Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[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...

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.

 

[Coppernerves]

It looks like there are some guys who reckon guns are needed as a defence against the government going totalitarian on their asses.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it working that way, the government forces have a variety of fully automatic weapons, tanks, artillery, aircraft, body armour,thorough training, and decades of experience fighting insurgents, terrorists, and guerilla armies, from Red Indians, to the Viet Cong, to Al Quaeda.

I still reckon guns are needed in the US for defence against animals and criminals, but guns need to be kept out of the hands of teens, the mentally handicapped, and the insane, through tight regulation of gun transfer, strict storage laws, and tough licensing.

 

[Al77994]

What about redefining what the term "arms" refers too in the constitution to solve the problem.
restricting it to single shot rifles and 6 shot pistols with limits on caliber, times between shot and the limitation of the sale of the bullets which wouldn't fit those weapons (maybe requiring a licence for each specific class of weapon as well as a lengthy training coarse for each).

any suggestions for improvements or explanations of how it won't work?

also wasn't the constitution intended to be modified as times changed, how often are amendments to the constitution passed?, shouldn't the public (everyone) have a vote on it if gun control is such an important issue?

 

[IronMit]

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?

It might as well be a dictatorship. you get to choose between gay marriage, taxes and welfare. Everything else stays the same. Illusion of democracy.
Yeah that's right I went full conspiracy. Never go full conspiracy

 

[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...

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.

You can't argue against the system with anecdotal scenarios. Systems are ultimately kept and run by people, and people make mistakes, someone is bound to slip the net eventually just to human error alone.

With weapons like this you can't efford to make mistakes.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but this "right to bear arms" stems from a time when guns and rifles were single shot weapons. Technology has advanced drastically. American civilians have the right to protect themselves, sure, but do they have they right to arm themselves with weapons that can kill 30 people in the space of one minute?

Back in the Victorian age duelling for ones honour in a sword fight was legal. But when everyone started carrying a pistol duelling qiuckly became outlawed because too many people were getting killed.

 

[the clockmaker]

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.

There are no easy answers when it comes to cultural shifts, but it is very important that this issue not be taken in isolation. When Barrack Obama was elected, there was a notable increase in ammunition purchases and what is quite frequently brought up is the issue of government trust. Trust in the nation is something that is gained by many actions and lost by few so there needs to be a very visible increase in government accountability.

To be honest, I'm not sure how the US can do this but a few things that couldn't hurt, note that these are all very long term and incredibly expensive, but when ISAF pulls out of Afghan, you have a lot of manpower, experience in nation building and the removal of the other long term expensive project
1- Increase police engagement in the community, it is a lot harder to see them as evil oppressors when it is joe from down the street.
2- Make attempts to increase community cohesion, maybe through local area projects on the suburb level. I dunno this isn't my area of expertise.
3- Shift the image of the US military into one as peacekeepers and builders. This does not nessecitate getting rid of the big stick, only that they are seen to be a force of construction as well as one of destruction. You can see this in Australia, where service in Rwanda and Timor is highly respected and a lot of what you see in the papers is grinning engineers building school buildings in disaster areas, this can also be followed on in country, with US troops being used more extensively for disaster relief. A follow on from this will be a highly visible positive effect that the government has on people's lives while also diminishing the 'super badass M4 w. holographic sight and underslung 203' effect.
4- Make classes on the responsibility of holding a weapon a condition of keeping that weapon, focus on that weapon's effect on others and ensure that you have a visible police element involved.

That's really all I have for now, but it is really a focus on Education to ward against the 'threats' these people think their facing, Engagement so people see themselves as part of the community and not against it and a efforts to make the gun seem less cool. I don't have any answers as this is more outside my field of knowledge, but there all I know is that there needs to be a concerted, non-judgemental and non hostile effort to shift the culture away from gun worship.

 

[Watcheroftrends]

So we have:

1. People will kill people anyway. Probably with guns they get illegally, regardless of what laws are passed.

2. But it's possible that less availability of guns would prevent those who were on the border between commiting a mass murder and being too intimidated by gun control laws to actually get a gun to do so.

Does anyone else see how fucked up that counter argument is? Really, the only saving grace is that maybe there are some murders that occur in a short burst of anger where the person is only willing to go through with the act just long enough to where the gun must be readily available for them at that very moment.

