What if all guns disappeared? (BBC article)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,025
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    This.

    We're here, we have the gear, get used to it.

    The antis do not understand that we are not operating at capacity. As we can trade money for time and just get guns from the local FFL. What happens when we can't do that? Who will we buy guns from then? People will be there to fill the gap and they won't bother to pay taxes and fill our .gov's stupid forms.

    In Darra where there are no teeth and no money, guns are cranked out by the truck full.

    Imagine a USA, with our money, our skills (machinists, tool & die, etc.), our drive devoted to making homemade guns.

    Now, concurrently imagine gun smuggling operations on par with marijuana and cocaine smuggling.

    Take the weight of an unloaded AK, now divide it into the weight of suspected smuggled pot and coke into the USA for one year. That's hundreds of thousands of AKs, just in one year.
     

    Sylvain

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 30, 2010
    77,313
    113
    Normandy
    We would make more.

    d8a7167eeb5884c3ee31c389e82d960d.jpg


    https://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/home-firearm-manufacturing-and-the-dangerous-child/

    Did that guy just make a Glock or is he using it as a hammer to make more guns?
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    19,288
    149
    1,000 yards out
    What if all guns disappeared?


    That reminds me of a statement my grandfather would make from time to time.

    "Why don't you **** in one hand and wish in the other, then tell me which fills up first?"
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    Yes, please disarm Europe....and learn to speak Russian.

    We will never give up our guns. If they disappeared tonight, we'd be building them at home tomorrow.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    93,284
    113
    Merrillville
    Why the gun is civilization.

    [h=2]Why the Gun is Civilization.[/h][h=3]By Marko Kloos[/h][h=4]Reproduced by permission of the author.[/h]
    smallline-17.gif

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
     
    Top Bottom