Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[darthzew]

Goddammit, Willy Wonka, just whose side are you on?!

Saying that Adam Lanza acquired his guns legally is misstating the facts. Adam's mother acquired the guns legally. Adam was too young to have his own firearms, at least from my understanding of Connecticut laws. Technically, his guns were stolen, though how all that works legally is beyond me.

Secondly, it's also worth pointing out that guns were illegal on the school's property. The gun laws in the US are complicated, but schools are gun-free zones.

Most Americans don't understand US law, so I don't expect foreigners to get it. I'll speak as plainly possible. What's legal in Connecticut is not necessarily legal in, say, Tennessee. The US federal government (the national, overarching government of the entire nation) is designed to be as small and non-intrusive as possible giving way for the states to make their own laws. In other words, "US gun laws" is tricky to say because gun rights are mostly handled on the state-to-state level.

I'm trying my best not to make an argument for or against gun laws here, I'm just trying to clear up a few things as far as the law goes.

 

[Hoplon]

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...

The general public cant buy automatic firearms.

You have to have the authorization of your local LEOs (extremely hard to get, I tried) and then you have to have a government agency COME TO YOUR FUCKING HOUSE to inspect it, and make sure you have secure storage for said weapons, and then you have to be a business and fill out a massive stack of forms and go through several background checks by your local law enforcement, the ATF, and the FBI and then, and only then, can you purchase an automatic weapon that was made BEFORE 1986.

No wonder so many people go "OMAGAD MERICA AND DER GUNS" they dont know what the fuck they are talking about.

Then how the hell did a mother who had a son with obvious mental issues get a clear check by the ATF, and the FB?

I don't care how much paperwork you have to sort through and how many inspections you have to pass, allowing civilians to own automic weapons in their own home is dangerous. If you really, really, REALLY want one it should be kept locked away at the local firing range whenever you're not using it for target practice or cleaning.

By only owning semi automatic weapons.

Which is basically systrophe since as long as it is a 5.56 rifle round at 30 rounds a clip your going to have a fucking nightmare.

 

[AldUK]

People killed by handguns last year: UK - 8 USA - 10,728.

British Police are unarmed, and while there are at least 2 Armed Response Police teams per county, on top of proper Armed Response, I will stand by the fact that we have the best trained Police in the world. Oh, and theyre unarmed.

Criminals dont follow laws, thats the definition of a criminal. But Arming the police presents them with the "justification" argument.

But trying to tell the average American that is like demanding water to stop being wet. Its in thier blood now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Seems that the other EU nations are doing much better than you are.

Realises that his arguments are being exposed as fallacy, so shifts his stance to discrediting the opposing side.

You're awfully see-through Felix. Fact remains that I and everybody else I know would rather send their kids to school here in the UK where the chance of them being murdered is minuscule. Can you say the same? Because even if you disagree with me, recent and continuous events prove you wrong.

 

[jbm1986]

They shouldn't make it illegal to own a gun, but they should make it harder to get one. Aside from the normal background check (which only helps prevent know offenders from obtaining a gun) they could implement 4 simple requirements to cut down on gun related deaths.

1. Mandatory gun safety provided by local police or military branch.
- learn from expert gun users.

2. Mandatory psychological evaluations (annually or every 6 months)
- if you're batshit crazy or mentally unstable, you don't get a weapon.

3. Mandatory drug tests (annually or every 6 months)
- would you want somebody with impaired judgment running around with something that could kill you or a loved one? Me neither.

4. Mandatory firearm registration & finger printing.
- this could cut down on illegal firearm possession.

Just because a person CAN own a gun doesn't always mean they SHOULD. I have lost a friend in a shooting so I know

*Edits for clarity:
1) No I'm not against people owning guns -- I'm against crazy, violent, irresponsible people owning guns. I personally love guns
2) Yes. I own a gun myself (.22 long riffle) and would be fine with all the requirements I have suggested.
3) if you don't live in the US, here's a link on gun laws.
4) YES I know this is NOT 100% effective but I could see this helping cut down on gun violence.

 

[Me55enger]

People killed by handguns last year: UK - 8 USA - 10,728.

What I wrote above, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Seems that the other EU nations are doing much better than you are.

"Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured." - Taken from that article.

We're talking gun crime here. That article doesnt mention firearms. Plus it was a Conservative led attack on the Labour party: So there is intent behind the use of those numbers.

Im not calling the UK the bestest and safest place in the whole wide world: We had our very own crazed gunman earlier in the year.

But for some reason, I feel safer on my side of the pond.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I think a proper licensing system would help then, If flat out banning them is off the cards.

 

[barbzilla]

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:

Banning guns would have prevented the most recent shooting because the guns that the gunman used were acquired legally by one of their family members. Had said family members not been able to acquire the guns then this shooting would not have happened.

You are right, the gun law would have prevented this shooting (and maybe a few more). It wouldn't have prevented him from making a bomb, or using poison. It has been shown in other countries that without access to guns, the crazies will opt for alternative methods. Meanwhile all the criminals in the US still have their illegally imported, unregistered guns, and the Average Citizen #556 has his trusty, less than a 5" blade", pocket knife.

Once again, banning guns would do very little. How about we address the real problem with these shootings, the psychotic a-holes toting the guns.

