Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Olas]

-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.

and zero died.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

making guns completely illegal is not an option anymore.

If this is true, then mass shootings will keep happening.

The US has made their bed. Now they have to lie in it.

The problem is that dangerous psychopaths and criminals don't give a shit about laws, if guns were banned then your average Joe won't have a gun, but your crims and your crazies will find a way, street gangs don't just send someone to a gun store to buy a pistol, they purchase them through various illegal distributors or they just steal them, and even if guns just disappear people will kill each other with other things, the school attack with the most casualties was perpetrated with a car bomb, and, while I wouldn't recommend it, you can go to Google and find a billion bomb recipes you can make from over the counter products.

The fact of the matter is people kill people, and for some reason it happens in America far more often than in other developed countries, guns simply facilitate murder, if there isn't a gun then the murderer will use a knife, a rock, a pointy stick, their is probably a very real and terrible social issue in America that leads to so many people acing violently, my best guess would probably be the fact that crazy people cannot find treatment, as well as societal gaps that lead to your poor neighborhood street gangs, we need to figure out to treat these problems, not the symptom of people shooting people.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

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.

The problem is actually quite solvable, but apparently in the U.S. treating the mentally ill for free and providing every child with a good education so they don't end up in street gangs is simply not worth the hundreds or thousands of love lost to gun violence every year.

The problem has never been guns, but a complete buttfucking of priorities.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Then enjoy seeing innocent people die every few weeks because that's the trade off.

 

[PZF]

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 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 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.

Yeah, sorry if I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the government taking away my guns.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

 

[Faraja]

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!

No.

Let's just get rid of the whole second ammendment, which gives the people the right to form an armed militia for defense of the state, a an act which was viewed as necessary for the defense of the state, and the right of the people to take an armed stand against the government.

Oh, and let's make it so that the people who already have guns illegally have an even bigger upper hand! Yeah!

Didn't think that one through did you?

 

[Hoplon]

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!

Also the UK didn't do it. After the 1988 Hungerford massacre it was semi automatic rifles that where outlawed, after the 1996 Dunblane attack it was short barrelled and semi automatic handguns. Shotguns, low calibre rifles manual rifles and long barrelled pistols all still are legal, if very very difficult to obtain.

Though I do understand that you are being sarcastic.

Baby steps, ban the obviously only for killing people weapons like assault rifles and auto loading shot guns first.

 

[Faraja]

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.

The problem is actually quite solvable, but apparently in the U.S. treating the mentally ill for free and providing every child with a good education so they don't end up in street gangs is simply not worth the hundreds or thousands of love lost to gun violence every year.

The problem has never been guns, but a complete buttfucking of priorities.

Never watched Gangland, associated with people who are/were/know people in a gang, or been to an inner city school, have you?

Most of the people in there aren't there because they lack educational opportunities, I went to the same school as people in gangs. Some of the people in my own program were in gangs. They're in street gangs because they want to be. Because the opportunities in the gang are seductive. They're in gangs because gangs say they stick together.

You can work your ass off to try and get a good education and hope to get a good job, to maybe make a lot of money. Or you can sell drugs, and make ten grand in a day (know, I don't know if you can actually make that much in a day or not).

If you're a ten year who grew in an area saturated with gangs, and see these gang bangers with all these nice things, which are you going to choose? To top it all off, once you're in, it's very hard to get out with out getting killed.

 

[Hoplon]

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 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 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.

Yeah, sorry if I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the government taking away my guns.

Sorry since when did the US become a Stalinist dictatorship?

 

[AldUK]

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?

Well considering that I personally own several AR15s with FMJ ammo, as well as an assault shotgun, it wouldnt be very feasable to 'take' my firearms without it being a pyrrhic victory for whoever came to take them.

My God... the paranoia of you Americans is unbelievable. "Iff'n tha gunmernt takes mah shooty-sticks den dey gunna kill us all uh-huh-yup!"

Grow up.

"I dont like your facts, so you need to grow up!"

Classic

First of all, why the hell is the first thing you think of "IF" gun law is enforced is to shoot the officials that come to collect? Do you not see how some people may see that as a little over the top?

And secondly in regards to my post, it was intentionally degrading for the reason that the post I quoted was ridiculous, comparing yourselves to tragic government oppression over the past century is absurd, you are a democratic 1st world country, yet you seemingly have the mentality of an under-siege dictatorship.

 

[Faraja]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

You can't exactly walk into a Walmart and buy a full-auto anymore, ya know?

 

[Faraja]

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 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 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.

Yeah, sorry if I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the government taking away my guns.

My God... the paranoia of you Americans is unbelievable. "Iff'n tha gunmernt takes mah shooty-sticks den dey gunna kill us all uh-huh-yup!"

Grow up.

A nation built upon dissent, with the idea of never trusting the government to act in your best interests ever, with a government that's been berated on all sides for doing terrible things, doesn't trust the government? Fucking shocking!

This also just in, 2+2=4!

 

[Flippincrazy]

Okay, some points,
1- It is not just the UK that has banned guns, Australia,(which is roughly the same size as the US by the way) banned its guns years ago, and while the US has more people, it also has a fuckton more police, so, you know per capita versus total and all that. Germany also has much more restrictive laws without flat out banning them, so there is another option. New zealand's laws are focused on the owner rather than the object which is a further option.

