Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Mycroft Holmes]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

Yeah great plan, and nothing like a gun massacre would ever happen in the UK now! Right guys?! They are all totally safe because spree killers are well known for obeying laws, and wouldn't dream of illegal firearm purchases.

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

 

[ultrabiome]

What is an untrained civilian popolous going to do against a fucking TANK
Most people in the US are reasoned enough to give up something at gun point.

tell that to the Al Queda who go against the strongest military in the world with a bunch of household suppplies turned into bombs.

 

[AldUK]

You contradicted yourself. You don't agree with the protest, or the revolution, but you think the problem can be solved with a cultural shift. Let's ignore, for the time being, that the Syrians were protesting for more freedoms in their very-undemocratic country. What, then do you call protests and revolutions? Romps through the woods? There were massive protests and rallies in the sixties in the US, it was a cultural movement by a sub-sect to change things in the rest of the culture. It achieved some good things, and a lot more terrible things, but it was a cultural movement.

The Syrians tried things the peaceful, trying to change the ways of their country in a way that's often been associated with the democratic process. It didn't work. Their leader turned his military against them, and forced them to fight back. Also a cultural movement. The US wouldn't exist today if we hadn't done the exact same thing.

So, if you don't agree with protests, or revolutions, what other methods do you think people should utilize to change things? Mass thinking meetings where everyone gets together and thinks really hard about changing something, in the hopes that their combined brain power will spontaneously change the universe?

Yeah alright, I'll bite. I did not contradict myself in the slightest, by cultural shift I meant the long process of changing perceptions. The root cause of the problems in Syria and indeed much of the Middle East is due to extremism in religious attitudes, politics and law. All of those things can be changed by public will over time. You can protest a government if you desire change 'right now.' Or you can make it completely illegitimate through word of mouth, lifestyle changes, voting and education. If none of those things work and your government is completely cracking down on you (will never happen in the U.S despite pro-gun fears) then you need military action from the army, whether that is your own or a democratic nation's. The common people should never feel the need to rise up and fight, because it never works. All that happens at best is civil war with death and misery on both sides.

You think it's apathy? It's anything but. I do care about gun control, namely, I care about making sure that the rights of the people aren't torn away because a few bad people did a few bad things. It was terrible, yes, but that shouldn't give the government the right to take something away from millions of law-abiding residents.

How do you really think you could make guns unappealing? They're literally everywhere. In TV shows, movies, video games, books, and magazines. Sure, you can sit here and say guns are bad, and list the reasons why, but there's an even greater fore telling you the exact opposite, including a large number of people who are very happy gun owners. Besides, why should you? Because some bad people did bad things?

On your last point, if someone breaks into your house, or tries to take you out on the street, what choices do you have? Invite them to sit and chat over some tea and biscuits in the hopes of changing their ways? You could always try calling the cops, and hope they'll actually respond and respond in time to maybe do some good. You could also roll over and simply let the criminals do what they want. I suppose another option would be to try and engage them close up, putting yourself in greater danger by closing with someone who may already have it in their head to kill anyone that get's in there way, that might be stronger then you, might be better armed then you, and might be a better fighter.

I just hope you aren't a parent if you chose that last option. If things don't turn out your way, things could go very very bad for you children, and spouse.

When you stop and think about it, taking away a persons right to defend themselves with a fire arm and deadly force is actually a terrible thing, far worse then what a few people will do with guns. It's something I don't think gun control groups really wrap their heads around. At least the NRA and pro-gun people, like myself, acknowledge that bad things will continue to happen with fire arms. Have the pro-gun control people ever actually thought about how many bad things will happen from a want of adequate protection?

Yes, I believe it is apathy, because I do not wish to believe the alternate, that you all actually enjoy mass killings. Arguing about your freedom and rights is a fallacy when there are countless examples of first world countries who have no need for legal fire-arms and frankly enjoy greater freedoms than much of America.

As for the latter part, I've been in many, many fights in my life. I had an abusive parent growing up and I was bullied extensively in school. As a result of that, I learned how to protect myself through non-lethal means. I am very confident in my ability to do so. Unless my assailant had a gun, but that's the entire argument here, I live in England, he won't have. And that's what you should be striving for, alongside the realisation that guns are not necessary if neither party is armed. There are thousands of years of history and development of unarmed combat techniques designed to incapacitate, many of which make it a moot point about who is bigger or stronger. Education of these techniques for self-defense would be a much better practice then having readily available murder weapons in every home.

 

[sunder202]

I wont be handing over my fire arms at gun point or tank point. Am i willing to die for it? you bet ya, because its not about the gun its about what it represents, the freedom to protect myself and my family from any threat be it home invaision or an oppressive government as well as liberty as a whole. If freedom isnt worth dying for then nothing is.

