Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Ryotknife]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

good luck when half of the country ends up rioting.

Not to mention the local government in the South and Midwest will oppose any such movement, and if push comes to shove the people in the South and Midwest will probably choose their perspective state over the federal government.

 

[FalloutJack]

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!

I think this sums up why you can't control the guns well enough. Let's all go out and have a drink.

BTW: If you're the Bob master, where are your subjects?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

(this whole comment should be read in a sarcastic tone)
Yeah your right, I mean our economy is terrible right now and we are facing the financial cliff. But I mean your right, we should totally spend heaps of money on this issue and have a war on guns. I mean just look at the war on drugs, it has totally payed off and there are almost no illegal drugs in the US...right? Oh wait......

 

[Souplex]

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!

The UK didn't ban all guns, they let farmers have shotguns, which is why the sawn-off has risen in popularity with British criminals.
They could have specified that guns that could easily be modified to be concealable were also not allowed, but they didn't think things through.

 

[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!

You need to go to another country.

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

Sorry if you didn't get my point. I was being facetious. I was pointing out exactly why banning guns wouldn't work in the U.S. Also, I'm not going to another country. Good and bad, when all is said and done, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.

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!

The UK didn't ban all guns, they let farmers have shotguns, which is why the sawn-off has risen in popularity with British criminals.
They could have specified that guns that could easily be modified to be concealable were also not allowed, but they didn't think things through.

Thank you for clarifying. I enjoy being informed on a subject I am not completely familiar with. In this case, British law. Now I know not to say that the U.K. banned guns. Which makes my point even stronger. If the U.K. couldn't do it, how in the flying Fluttershy is the U.S. supposed to?

 

[WolfThomas]

Why must you deal with absolutes? Ban all the guns or have all the guns!

Australia's been mentioned (and incorrectly mind) we have pretty strict gun laws, but you can still get a gun for hunting and sports.

I'm an Australian gun owner. I've got a Catergory A+B license. That means I can own bolt/lever/pump action centrefire/rimfire rifles and singlebarrel/doublebarrel/lever action shotguns. I use those to hunt introduced pests on my land and state parks.

It was pretty easy to get too. Little bit of waiting that's all.

 

[Risingblade]

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 cause all countries are the same right?

 

[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 cause all countries are the same right?

I was being facetious. I realize not all countries all the same. That was my entire point.

 

[Risingblade]

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 cause all countries are the same right?

I was being facetious. I realize not all countries all the same. That was my entire point.

Ah it's gotten to the point where I can't even tell in these forums.

 

[Woodman]

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)

In short, don't throw guns at everyone, give them to not crazy people, basic training. Let people carry in public (Not everyone will, it's not the fucking wild west) and it will DETER people from committing crimes, it wont stop them. But they will drop, and people will have a way of defending themselves against people WHO WILL HAVE GUNS NO MATTER WHAT.

P.S Serbia's 'firearm related death' rate is 3.90 (tiny) and guess what? They have fuckloads of guns, AKs, you name it. Basically every family has at least ONE longarm or pistol.'

THATS my argument.

[a href=http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html]Your argument is invalid.[/a]

Why must you deal with absolutes? Ban all the guns or have all the guns!

Australia's been mentioned (and incorrectly mind) we have pretty strict gun laws, but you can still get a gun for hunting and sports.

I'm an Australian gun owner. I've got a Catergory A+B license. That means I can own bolt/lever/pump action centrefire/rimfire rifles and singlebarrel/doublebarrel/lever action shotguns. I use those to hunt introduced pests on my land and state parks.

It was pretty easy to get too. Little bit of waiting that's all.

This is a reasonable and measured approach. We had a few guns that we turned in after the Port Arthur massacre, but others in my family have licenses for their shotguns, and some even compete professionally. All their kids are properly trained to use them, and none can get to them without their parent letting them. Because that what gun control is about, controlling who has them, and what they have, and how they are kept.

There are still murders in Australia, there is no denying that. But to suggest that death by firearms have gone up, or even homicide has gone up, is simply not true.

 

[TheVampwizimp_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!

Man, it is hard to sniff out that irony stink over the internet, isn't it?

