lying and when proven to of talked bullshit you ignore the part of the post which proved you're a liar or stupid.

You give intelligence and monitoring too little credit and easy access for everyone to the blackmarket too much credit.

You're the one who is illogical and lack commonsense.

[Manoka]

I'm sorry, but there's no way they can monitor all the communications and possibly hope to catch all, let alone even a sizable portion of illegal transactions done online. It's not that difficult to say you're ordering a "pizza" or "lemoncake", and pass off buying drugs using a euphemism; it's why words like crack, ice, pot etc. were all invented in the first place. Of course cops know that lingo now, but they've always used code words to talk about drugs and other illegal goods. Not to mention, they can't possibly hope to scour the entire internet. I'm giving you the information of the present so you'll understand how the real world works. In a magical fantasy land yes, maybe it wouldn't be that way, but here, in the real world, in the present, not some hypothetical futuristic reality, the way things work now is that most guns used by criminals come from illegal sources. If we completely banned all civilian sales of guns, it's unlikely that would somehow make the black market disappear. Guns can be made in the home country, with just a few thousand dollars worth of equipment (as I've already shown, with some pieces of equipment designed specifically to make guns). 

 

It's currently illegal for sellers to sale guns illegally on the internet as it is, so no, banning all guns wouldn't make it so people couldn't continue to sell their guns illegally. Rebanning them doesn't make them any more banned. 

 

 

But if you want to know, at least half of marijuana is illegally smuggled in to the U.S. It's worth about 3-4 times more than silver, or 5-15 dollars per gram or more. Some 25 million pounds are illegally smuggled in to the U.S. annually, according to most law enforcement agencies. So, just in terms of weight, that would be the equivalent of some 10 million handguns. 10 million 1911's or Beretta 92F's, basically a military handgun, could be smuggled in. There's about 300,000 to 400,000 violent crimes committed with guns annually in the U.S. [1] So that's, what, 30 times as many guns needed? You can use a gun to commit multiple crimes, as well, and the same gun will be sold after committing a crime to get rid of it. 

 

Marijuana is worth 5-15 dollars per gram, more than silver, so 25 million pounds is 50-170 billion dollars worth smuggled. Just in terms of weight, you could smuggle in easily over 30 times the amount of handguns needed to commit all the violent crimes with handguns in this country. That's just marijuana, not even all drugs. The idea that it's so much more difficult to do? Over half of all drugs are illegally smuggled. Guns can be produced domestically as well. All you need is a mill and lathe, along with the right software (which can be found all over the internet), and you can make almost any gun you want. It's done all the time. Any machine shop, be it a mechanic store for vehicles or even a tech school, will usually have this equipment. Guns use the most commonly available machinery because they're made just like any other mechanical thing in this country. As I've shown you, most guns are illegally obtained anyways so, yes, the fact that any number of smugglers could simply give a slight increase to the amount of guns they smuggle, if they need to at all given the already present volume, throwing in the back of trucks with their drugs, is not only not that far fetched, but the majority of cases are already from it.

 

 

Gun control isn't the solution, going after illegal gun smugglers and manufacturer's is, going after organized crime and other organizations. 

 

Directing all your attention to the civilian populace, likely to never commit a crime, in a gigantic net hoping that nothing slips through, is not only a waste of resources, but it also hurts them AND ignores the real problem. So, that's been my point all along. Gun control will have a minor, if not negative impact on reducing crime. My argument is the same it's always been, you're right. That's because I know I'm right, and its not like my view on the world is going to change every 3 seconds.

Edited by Manoka, 07 January 2016 - 03:17 PM.