2- Criminals do not obey laws, this is true and a fact that is beloved by people who drop smug macros into discussions. However, if we stop and consider the actual ramifications of this, it becomes pretty goddamn irrelevant.
- If someone has an illegal firearm, that is a crime and they can be stopped there and then as opposed to simply letting them walk on.
- It will slow down or limit the permeation of these weapons (not eliminate, no one is claiming that it will eliminate them)
- Someone who fits the profile of a spree killer (isolated, angry, feels like they have been wronged) suddenly aquiring a weapon becomes a bigger red flag and they are more likely to be stopped.
- From what I can see, it is rarely career criminals that conduct these crimes and so average joe blog on the street is unlikely to know where to get a hold of illegal assault weaponry.
- Someone who is in need of mental help, and is likely to commit violent suicide by attacking those near themselves, is less likely to have a weapon to hand when they snap.
- Criminals, are, for the most part, profit motivated human beings. Someone who is already hiding from the law is not going to assist someone who will draw attention to themselves
- Criminals are often quite reasonable and are unlikely to support the person who is likely to gun down more than a dozen children.
- Not all people who commit these crimes use their own weapons, so if their friends and family do not own them, it is harder for the criminal to obtain it.

3- There is no need to immediately ban all guns, that is impractical, what needs to happen is a staged drawdown of firearm ownership, starting with making them illegal to sell, running buybacks and making it clear that, for example, your assault rifle will be illegal in five years time, but you have five years to obtain a weapon more suitable for hunting and will be provided proper training in the storage and security of your remaining weapons.

First of all, thank you for being one of the few on this thread to deal with the "Criminal do not obeys laws" macro, and for being one the few people to present the Gun Control case in a sensible and convincing manner.

But for the sake of enhancing your argument, here are several potential problems. Would you mind addressing the matter of the cultural significance that personal firearms have for many Americans? From what I've heard on the matter, both inside of and outside of this thread, this is no small matter, and thus even a lengthy period of warning on, say, making assault rifles illegal simply would not matter and many would not relinquish their weaponry, which hold great personal value. Also, knowing how many Americans cling to this section of the Second Amendment and pervert it on a level only ever before seen with their ability to warp religious texts, would many not see this as a direct assault on their personal freedom by the Government? Reactionary measures could be a very real danger. Finally, I know several gun owners in the UK and buying the sort of storage units for both weapons and ammo, as required by law, is no cheap matter and thus might add further inflammation to the issue.

I must emphasize that I agree with your argument and all of your points - I'm just poking holes wherever I can to make it as applicable and logical as possible to an American reader, as so far it has been regrettably ignored.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

You know what else bothers me about this whole thing; all this focus on stopping spree killers. It's emotional over-reaction. Spree killers account for what? Like 0.005% of annual firearms deaths in the US? Hell- I'll even take out all the suicides- 0.01%.

Everyone wants to know why the spree killer does it, but when 4 people were shot and killed last week in a home invasion/robbery here in Detroit, nobody gives a rat's ass.

Great point, and pretty much mine. More people dies because of guns in the US outside the CT incident than because of it, and no one cares.

I'm in favor of stricter gun laws because while the spree shooters will still exist, the ability to acquire guns for other purposes will drop, and there will be less gun deaths overall. Look at Norway, spree killer on the 22nd of July still got a hold of military grade weapons, in a country with insane gun control laws, but very low amount of deaths otherwise.

 

[tkioz]

Americans are nuts.

We had a single mass shooting here in Australia in the '90s, and what was the reaction? We tightened our gun laws (they were already tougher then America currently is), people can still own guns (I own several), you're just limited to what you can own and you need a valid reason (sport, pest control, collection) to do so; of which self defense IS NOT accepted as a valid reason (for good bloody reason) and we have some of the lowest gun related crime in the world.

Granted there are some minor technical issues with the laws that I think are silly and need changing (very minor stuff that only gun nuts like myself care about), but overall as a sporting shooter and a firearm owner I support our laws, they work!

You yanks have had how many mass shootings and you're still wringing your hands and allowing people to buy military grade firearms with little to no regulation!

It's plain crazy!

 

[Rastien]

It won't work as there is far to much money in guns in america corperate greed, plus you are in a situation now where people feel the need to have guns to defend themselves because everyone else has guns.

Criminals use guns argument is null here really, compare it to drugs how many of you are actually able to get drugs and know the right people? probably not a great deal, gun's wouldn't even have a recreational use like drugs to be sold illegally.

Whilst i know you can get gun's here in the UK illegally good luck approaching the right people who would sell them to you they would soon as stab you as talk to you. Using the latest example of a socially awkward kid with aspertchers he wouldn't have had the nuts to approach criminals to get his hands on them.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

You can't exactly walk into a Walmart and buy a full-auto anymore, ya know?

No, but the general public can buy full automatic weapons legally. It doesn't matter if it's not at the general store, the fact that it's even possible is fucking ridiculous. And I don't care how well you check out mentally, the average joe should not be able to buy military weaponry.

And wait... "anymore"? You mean it was actually possible at one point to buy full automatic weapons at Wallmart? For Christ's sake...

 

[loa]

Who the hell talks about illegalizing guns?
Obviously people who say "just get rid of guns" are full of it.
That only creates a black market and isn't even physically possible or feasible.

This is about stricter gun regulations.

 

[UltraPic]

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!

Some fun facts, the u.k has not banned all "guns" and only idiots think that the u.k banned all "guns". And the only reason the ban on most privately owned pistols went through is that so few people owned them in the first place (only an idiot would compare a country that has a big gun culture to one that hasn't and never has).