 

[redmoretrout]

1. Mandatory gun safety provided by local police or military branch.
- learn from expert gun users.

2. Mandatory psychological evaluations (annually or every 6 months)
- if you're batshit crazy or mentally unstable, you don't get a weapon.

3. Mandatory drug tests (annually or every 6 months)
- would you want somebody with impaired judgment running around with something that could kill you or a loved one? Me neither.

4. Mandatory firearm registration & finger printing.
- this could cut down on illegal firearm possession.

This could never work, for two reasons firstly the cost of the periodic evaluations. To have every gun owner drug tested and psychologically analyzed annually would cost an enormous amount of money. Who is supposed to pay for that, the gun owner? the tax payer?

Secondly, your the only person on the planet who would be okay with being examined like that every year. All this would do would encourage people to acquire illegal firearms, because no one wants to spend the time or money having their lives intrusively examined.


I am not pro guns myself, but I think having more easily accessible and far cheaper psychiatric help available for anyone who feels they need it would prevent more shootings than the simple banning of certain weapons.

 

[WanderingFool]

Out of curiosity, why is it these threads always seem to go into the extremes of:

A-Ban all guns, Period.
B-Dont ban all guns, Period.

People act like there isnt a fucking middle ground to consider.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

This is pretty clearly flamebait, but I'll bite all the same.

Conceptually, remove all guns. Ignoring all the upset NRA members and whatnot, this would theoretically lower the death toll of 'crazy'* individuals and crime rates in general.

With all the talk of guns and shootings recently I've read allot of posts from users oversees that suggest we simply make guns illegal in the U.S. 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. I don't identify with the subculture that is obsessed with guns but I know people who are and if guns were made illegal there would be very large, very dangerous, armed riots all over the country.

Perhaps I will try to find the book you listed. However it seems to me that being a culture is not necessarily a good thing. Isn't it cultural in parts of Africa to mutilate female genitalia?

As far as 'very large very dangerous armed riots,' this sounds like a reason to eliminate guns rather than a reason not to. That 'from my cold dead hands' schpiel was already a punchline back in 1997 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119654/quotes?qt=qt0402544].

*Labelling people crazy, and the reasons that they are such is a much lengthier discussion.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Snip

snip

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).

I was being sarcastic, guys. I was pointing out why banning guns would not work in the U.S.

The one whose post I didn't snip, I'm quoting because while others pointed out my mistake in saying the U.K. banned guns (thanks guys, by the way. I really do enjoy having all sides of the argument, as well as all the facts), you were not only a total dick about it, but you missed my point in between calling me an idiot. Before you insult others, maybe you should check to see if you fully understand what they are saying.

 

[Vegosiux]

1. Mandatory gun safety provided by local police or military branch.
- learn from expert gun users.

2. Mandatory psychological evaluations (annually or every 6 months)
- if you're batshit crazy or mentally unstable, you don't get a weapon.

3. Mandatory drug tests (annually or every 6 months)
- would you want somebody with impaired judgment running around with something that could kill you or a loved one? Me neither.

4. Mandatory firearm registration & finger printing.
- this could cut down on illegal firearm possession.

This could never work, for two reasons firstly the cost of the periodic evaluations. To have every gun owner drug tested and psychologically analyzed annually would cost an enormous amount of money. Who is supposed to pay for that, the gun owner? the tax payer?

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?

Secondly, your the only person on the planet who would be okay with being examined like that every year. All this would do would encourage people to acquire illegal firearms, because no one wants to spend the time or money having their lives intrusively examined.

Paraphrased:

People want to have the rights and none of the responsibility that comes with them, but making them responsible for their own stuff is too much of a bother, so why bother?

(Yes, that came across as pretentious)

I am not pro guns myself, but I think having more easily accessible and far cheaper psychiatric help available for anyone who feels they need it would prevent more shootings than the simple banning of certain weapons.

And the two are not mutually exclusive. Oh, lucky day!

 

[Meight08]

-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.

Yes and not a single kid died because of the stabbing.

 

[Epona]

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:

Banning guns would have prevented the most recent shooting because the guns that the gunman used were acquired legally by one of their family members. Had said family members not been able to acquire the guns then this shooting would not have happened.

Maybe then he would have built a bomb or done some worse things later in life. Guns are not the only way to kill and crazy people are....crazy.

What I think we need to be looking into is why modern kids feel the need to resort to this sort of violence. When I was a kid in school (70's and 80's) we didn't resort to guns to solve school problems.

 

[cjbos81]

-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.

Yes and not a single kid died because of the stabbing.

Maybe the guy in china was a weakling.

The Japanese are much more efficient when it comes to deaths from mass stabbings. Google it.

 

[Trekkie]

ask a copper and they will tell you that criminals will always find a way to get guns. small firearms are ilegal in the UK but there are still shootings in London.

 

[Vegosiux]

Maybe then he would have built a bomb or done some worse things later in life. Guns are not the only way to kill and crazy people are....crazy.

And maybe he wouldn't, imagine that. You know how asinine it sounds to say it's okay it was "only" a shooting because it "might have been" a bombing otherwise.

I agree that this problem needs to be tackled on several fronts, but as I said before, gun control and a socialized system of mental healthcare are simply not mutually exclusive. It's not "one or the other".