Should firearms be banned? {Closed}

Yeah, because drug dealers are way too classy and upstanding to do that

In terms of criminals, yes.

You guys are lucky then >.> I suspect this is the case for you because with time, the gun control/restrictions worked enough to the point that guns are a valuable asset to your drug dealers.

You have to remember though that a lot of our drugs come from the cartels in Mexico and South America, which is all land connected to the US. These cartels also deal in weapons (many much larger than the pistols used in common crime). It is much easier to cross land or boat just off shore and bring in weapons that way versus boating the stretch of ocean between you and your closest landmass (you also have to consider the political situation in your neighbor as well) or flying them in. Your equivalence of the Coast Guard has a much "easier" job to do than ours.

Thus it always will be easier for our criminals/drug dealers to get guns as long as South America and Mexico continue to be like they are. These guns will be valued less, and will be used in crime more.

Laredo, Tx and other border cities of Texas/Mexico and the I-35.

I'm going to have to majorly disagree with you on this one. Criminals are criminals. They are capable of committing any crime and they will. Maybe the point you're trying to make is that their income is coming from the distribution/selling of drugs, which it is. But a lot of drug dealers (I don't know exact statistics or anything) use themselves, which means they aren't making much of a profit if any. A lot of them will then venture on to other ways of supporting themselves, and you can't exactly get a job while you're high on drugs.

Edit: Forgot to add in that almost all drug dealers/users have gun. At least the ones that go through my workplace.

Can we please end the whole "It's different in Australia" thing? I and others have already pointed out that the political and cultural situations between Aus. and US are vastly different, such that drawing a comparison and saying "well it works here" is completely irrelevant. I get that you're trying to debate from the perspective you know and are familiar with but the points you're trying to make are completely moot on this side of the globe.

The media are trying to persuade the viewing public to fit their anti-gun agenda along with the governments agenda. They are trying to push anti-gun politics down the throats of the Australian people and the U.S. people by telling them that having no guns are better and there is no consequences of mandatory gun checks and gun confiscation.

You know, the media may be biased, but they don't try to shove a governments agenda down your throat. More often than not they're going to try to tell you how bad the alternatives are, not how good the government is.

Baltimore Sun Reporter Saved From Mob By Store Owner Armed With Shotgun

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-from-mob-by-store-owner-armed-with-shotgun/

"Nobody ever needs a gun until that day comes when they really, really need a gun."

I agree completely. Ant what really upsets me about the liberal media is when they hijack the grief of families affected by gun crime to push their agendas even further.

Oh trust me, after the Sandy Hook shooting, you would not believe how the liberal news and US government both used the victims as a sponser for their agendas. Even the victims own families used their dead children as a sponser for the government's own anti-gun agenda, this resulted in the lawsuit against Bushmaster, the maker of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. They sued the maker because of what a lunatic did with the gun after he killed his mother to obtain the gun from her. If you ask me the maker has no control over a product after it leaves the factory or plant. The customer that doesn't use the item for what it was intended for is at fault, not the maker. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...er-distributor-and-seller-for-wrongful-death/ )

Sandy Hook itself was the agenda.

Yeah, it's basically a case of why can't you just leave the poor victims alone, I've seen recently that the Newtown families are using the death of their child to try to get something out of it whether that be anti-gun legislation or money. Newtown families have been suing people from the maker of the gun to the school itself. I feel that in the end the families and the government and the news just want to use the victims for their own gain. For Gods sake people most of them were children who most of them were under 9 years old, let them rest in peace.

Are you speaking of a conspiracy?

I am speaking of truth.

I know there are a few people here who probably weren't old enough to understand what was going on then(yes I know it was only a couple of years ago) and others got so wrapped up in the media BS around it that it was overlooked by many. However, I watched it all unfold on the news and the bushmaster was shown on the news when it was confiscated, it was in the trunk("boot" for those of you not in the US) of the supposed "lunatics" car. Found there just after they stopped chasing the second man, the next day it was a lone cray gun man story. People using their dead kids as propaganda during this... well that brings up something else I watched on the news. One of the little girls that was supposedly killed at Sandy hook... after she was dead, sitting on "our" own presidents lap two days later... well thats just a bit odd. She must have been undead and decaying quite well as she was all smiles, no rigamortis and had retained the color in her skin quite well for being dead for almost 3 days. Even more bizarre was the "coroner" they showed on the news who was as incompetent of an actor as the supposed "parents" whom didn't even have any legal records of having any children at all.

Now, this could very well be the news just getting info extremely wrong, I mean if you watch these people for any amount of time you quickly come to the conclusion that none of them have a memory that spans more than a few minutes and their dialogue is that of a madman with an IQ comparable to the amount of slots in a DC. This incompetence, lack of any intelligence to speak of while also paired with being in the business of selling ratings and coming up with fake stories whenever they really don't have a "juicy" story could very well be why the thought of a "conspiracy theory" (I don't know what some of you have against that term) has taken such strong roots not only in Sandy Hook but in the Boston bombing and the theater incident a few months prior to Sandy Hook in Colorado.

Edit: I think a lot of times these conspiracies stem from people thinking the news is supposed to tell the truth or something... like that has ever in the history of man actually happened.

I don't believe that Sandy Hook was fake, although, I do ponder whether or not the gunman was "hired" by the government to commit this act to further their agenda. I believe that the story and some of the findings were twisted so much, by the media and government, that lots of people have doubts of the shooting itself. Like for instance, the "assault weapon" being used in the crime was false, if it was used in the crime, why was the gun found in the suspects car, and why did he not use it to commit suicide. Another question I ask is, why are the families so on board with the government on passing these gun laws and suing almost everything that was involved in the shooting instead of grieving for their children.

This is something a lot of families do. They do what they believe is the right thing to stop what happened to them from happening to anyone else. To me it sounds like you're suggesting that they'd be better off sitting around a crying instead of trying to do anything productive.

Banning guns would be Counter Productive!
How I see it, You'll be defenceless and vulnerable. To criminals whom wouldn't abide by a ban anyway.
Nice place to live, when police & criminals are the only ones packing.

You don't get it, do you? There was never any proposal that guns be banned, just simply that they are restricted.