Would you die for gay rights? Would you die for the free speech of those you despise?

Also ill throw in Ben Franklin quote- They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Apart from the fact that it's not certain Ben actually said that, even if he did, what's "essential" and why? Yes, I know quoting historical giants is profound and the I.W.I.N. button for internet debates, but still.

But in the end anyone who wishes to really protect oneself and one's family will need to think of something more than just "I shoot at things that look at me funny". Say, your wife is getting harassed by her boss at work. You going to shoot the guy?

Also, while I can appreciate the idealism of that quote, as an absolute I reject the sentiment. You almost always have to draw the line somewhere.

i dont think defending myself from a person breaking in to my home or soldiers on my doorstep is hardly in the same ballpark as "I shoot at things that look at me funny" or shooting the wifes boss, thats Psychotic behavior. as far as gay rights and Speech go, i may not like it and i may hate and dissagree with every single thing a person says but i absolutly belive you have the right to say/ do it.

 

[Friendly Lich]

What is an untrained civilian popolous going to do against a fucking TANK
Most people in the US are reasoned enough to give up something at gun point.

tell that to the Al Queda who go against the strongest military in the world with a bunch of household suppplies turned into bombs.

^This right here. Not to mention the American population is probably more armed than the Al Queda.

 

[GeneralBob]

Australia was arguable more gun crazed (for lack of a better word) than the US and yet they managed to pass sweeping restrictions. I refuse to believe there is anything so unique about the US culture that would somehow make us resilient to firearm laws, we're all the same species. The only thing holding us back is high political and media inertia. At this point it's only a matter of time.

 

[ultrabiome]

Why not the gun owner? If I own a car, I also have to pay for the registration and annual technical check-ups myself all the same. And regular check-ups to determine I'm still fit to drive. It's my responsibility which I need to live up to if I want to exercise my right to drive.

So, why not the gun owner?

you don't have a right to drive in the United States. if you did, it would be part of the Constitution, like the right to bear arms.

Objection, relevance? Okay, so in USA nothing is a right unless it's in the Constitution if it's as you say, but I don't see how that should make any difference, or why a gun owner should not be obliged to go through regular check-ups in order to determine whether or not they are still fit to keep and bear their arms.

Or in other words, nobody would lose the right to keep and bear arms so long they remain fit to use them, all that would be required here is to show some personal responsibility about it. "You want to own a gun? Fine, but we won't just sell you one until you prove you're fit to use it responsibly."

Since we're talking about the United States, it has a lot of relevance, especially since nowhere in US law is there a 'right to drive' while the highest document in the US legal system, the Constitution, has the right to bear arms as the second amendment, under the rights to freedom of speech and religion.

Regardless of your personal beliefs on gun ownership, the fact it is considered a right via the second amendment should be considered when discussing gun ownership in the United States.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

Yeah great plan, and nothing like a gun massacre would ever happen in the UK now! Right guys?! They are all totally safe because spree killers are well known for obeying laws, and wouldn't dream of illegal firearm purchases.

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

Your sarcasm detector is broken. You should fix it.

 

[wolf thing]

all you people are right,bad guys are going to kill people any way so lets let them have guns, may as well make it easy for them.

let not talk bull shit shall we, lets get are heads away from brain washing shit from childhoods, people will commit crimes but it is are job as members of the human race to make it are hard as we can for them to do it. you can't just say "they'll just do it any way" because they wont, dont fucking lie and tell me mass murders of children will happen without guns. sure murders will happen, people will murder other people but without automatic weapons or conseld arms or rifes you are making it hard for them to kill, very hard. the difference between kill 20 with a knife and killing 20 with a gun of any kind is so huge it isnt even worth bring up.

all you gun supports just boggle my mind, children have died, children, and you dont see guns as a problem, it just shocks me that some of you sit there and think a country full of guns isnt a problem or is okay.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

Would you die for gay rights? Would you die for the free speech of those you despise?

I don't want to touch the gun issue at all but I just wanted to respond to this. I don't know about other people but I have put my health and life on the line defending such things. I would gladly fight for and die for those things. Hell, one of the quotes I live by and take to heart is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. A good American, hell a good person should be willing to fight and die for the rights and well being of everyone, not just the rights that specifically affect them or only for themselves.

Also I like the back and forth you and the others are having. It seems a lot less flamey than other such threads.

 

[tangoprime]

America hasn't tried banning guns and committing to it, have they? Seems to me that nothing else has worked so far. Could be worth a try.

When guns were banned in Australia, the murder rate dropped on par with that of the United States in the following 5 years. But violent crime went up 42.2%. Rape went up 29.9%. No thanks.

