Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Mack Case]

The problem is it just wont work, guns have become an enormous part of america's culture and are apart of the nation's heritage/identity.

You should also bring back slavery, american indian genocide, and nuking countries you are at war too.

Wow... That is totally mature. really.

Guns are a part of American culture that, we have to admit, violent video games are cementing in. The generation of gamers will probably come with a faction of people who decide they want to own a ton of guns simply because guns are cool and they use them all the time in games. we have to admit that violent video games do help the culture of owning guns stay alive.

I live in Virginia, where hunting is a big thing (Not that I take part in the obsession or even the act of hunting). Banning all guns would mean an end to hunting, something that is a definite part of our culture. (and actually good for the environment, because all the coyotes in the area are gone so the deer population would explode without those rednecks to keep them at bay)

Shootings like the one in Connecticut only polarize the debate more, and make it more and more difficult to resolve. People who own guns believe they need them more than ever, and people who don't think they need to go more than ever.

by this point, guns are simply too deeply rooted in our culture for them to be taken away, at least not for a very long time.

The example of slavery is actually pretty good here. like slavery, it can only be removed once there is considerable domestic opposition to the institution. And removing slavery was still pretty hard. So hard we ended up fighting a civil war over it. Banning guns is the same, and in fact, worse. With guns, there is the second amendment, which guarantees the right to own a gun. tons of people in this country are morons who don't understand that documents can become outdated, and who will defend such documents (with their guns) to their dying breath.

Gun control laws are all we can really do right now. In my opinion, most people from other countries simply don't understand this, and just assume that what works as a solution for them will work as a solution for the rest of the world (which isn't the case). Some parts of certain cultures are simply too rooted in to be removed through simple means, and guns in America is a perfect example.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

You don't need to ban all guns. Shotguns and hunting rifles are not well suited to mass murder and are important for sport and hunting.


What you need to ban are all handguns and automatic weapons. Anything that automatically chambers the next round automatically has no business in the hands of civilians.

 

[EightImmortals]

You don't need to ban all guns. Shotguns and hunting rifles are not well suited to mass murder and are important for sport and hunting.


What you need to ban are all handguns and automatic weapons. Anything that automatically chambers the next round automatically has no business in the hands of civilians.

So we can Have bolt action rifles and shotguns, lever action rifles and shotguns, pump action shotguns, muzzle loaders and revolvers. All which can kill a larger number of people with a semi experienced shooter. With the exception of the muzzle loader.

 

[BleedingPride]

ugh, not this again. for the love of god, nobody is suggesting banning ALL guns. they are calling for it to be more strictly regulated so that less psychos can kill children with AR-15s that's all. i'm not going to get more involved in this forum.

peace.

 

[Austin Manning]

I wrote this in a simular thread:

'I hate hearing 'JUST GET RID OF GUNS TO CIVIES, PROBLEM SOLVED'

No, it's not. Criminals and people with bad intentions (Let's call them 'baddies' from hereon) can get guns no matter what the gun laws. It's called the black market (Oh I love this line. 'Make it illegal to have gun? Tell me again how criminals obey the law?') and there are shitloads of weapons for sale, not just little pew pew handguns, full auto military rifles and other high caliber firearms.

This is an argument I see in a lot of threads. Let's dissect it. First the black market, where is it and how do you enter? I doubt that there's actually an organized "black market" like what one hears about on cop shows, rather the term refers to any exchange in which taxes are not payed to the government. This could include illegal gun sales, but also me buying your couch.

The next question is where are the sellers getting military assault rifles and other high caliber weapons? They'd either need to make them (unlikely given expenses and the impossibility of keeping such an operation secret); steal them from a maker or distributor (in which case the police would be notified and they would probably take the theft of several dozen military ready M16s quite seriouslyor buy them legally and then deface them in such a way that the weapon can't be traced back to them. As you can see the only effective way to get a gun illegally is to have someone else buy it legally.

Also, your use of the word criminal. The way you and many other people use it would imply that every crime is planned out and committed by a dastardly member of the Legion of Doom. But most crime is a result of one of three things: greed (white collar crime); passion (Joe Blow gets into an argument with his neighbour which escalates until Joe does something regrettable with his legally owned firearm); or desperation (John Doe is downsized but still needs to pay for mortgages, loans, bills, food, energy and family so he takes his legally owned shotgun and robs a bank).

Now I'm not saying gives guns to anyone, but I'm not saying take them away from good people that will use for target shooting, hunting and the occasional person that takes down a gunman on the streets.

