What Can We Ban Next?

[IHL]

You thought it was a joke when we would ask, "What will they ban next if they get our guns banned? Knives?" Yup.

Those wacky Europeans, mostly liberal in their political views, now appear to be going after the deadliest of all weapons - the kitchen knife. You can't make this stuff up folks. Doctors seek kitchen knife ban (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579102005)

Why do they want to ban knives now? Well, my guess would be that since they tried banning guns, the crime rate has gone up significantly (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html) (violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%). So apparently it wasn't the guns that were at fault. So what else could be the problem? Well, it must be knives then. Surely it couldn't be that people are the cause - that would go against all the liberal philosophies especially when banning guns has proved to be a windfall for criminals, just as it did when guns were banned in Australia. (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html) By comparison, the number of privately owned guns in the United States is at an all-time high, approaching 300 million. The FBI reports that in 2003 the U.S. violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. According to FBI crime data, states allowing concealed carry have a 21% lower violent crime rate, 28% lower homicide rate, 33% lower firearms homicide rate, 3% lower rape rate, 33% lower robbery rate and a 35% lower firearm robbery rate than states that restrict the right to carry weapons.

None of this will matter to the gun control crowd. Facts just cloud the issue. Banning guns make ready victims for criminals who know the general population has lost it's ability to easily defend itself. States in the U.S. were the citizens are allowed to carry weapons shows that crime rate drop in every case.



So what will the liberals take from this? Ban knives. What's next? Scissors? Hammers? Don't laugh, remember they are liberals. Common sense is not part of their thought process.

[IHL]

He may have, and then he deleted most of his posts in the thread. So now you have a new thread. And, I wanted this on the front page of the site.

[quicktarget]

Statistics clearly aren't enough to show liberals that guns promote safety, so what can be a legitimate answer to why crime rates go down when people own guns? To me the answer is simple. People generally don't buy guns to kill other people. They buy guns because they like to hunt, are collectors, want to keep the government of England off their backs, or most importantly want to protect their loved ones. Many people who buy guns desire a tool that has proven effective in keeping people safe throughout the years. Large numbers of America's population owns guns, so in theory a large number of us want safety and security in our lives. Criminals don't want safety or security. They want to disrupt life for others by enfringing on their rights. When countries take away the most simple and effective means of defense for their citizens, criminals eagerly take advantage of the common man's insecurity. Security is mostly a mindset, but guns (and knives I suppose) are a tangible proof of confidence a person can have in their safety. Every person (especially Americans thanks to the Constitution) should be able to feel secure and know they have safety in their daily lives. Weapons are fundamental to our defense nationally and on an individual basis, so the best method to fight this ridiculous liberalism is to convince liberals that weapons actually promote safety rather than violence.

[FightinDaMan]

As I said in the other thread, utterly rediculous.

[lordnyra]

Thats so stupid. When people have guns legally crime rates drop because if you are gonna rob a 7/11 with a handgun and the cashier pulls out a desert eagle you are screwed. If everyone in the us had a gun legally i think the crime would drop and we wouldn't have england bothering us. It seems that only rightwingers understand this concept while libs just want to ban guns so that people who get them illegally can kill everyone. Everyone know how murders were down in the early 1900's (apart from bootlegging and mafia activity) because most everyone had a handgun. Women had deringers in their purses and everyone respected eachother.

[Peace_by_superior _power]

Hmm trying to take knives away? Know how is everyone going to enjoy toast if we cant put butter (margirne) or jam on it!? to bad they dont have an ammendmant to protect themselves from the damn cereal bussiness

[FightinDaMan]

Luckily, I don't think they're banning butter knives. (yet anyway)

[jackalope_herder]

And you though English cusisne was bad now...

[God v2.0]

And you though English cusisne was bad now...

Actually, the British just got the long kitchen knife about 20 years ago. Until then, they just killed the pig with aome random blunt object and threw it into a pot of boiling water. Then they went and got mad cow.

[Guns R Cool]

We also need to ban those little plastic swords and spears they stab the olives and crap in drinks. You can't underestimate those bastards. You could lose an eye.