The problem with this entire argument (not the one I quoted, I mean the issue at large) is that everyone who says we should ban or strictly control guns feels the automatic right to call everyone on the pro-gun side an uncaring, violence-glorifying gun nut. I am glad not to have seen much of it on the Escapist yet, but man is it running rampant out there in the real world.

It pisses me off like fucking crazy. Points like thebobmaster's are dead on; it is literally impossible to take away guns from the U.S., and if we did, it still wouldn't work just because it works somewhere else. The people against banning guns are no more violent or hate-filled than anyone else, they are just as appalled by mass murder, but they can also see past the emotional grief to the reality of things. Guns are here, and they are not going anywhere. Doesn't mean we can't try some things to reduce the violence, but banning them is an absolute fool's errand.

 

[Zeren]

-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.

It happened in China only about a week ago. 20 kids stabbed.

 

[Rigs83]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

 

[Lunar Templar]

-delete this-

it's not worth the potential head ache

 

[Ulixes Dimon]

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!

I hope this is sarcasm
IF not... remember the prohibition, this would be exactly like that, except with even more shooting people and less parties.

 

[geK0]

It's too late to fix it by simply taking the guns away; there's simply too many guns in the states. Although, if it were feasible to just magically erase all civilian and illegal guns (leaving only the police and military) I'd say "yes! do it for Christ's sake!".

But unfortunately that's not possible, and America is just left with one very large, virtually unsolvable gun crime problem.

 

[Jacco]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

Use of the military against the civilian population is prohibited by the Constitution. Search and seizure without probable cause and a warrant is prohibited by the Constitution.

The military has better things to do than go door to door collecting people's guns and searching and seizing them where applicable. Just because you disagree with people owning guns doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.

 

[Mazza35]

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)

In short, don't throw guns at everyone, give them to not crazy people, basic training. Let people carry in public (Not everyone will, it's not the fucking wild west) and it will DETER people from committing crimes, it wont stop them. But they will drop, and people will have a way of defending themselves against people WHO WILL HAVE GUNS NO MATTER WHAT.

P.S Serbia's 'firearm related death' rate is 3.90 (tiny) and guess what? They have fuckloads of guns, AKs, you name it. Basically every family has at least ONE longarm or pistol.'

THATS my argument.

[a href=http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html]Your argument is invalid.[/a]

Why must you deal with absolutes? Ban all the guns or have all the guns!

Australia's been mentioned (and incorrectly mind) we have pretty strict gun laws, but you can still get a gun for hunting and sports.

I'm an Australian gun owner. I've got a Catergory A+B license. That means I can own bolt/lever/pump action centrefire/rimfire rifles and singlebarrel/doublebarrel/lever action shotguns. I use those to hunt introduced pests on my land and state parks.

It was pretty easy to get too. Little bit of waiting that's all.

This is a reasonable and measured approach. We had a few guns that we turned in after the Port Arthur massacre, but others in my family have licenses for their shotguns, and some even compete professionally. All their kids are properly trained to use them, and none can get to them without their parent letting them. Because that what gun control is about, controlling who has them, and what they have, and how they are kept.

There are still murders in Australia, there is no denying that. But to suggest that death by firearms have gone up, or even homicide has gone up, is simply not true.

I'm sorry but giving me a link to one statistic...how does disproof my argument? I'm not just talking about murder and homicide (Which % wise would decrease to a growing population) I'm talking about all kinds of crimes and statistics.

And if that part of my argument is invalid, so be it. My other points still stand strong, and I did skim over Aussie laws a wee bit, A+B long arms, as mentioned above. But now thinking of it, it would be so easy to go on a 'massacre' with a lever action .22....Maybe should say that :S

 

[Jacco]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

Have fun dying in a hail of lead and glory.

And the kill ratios in Vietnam were so slanted toward the US it wasn't even funny. It came down to a simple wait game and the Vietnamese had more patience.

 

[Rigs83]

There are roughly 300 million pistols, rifles and shotguns in the US, enough for every single resident. There is also nearly 7 billion rounds of ammunition for either a pistol, rifle and or shotgun, enough for every single human being on this planet. You cannot ban guns in America because the cost is insurmountable. The best approach is cultural. Treat gun ownership like cigarette smoking. Make it publicly frowned upon and legally difficult and financially expensive and over time the numbers will decrease. I doubt you can ever completely end gun violence but you can curtail it through education and various programs to aid the mentally unstable.