You say that guns should be kept in the hands of people with good intentions but that can result in it's own tragic circumstances. Say I see a woman killing a man and I'm afraid she's going on a rampage, so I shoot her, not knowing that he attempted to rape her and she killed him in self-defense. Now you here gunshots, come running, and see me standing over two dead bodies with a smoking gun, so you think I'm on a rampage, pull out yours and kill me. Even if you dismiss this scenario similar tragedies do happen in real life, like when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because he thought Martin was a suspicious character. It's easy to say we'll give guns to the good people and keep them away from bad people, it's harder to do when you recognize that no one is completely good or bad (or views themself as the latter).

If you look at the facts, not just the FIREARM related crimes, but crimes in general, they sky rocket when you severely reduce guns in the hands of good people, with good intentions. I mean, I live in Australia, gun laws here are tough, best you'll get in a bolt action hunting rifle (But the baddies have semi auto shottys, pistol and other fun stuff) but we used to have carry openly and concealing licenses. But, they took our guns away, in average, crime shot up (Pun) (Murder, armed robberys, breaking and entering ect.) went up around 30-40% (My god, contradicts every argument about less guns = less crime)

This is another view I see a lot of and while I won't say it isn't true, it is definitely over simplified. Human behaviour, especially crime, is caused by a number of different factors. Saying that X directly affects Y when a time period is your main connection is a deeply flawed way of looking at things. It's like how we used to think ice cream caused polio because ice cream consumption and polio cases would both peak in the summer. Or to use a more recent example: it's like saying that since the Newtown shooting happened in late fall and Call of Duty games come out in late fall, Call of Duty is responsible for the shooting.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

-wonka-

Again, I'm going to slap this one on here.

You don't win an argument with a quickmeme generator, and if "But criminals will always break laws because they're criminals!" is all you have to say for your case, maybe you should stand aside and let people who actually make good points speak for that case, as you're doing it a disservice.

On the same day the Sandy massacre, a man in China was able to stab 22 children in a school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

While none of them died, he was able to go into a school, and stick one knife in almost the same number of children as Sandy.

Also, the largest school massacre in US history, the Bath Massacre, 45 dead, was committed with three bombs: http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacres/

 

[Xanex]

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!

You need to go to another country.

Banning all guns in the US at one point will just make this point stand out more:

The reason that picture is stupid is because it is self fulfilling.

All school shootings that I'm aware of in the US used legally acquired guns, BUT once people started getting murdered the gun owner was a criminal.

The problem with the Wonka meme is that the people who use him never think before making the meme ironically irrelevant 90% of the time.

The Sandy Hook Elm. shooter used guns owned by another without permission. So by definition they were illegal.

The Columbine shooting happened with both illegaly purchaced and stolen from relatives weapons.

Now you know different.

 

[Vegosiux]

On the same day the Sandy massacre, a man in China was able to stab 22 children in a school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

While none of them died, he was able to go into a school, and stick one knife in almost the same number of children as Sandy.

Yes yes, I've heard that one before. About four times in this thread even. It's been responded to by not only me, but several others as well.

And there's something inherently funny about an American trying to defend free for all gun rights with something that happened in China.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think people miss the point when discussing gun control. Nobody actually expects crime to be totally and utterly halted with gun control, they don't even expect to stop crimes involving guns. Gun control just means less shootings. You can't have a shooting without a gun, can you? The bottom line is, more lives would be spared with gun control rather than without it.

 

[J Tyran]

I'm sorry but I had to make an account instead of just stalking the forums as usual to set a few facts strait.
First of all an Assault Rifle is a weapon firing either a rifle or "sub" rifle caliber round that has a select fire capability. Now select fire means that with one pull of the trigger the weapon will fire more then one round at a time.
What I have owned in the past was a semiautomatic CAR-15 or an M4. It was not an "Assault Rifle". Please learn your weapons if you wish to debate them.

Splitting hairs tbqfh, sure the technical term is not assault rifle but its easy to see why people can look at a slightly modified civilian version of a military rifle and call it an assault rifle.

And once again sure "assault rifle" sounds like a buzz word to make them sound scary, I agree on that too. So lets call them by their military terminology then, because after all we need to be accurate right?

So then the question is should civilians be able to easily buy battle rifles or combat rifles? Shit, damn, that terms carries the exact same undertones as assault rifles. Oh well, oh hum at least we are being accurate with our terminology now.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

On the same day the Sandy massacre, a man in China was able to stab 22 children in a school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

While none of them died, he was able to go into a school, and stick one knife in almost the same number of children as Sandy.