[FKLBRLS]

And the liberals say Republicans want to outlaw everything. B..........S........!!!!!!!
Well why don't we handcuff everyone that way nobody can beat someone to death.
Here is a sarcastic article about the banning of fists:


In the vast majority of school violence, the fist, or rather the hand; is used as a deadly assault weapon. Everyday hundreds of students in schools all across the country meet the terrible fate of being punched (because the kid being punched was being an ass, duh!). 5th grade teacher Hillary Stalin had this to say:

"Well all I have to do is just look outside my door, and there are already children sprinting down the hallway running away from the evil fist. (notice the hypothetical writer isn't even suggesting that the fist is attached to a person) The fist chases the poor, helpless child into a corner. The poor child is standing, heart punding, quavering in fear. He suddenly gets dealt two sharp blows by the fist. The child screams in pain and then runs to the nurse, sobbing, nose bleeding. Now even when someone clenches their hand into a fist the poor helpless child feels uneasy. He is scarred for life"

Doctors are strongly urging that the use of hands be controlled by government issued handcuffs. That way, doctors say, a child's physical and mental health status will dramatically improve.

Sound like BS? Sound like an article that won't ever be printed? We can only hope that this madness will never happen, but with the knife and gun banning thing, it could very well be a possibility.

[spike]

we should ban the number 1. Imagine all the problems that could be solved. That would mean that any country with 1 nuclear weapon doesn't have one. Success!!

[spike]

Tell me something bad that could come out of banning guns. No, wait i guess ur right. I mean it would only stop an umpteen number of murders and accidents. And no more school shootings. Sure guns will still be smuggled in but they will be expensive and difficult as hell to get.

[FKLBRLS]

This knife banning thing kind of reminds me of another ruthless ban going on in my own backyard.

You are probably all aware of ATVs (out here we call them quads). Those 4 wheeled gas powered vehicles ridden for recreation. Well now doctors are strongly cautioning against the riding of quads, for anyone. They claim that 200 deaths a year and over 1500 injuries are attributed to riding quads.

It's not like the people riding the quads are at fault, oh no. According to the liberals, quads are a "malicious, death-causing hateful vehicle designed by evil corporations to kill people" So according to them, someone gets on a quad, doesn't do anything, and the quad spontaneously throws them off and/or runs them over. It doesn't matter to them that someone who dies in a quading accident was going 50 mph right before making a sharp right turn.

Several years ago the democratic legislation out here in California wanted to make it lawful for the govt to decide what cars people drove. It was evident that the goal of the law was to ban SUVs. It was backed on the BS notion that "SUVs are malicious, gas guzzling monsters that were designed to kill people". Whenever someone died in a car crash involving an SUV, it was always the SUV's fault, not at all the driver's, according to the liberals in the state congress. Then the libs went on further to suggest that SUVs "directly add the most pollution to the air and are the worst thing to happen to the environment." They didn't even look at the black clouds of exhaust coming from trains, tractor-trailers, or (gasp!) the states' own school buses.

[spike]

all those trains, buses and tractor trailers are necessary. however, an SUV is not. SUV are a waste and their dangerous yet idiots in our country, no matter how high gas is or how many crashes there are, will still buy them.

[FKLBRLS]

Tell me something bad that could come out of banning guns. No, wait i guess ur right. I mean it would only stop an umpteen number of murders and accidents. And no more school shootings. Sure guns will still be smuggled in but they will be expensive and difficult as hell to get.
What about the countless crimes that could be prevented if people were allowed to carry guns? Mugging would go down because no one is going to mug a person with a gun. What about the murders that would be prevented because people being threatened willl have a way of self defense.
The gun use you talk about is simply misuse of an object. There are plenty of objects that are misused: alcohol is misused to cause health problems, homes are misused to grow marijuana, aircraft were misused on 9-11, cars are misused when they get in crashes, hands are misused to strangle someone, electricity is misused and causes a potentially deadly fire, matches are misused and cause a fire, stoves are misused and cause a fire, spray paint is misused as a drug. The list goes on and on.

[spike]

but of corse the easiest way to kill someone is with a gun. Or if u were psychic and you could make their brain stop functioning......but thats beside the point. and who is going to have a gun with them when they get mugged. Mugging someone is a come and go thing. You grab whatever you want fast and run. They don't have time to pull out a gun and fire.