 

[ninjaRiv]

America hasn't tried banning guns and committing to it, have they? Seems to me that nothing else has worked so far. Could be worth a try.

When guns were banned in Australia, the murder rate dropped on par with that of the United States in the following 5 years. But violent crime went up 42.2%. Rape went up 29.9%. No thanks.

Well, something's not right. What is there to do besides implement a Mega City One Judge Dredd style law system?

 

[tangoprime]

all you people are right,bad guys are going to kill people any way so lets let them have guns, may as well make it easy for them.

let not talk bull shit shall we, lets get are heads away from brain washing shit from childhoods, people will commit crimes but it is are job as members of the human race to make it are hard as we can for them to do it. you can't just say "they'll just do it any way" because they wont, dont fucking lie and tell me mass murders of children will happen without guns. sure murders will happen, people will murder other people but without automatic weapons or conseld arms or rifes you are making it hard for them to kill, very hard. the difference between kill 20 with a knife and killing 20 with a gun of any kind is so huge it isnt even worth bring up.

all you gun supports just boggle my mind, children have died, children, and you dont see guns as a problem, it just shocks me that some of you sit there and think a country full of guns isnt a problem or is okay.

See my earlier posts with links to statistics. Australia banned guns, and always gets used as an example of how banning guns helps reduce gun crimes. In the 5 years following the ban, murder rates fell at a similar rate to that of the US during the same 5 year period. But violent crime in general went up 42.2%, likely because criminals were no longer afraid of being killed by their victims. Rape went up 29.9%. Assault went up almost 50%. So it boggles my mind why people with knee jerk "for the children" reactions whenever something bad happens discount some pretty glaring statistics.

You can't disarm a massive, largely drug funded, criminal base by passing a law about it, just as you can't get rid of drugs by making them illegal. All you do is gimp the people using the items legally. I used to live in Baltimore, where I frequenly feared for my life, unable to legally defend myself, and put up with shit like my neighbor being mugged at knifepoint twice on her front steps. I was used to the news almost making a game out of seeing how long it took for the number of murders to outnumber the days in the year every new years. Normally it took about the first weekend. And this was a place with fairly restrictive gun laws, and no concealed carry option (at the time). Now that I live in Houston, I live in an area where you can leave your garage open, and I've gotten used to seeing news reports of a store or homeowner foiling a robbery or home invasion by gunning down the criminals. It's far from perfect, but I'd rather live in a place where the criminal has to be just as afraid for their life as their intended victim. Do you HONESTLY think if a law was passed for everyone to turn in their guns overnight, or else be in violation of a law, things would get better?

 

[TheSpyIsASpyWDZ]

This remind me of this, "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" -Ben Franklin.
Also, while I'm not against making it a tad bit more difficult to get fully auto weapons, I'm completely against the complete banning of fire arms.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I've had a beer or two and it got me thinking... Don't sell guns to everyone. Not a new idea but one that Americans seem to have an issue with. I should not be allowed to go out and buy a gun but if I was an American citizen, I could.

"Actually. I think the attitude towards guns is a bigger problem than the lax(?) laws." From Grey Carter's Twitter feed. Americans really do have a terrible attitude towards guns. It shouldn't be a right, folks. It should barely even be a privilege. They should be for responsible people.

 

[Vegosiux]

Why not the gun owner? If I own a car, I also have to pay for the registration and annual technical check-ups myself all the same. And regular check-ups to determine I'm still fit to drive. It's my responsibility which I need to live up to if I want to exercise my right to drive.

So, why not the gun owner?

you don't have a right to drive in the United States. if you did, it would be part of the Constitution, like the right to bear arms.

Objection, relevance? Okay, so in USA nothing is a right unless it's in the Constitution if it's as you say, but I don't see how that should make any difference, or why a gun owner should not be obliged to go through regular check-ups in order to determine whether or not they are still fit to keep and bear their arms.

Or in other words, nobody would lose the right to keep and bear arms so long they remain fit to use them, all that would be required here is to show some personal responsibility about it. "You want to own a gun? Fine, but we won't just sell you one until you prove you're fit to use it responsibly."

Since we're talking about the United States, it has a lot of relevance, especially since nowhere in US law is there a 'right to drive' while the highest document in the US legal system, the Constitution, has the right to bear arms as the second amendment, under the rights to freedom of speech and religion.

Regardless of your personal beliefs on gun ownership, the fact it is considered a right via the second amendment should be considered when discussing gun ownership in the United States.

What does that have to do with anything I said, though? As in, that if annual check-ups and psychological assessments become the norm, the gun owner should pay for them, considering it's their own responsibility.