Yes yes, I've heard that one before. About four times in this thread even. It's been responded to by not only me, but several others as well.

And there's something inherently funny about an American trying to defend free for all gun rights with something that happened in China.

Your imagine macro said asked how someone could hurt 28 people without a gun, and I gave you an example. I have not had a chance to go through all 13 pages.

I also gave you an example of somebody killing MORE people IN AMERICA without a GUN. Why are ignoring that?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

First Virgina Tech- A Glock 17
Caliber: 9x19mm (9mm luger)
Magazine Capacity: 15 rounds

weapon 2- A Walther P22
Caliber: .22 Long Rifle (.22LR)
Magazine Capacity: 10 rounds

Colorado Mass Shooting- A Reminton 870
Caliber: 12 Gauge
Magazine Capacity: 7

Weapon 2- A Smith and Wesson M&P15
Caliber: .223/5.56
Magazine Capacity: depending on magazine seize as they go 5 to 200 rounds worth but in this insensate the psychopath had a 100 round drum magazine.

Weapon 3/4- A Glaock 22
Caliber: .40 S&M
Magazine Capacity: 17

Columbine- A Hi-Point model 995
Caliber: 9mm
Magazine Capacity: 10

Weapon 2- A Sawed-off pump-action Savage-Springfield 67H shotgun
Caliber: 12 gauge
Magazine Capacity:6

Weapon 3- A TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic handgun
Caliber: 9mm
Caliber: 32 from the pictures of the weapon used.

Weapon 3- A Double-barrel Savage 311-D sawed-off shotgun
Caliber: 12 gauge
Magazine Capacity: 2

Arizona Shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Weapon: Glock 19
Caliber: 9mm
Magazine Capacity: with the weapon used 32 round magazine.

Sandy Hook
Weapon 1- Bushmaster .223 rifle
Caliber: .223/5.56
Magazine Capacity: As to the different sizes stated before this psychopath used 30 round mags.

Weapon 2- A Sig Sauer P226(?)
Caliber: 9mm
Magazine Capacity: 15

Weapon 3- a Glock 19 or 26
Caliber: 9mm
Magazine Capacity: 15 or 10 unknown to which series of glock used picture state 26 but are from the media.

Now as to your assumption of them all being the evil "Assault Rifle" only 2 can be said to be your bringer of doom "Assault Rifle". I used to own what you call an "Assault Rifle". Unfortunately had to sell her to a Veteran of the US Armed Forces so not a horrible loss.

But if you take anything from this do your home work on these Evil "Assault Rifles" and Automatic Guns you call them.

You missed the Smith & Wesson AR-15 rifle (Assault Rifle) for the Colorado Shooting.

You also missed my point overall. The effort it takes to get a weapon as quite clearly powerful automatic rifle is way to fucking lax in the US. As I said before, the Colorado shooter ordered over 6,000 rounds for his AR-15 over FedEx in one order. No one batted an eye. That really shows that Homeland Security in the US needs some work. There should be some sort of flag going off for an amount of rounds that size. Christ, the flag people for ordering the Anarchist's Cookbook online.

 

[Caverat]

I'm sorry but I had to make an account instead of just stalking the forums as usual to set a few facts strait.
First of all an Assault Rifle is a weapon firing either a rifle or "sub" rifle caliber round that has a select fire capability. Now select fire means that with one pull of the trigger the weapon will fire more then one round at a time.
What I have owned in the past was a semiautomatic CAR-15 or an M4. It was not an "Assault Rifle". Please learn your weapons if you wish to debate them.

Splitting hairs tbqfh, sure the technical term is not assault rifle but its easy to see why people can look at a slightly modified civilian version of a military rifle and call it an assault rifle.

And once again sure "assault rifle" sounds like a buzz word to make them sound scary, I agree on that too. So lets call them by their military terminology then, because after all we need to be accurate right?

So then the question is should civilians be able to easily buy battle rifles or combat rifles? Shit, damn, that terms carries the exact same undertones as assault rifles. Oh well, oh hum at least we are being accurate with our terminology now.

You missed the part of his post where he went on to explain that even with the incorrect definition of assault rifle, several, most, of the shootings cited were not done with assault weapons. Virginia tech, for instance, was done using handguns.

I'm not going to comment as to his opinion on the gun control issue, but, I agree with his sentiment that a ban on assault weapons would not have prevented the shootings cited, as the weapons the shooters used were not assault weapons.