[FKLBRLS]

all those trains, buses and tractor trailers are necessary. however, an SUV is not. SUV are a waste and their dangerous yet idiots in our country, no matter how high gas is or how many crashes there are, will still buy them.
SUVs have the capacity of a minvan but ride more comfortably, they have the towing capcity of trucks but hold more people, they are more comfortable on long car rides than a sedan, they have more trunk space, and the fuel economy isn't as bad as many think it is, unless of course you have a hummer. SUVs are safer cars to be in, since they have better ride control. They have more power than a standard minvan. They go faster than a minivan and therefore reduce travel time, which leads to less traffic. And you make it sound like SUVs get in crashes all by themselves, even though the person behind the wheel is drunk or doesn't know how to drive. SUVs are in just as many crashes as any other car. What about all the crashes involving sports cars? What about all the reckless people that race each other through downtown NYC, then end up running a bunch of people over? Sports cars hold only 2 or 4 people, have fuel economy slightly worse than other vehicles,
and can't hold very much in the back. Why don't we ban them? We are a free country, like it or not. We should have the freedom to choose our own method of transportation.

[FightinDaMan]

Tell me something bad that could come out of banning guns. No, wait i guess ur right. I mean it would only stop an umpteen number of murders and accidents. And no more school shootings. Sure guns will still be smuggled in but they will be expensive and difficult as hell to get.

If you ban knives (as they did in Britain) then people start using knives. If somebody really wants to kill somebody they will find some way to do it. Banning guns leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless agains those who break the law, and also gives the government more power (because only its agents/employees have guns).

[riverman]

Thank you FDM! I do want to hear you excellent logic! on this we agree and in the word of Ed Abbey- "when the government outlaws guns only the government will have guns" That is why the 2nd ammendment was written- not about duck hunting or target shooting but about keeping the government legit. Even the Japanese while in preparations for WW2 decided not to invade the US because they knew American citicens were all well armed and they would not stand a chance. Bravo FDM!

[All American Kid]

Tell me something bad that could come out of banning guns. No, wait i guess ur right. I mean it would only stop an umpteen number of murders and accidents. And no more school shootings. Sure guns will still be smuggled in but they will be expensive and difficult as hell to get.

Okay I'll tell you something bad that comes out of banning gunning. Take your pick. --AAK


: In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to
: 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
: rounded up and exterminated.
: --------------------------------------------------------
: In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
: themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
: --------------------------------------------------------
: Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13
: million Jews and others, who were unable to defend themselves were rounded
: up and exterminated.
: --------------------------------------------------------
: China established gun control in 1935.
: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
: themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
: --------------------------------------------------------
: Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
: 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
: exterminated.
: --------------------------------------------------------
: Uganda established gun control in 1970.
: From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,
: were rounded up and exterminated.
: --------------------------------------------------------
: Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
: million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
: exterminated.
: --------------------------------------------------------
: Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
: because of gun control: 56 million.
:
: It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
: by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
: own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
: million dollars.
:
: The first year results are now in:
: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
: Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
: Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
: In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
: firearms are now up 300 percent.
: (Note that, while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
: criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)
:
: While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
: armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
: past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
: unarmed.
: There has also been a dramatic increase in
: break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.
: Australian politicians are at a loss to explain
: how public safety has decreased, after such
: monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding
: Australian society of guns."
: The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove
: it.
:
: You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
: president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
:
: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives
: and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding
: citizens.
:
:
: The next time someone talks in favor of gun
: control, please remind them of this history lesson.
:
: With guns, we are citizens.
: Without them, we are subjects.

[riverman]

The thing I find the absolute funniest is that owning a gun is statistically safer than going to the doctor or taking asprin! You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning that being shot . of course being in a gang in Compton or LA is going to change those odds drastically.

[Vendetta]

Tell me something bad that could come out of banning guns. No, wait i guess ur right. I mean it would only stop an umpteen number of murders and accidents. And no more school shootings. Sure guns will still be smuggled in but they will be expensive and difficult as hell to get.

I've got a better idea. Shut down all the schools. Without any schools, there won't be any more shootings. Problem solved.

[Madcowhunter]

Damn... I can't believe this is the first time I've seen this thread.

[Topiary Lady]

I often look in the index area to see what other threads are being read. It amazes me to see threads from long ago that are still being viewed.

So I came across this one and thought I'd go ahead and post here so we can all see it again. With who the NRA seems to be calling "Gun Ban Obama" looming in a potential presidential role, I am wondering if anyone thinks that the lib's will ever try something like this here in America.

Sometimes looking back gives us insight into what may lay ahead.