I think the United States could use stricter gun control laws, similar to Canada. Fully automatics are prohibited, certain small calibre handguns are prohibited (mostly the calibres often fired from tiny, easy to conceal pistols). Centre-fire semi-auto rifles are limited to a 5 round magazine, pistols limited to 10. Barrel lengths are also regulated for pretty much every classification as well. While it is possible to get a conceal and carry permit in any province or territory, approval must be given by the province's Chief Firearms officer. To get an idea of how often those are given out, Ontario, population just under 13 million has issued 13.

Most of Canada's gun related crimes are committed with illegal firearms, as the process for getting a license isn't timely, especially if you are interested in acquiring restricted weapons (IE: Handguns and certain rifles). There is no long gun registry, so, if you wish to purchase a hunting rifle, you are free to with a valid PAL (Possession and Acquisition License).

Personally I have a PAL w/ restricted and own a Remington 870, a Russian SKS manufactured in 1953, and the most expensive of my very small collection; a Smith & Wesson Model 686.

I do not hunt and I enjoy recreational target shooting. They are stored securely with trigger locks on 24/7 until I have them at the range and am specifically readying them to fire. Only I have access to them and their ammunition, which is stored separately in its own locked safe.

 

[Dagda Mor]

I think the law needs to make shorter range guns more available, and longer range guns less available. There's no need for a law-abiding citizen to have an assault rifle, but a shotgun is great for self-defense. Also, there needs to be no such thing as a highly crowded gun-free zone. Theaters, malls, and schools all need armed guards, or just have staff with access to guns and an employee trained to use them.

 

[J Tyran]

I'm sorry but I had to make an account instead of just stalking the forums as usual to set a few facts strait.
First of all an Assault Rifle is a weapon firing either a rifle or "sub" rifle caliber round that has a select fire capability. Now select fire means that with one pull of the trigger the weapon will fire more then one round at a time.
What I have owned in the past was a semiautomatic CAR-15 or an M4. It was not an "Assault Rifle". Please learn your weapons if you wish to debate them.

Splitting hairs tbqfh, sure the technical term is not assault rifle but its easy to see why people can look at a slightly modified civilian version of a military rifle and call it an assault rifle.

And once again sure "assault rifle" sounds like a buzz word to make them sound scary, I agree on that too. So lets call them by their military terminology then, because after all we need to be accurate right?

So then the question is should civilians be able to easily buy battle rifles or combat rifles? Shit, damn, that terms carries the exact same undertones as assault rifles. Oh well, oh hum at least we are being accurate with our terminology now.

You missed the part of his post where he went on to explain that even with the incorrect definition of assault rifle, several, most, of the shootings cited were not done with assault weapons. Virginia tech, for instance, was done using handguns.

I'm not going to comment as to his opinion on the gun control issue, but, I agree with his sentiment that a ban on assault weapons would not have prevented the shootings cited, as the weapons the shooters used were not assault weapons.

An assault weapon ban wouldn't have stopped them but a ban on semi automatic combat rifles with high capacity magazines might have made them turn out differently. Although I agree it wouldn't have stopped them either, culturally handguns are your biggest problem and as Derek Bird [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_bird] proved bolt action hunting rifles can be almost as destructive in the wrong hands. There is an argument that a semi automatic rifle would give the shooter a greater ability to defend himself against the police or a vigilante, as that has never happened though its tenuous argument at best.

 

[sora91111]

Well, considering I've seen and agree with points made on both sides I agree that, at least for now, guns are going to be legal in the United States. First, we have a prominent gun culture whether they be hunters, collectors, or marksman. Second, there are high profile companies and interest groups looking to uphold gun rights. Finally, in order to ban guns they would have to pass an amendment that repeals the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights and if we can't find the time to make one that replaces or removes the electoral collage system I don't see it happening for guns.

 

[Something Amyss]

They took away slaves and it was part of the cause for a civil war.

Cause you know, civil wars are awesome ways to keep people from dieing il tell ya what! /sarcasm

I'm hoping the sarcasm was related to the former point and not the latter.

I'm just trying to make sure, however. You are, of course, aware that slaves were not taken away prior to the Civil War, and in fact Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves and didn't like the idea of the "negro" having the same rights as us, right?

You are also aware that the Civil War had a lot of social and economic roots which were more the issue than slavery ever was, right?

I'm hoping you are, because the alternative is that you're completely wrong on history and your sarcasm is directed at the notion that I'm speaking of actions that led to war and thus tacitly supporting it.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

You also missed my point overall. The effort it takes to get a weapon as quite clearly powerful automatic rifle is way to fucking lax in the US. As I said before, the Colorado shooter ordered over 6,000 rounds for his AR-15 over FedEx in one order. No one batted an eye. That really shows that Homeland Security in the US needs some work. There should be some sort of flag going off for an amount of rounds that size. Christ, the flag people for ordering the Anarchist's Cookbook online.

1. It was not automatic, it was semi-automatic. You have to be VERY well off to buy a legally transferable automatic AR-15, since the importation and creation of new ones for civilian market was banned in 1984. It is a common civilian semi-automatic model.

2. 6,000 is actually not that uncommon for purchase as you would think. On the range, you can go through a LOT of ammo without thinking about it. In a few hours, you can go through HUNDREDS of rounds on a single trip. We also have a lot of people who buy ammo in such bulk to store in case of natural disaster/end of the world/changes in gun laws that would make it harder/more expensive to buy ammo.

3. I doubt the kid even bought 1,000 of those rounds with him to Sandy. You have any idea how heavy ammo can get? 100 5.56 mm rounds is about 30 pounds (or 13.61 kilograms), 1,000 rounds weighs 300 pounds (or 136.08 kilograms). That's not even counting the weight of the clips or the gun. An average US soldier, who generally is at peak physical fitness from massive amounts of training, carries only 270 5.56 bullets as part of standard equipment. Please explain to me how someone that has 6,000 bullets is more so much more dangerous than one with 100?

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

I think people miss the point when discussing gun control. Nobody actually expects crime to be totally and utterly halted with gun control, they don't even expect to stop crimes involving guns. Gun control just means less shootings. You can't have a shooting without a gun, can you? The bottom line is, more lives would be spared with gun control rather than without it.

Quite possibly. Of course, gun violence is an epidemic mostly centered around criminals killing each other . In America, we have a culture problem. Many different ideas as to the causes and solutions, none of which I'm going to get in to now. Point is, guns don't help the issue of gun violence, but we should ask ourselves why the violence is there in the first place. There are plenty of people who you could hand an M249 to and nobody would be less safe due to it. Then there are those who try to rob a bank with a cheapass .22.

Kind of a ramble, anyway I'm an American, I like guns, I own guns, and I don't think I should be restricted from such because of what some nutjob did. Want to look at ways to keep nutjobs away from AR15s without keeping me away from AR15s? Fine, lets talk.

But don't be fooled. This current wave of gun legislation in the US is not about safety. It's about control. Those that are pushing it are simply exploiting dead children to gain sympathy for their cause. That's why it's not about mental health, or culture. At least not primarily, they're just paying lip service to it at this point. It's about restricting guns as much as possible.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think people miss the point when discussing gun control. Nobody actually expects crime to be totally and utterly halted with gun control, they don't even expect to stop crimes involving guns. Gun control just means less shootings. You can't have a shooting without a gun, can you? The bottom line is, more lives would be spared with gun control rather than without it.

Quite possibly. Of course, gun violence is an epidemic mostly centered around criminals killing each other . In America, we have a culture problem. Many different ideas as to the causes and solutions, none of which I'm going to get in to now. Point is, guns don't help the issue of gun violence, but we should ask ourselves why the violence is there in the first place. There are plenty of people who you could hand an M249 to and nobody would be less safe due to it. Then there are those who try to rob a bank with a cheapass .22.

Kind of a ramble, anyway I'm an American, I like guns, I own guns, and I don't think I should be restricted from such because of what some nutjob did. Want to look at ways to keep nutjobs away from AR15s without keeping me away from AR15s? Fine, lets talk.

But don't be fooled. This current wave of gun legislation in the US is not about safety. It's about control. Those that are pushing it are simply exploiting dead children to gain sympathy for their cause. That's why it's not about mental health, or culture. At least not primarily, they're just paying lip service to it at this point. It's about restricting guns as much as possible.

And how do you "detect" these "nutjobs", anyway? I'm not naiv, I realize there's no pinpointing "A" problem and rooting it out with a couple of laws. Gun control, or gun safety, or whatever you want to call it, will most certainly not eradicate crime or bring balance where there is unbalance (i.e. what you call nutjobs). In the long run, it's no solution. I get it. But you can't escape the logic that guns ENABLE massacres that otherwise would not take place, or at any rate would be more improbable and would happen less frequently. And I'm sure more lives would be saved without guns that with 'em. Don't worry, keep your beloved AR15 for whatever reason - it's your right - I just wish guns weren't so easily accessible to everyone and anyone.