Otherwise you can see how well making marijuana illegal has worked. A sixth grader can score some pot.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I'm really torn on the topic of gun laws in the US, especially when we get into debates about control and whether or not a gun control might or might not infringe on the rights granted by the Second Amendment. Being a UK citizen I've never actually looked at the Second Amendment, but a zip around the Googlewebs presents a pretty obvious dilemma: the Second Amendment has been interpreted differently over time.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The way I understand it, people read this one of two ways:

1. It grants the people the right to bear arms in the event that the people need to form a militia, whether to fight a foreign invader or the state itself.
2. It grants the people the right to bear arms for their own individual purposes, whether that be hunting, pest control, competition, self-defense etc.

From an outside perspective I can see points on both sides, but it can be read either way. Does the right to bear arms allow for the assembly of 'a well regulated Militia' as purely an example, or does the assembly of said Militia grant the right to bear arms out of necessity? I believe the courts have had to argue this a number of times, never quite coming down on one side or the other. In order for any gun control to be imposed, the Second Amendment needs a clear and concise legal definition rather than one that changes depending on how the Supreme Court feels like spinning it that day. Not a lot of people will like hearing it, but there needs to be a defined line on what type of firearms the general public has access to, rather than an outright ban. For instance, if the Second Amendment outlines the individual right to bear arms, then citizens don't need access to military grade hardware.

But outright banning guns won't work, it will never work. But likewise they can hardly lay down any gun control laws when the Second Amendment is still open to interpretation.

 

[Enverex]

I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.

I keep hearing this regurgitated by Americans all the time when it comes to taking away their guns. I live in the UK and I'm pretty sure I'm free too, as is my friend in Canada, and the one in Australia too. What's your point?

And if you mean "free to do whatever you want" then I'm pretty sure you're still bound by many other laws, e.g. you can't make and sell Crack. How does being allowed to own a gun suddenly make you "free"? Free because when "the man" comes for you, you'll have a gun to defend yourself? Why exactly would "the man" be coming for you and don't you think you'd be a little out-gunned if it ever came to that anyway?

 

[smithy_2045]

Hurr durr guns should be unrestricted because it's too hard a problem to fix.


What a brilliant argument. I'm sure the parents of the kids killed in the CT massacre would agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Starik20X6]

Pretty sure slavery was an enormous part of America's heritage and identity, and you seem to have removed that one.

Also, this argument makes my blood boil. How hard is this to understand? It's the Nirvana Fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy] at work, and I'm sick of it. Gun laws make it harder for anyone to get their hands on them. Yes, some will slip through the net, but you can still limit the amount of gun crime significantly!

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

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.

And it's exactly as it will stay and nothing will change except more shootings, more funerals,more broadcasting and more picketing of funerals and it makes me sad.

Before anyone suggests mental treatment that doesn't always work either and I have my mother to vouch for that when she treats her patients the odd one can still be "cured" and go home only to end up killing themselves or another person.

But hey they don't want to ban their guns they only want to go on about how impossible it is and just never change yet still go on about how bad times are.

 

[Strazdas]

First I want to recommend a book "Deer hunting with Jesus" that I had to read in college. The author grew up in a very conservative home and is a "cultural defector" if you will. This book will give you an insight into the U.S gun culture, its also very funny.

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.

Secondly there are huge, powerful lobbying groups that spend billions to maintain influence in Washington and they will not see the day when guns become illegal.

Gun laws and control might work but making guns completely illegal is not an option anymore.

glad you remmeber me, cha
here we go again.
americas culture is rooted with weapons. its a sad truth. but that does not mean we can just leave it be. make guns illegal. rioting? jail them. armed riots? let the army interviene. make a CLEAR message that guns are not welcome. its a decisive action, yes, but thats the only thing that works when your whole culture is rotten.

lobbying groups, well, thats why you dont have gun control and they wont let that, that us true, however we are speaking of what should be done and not what can be done if some criminals would say its ok.

Banning all guns in the US at one point will just make this point stand out more: http://www.donself.com/images/wonka-gun-laws.jpg

except that most of the shootings were done by non-criminals who had a perfect record all the way up to the time they opened fire.

You're clearly underestimating the amount of gun owners we have here who value their firearms more than their own lives.

remove them. whether its jail or death sentence, noone in the world need people like them.

1. Gun owners need compensation. Market value, as set out by constitution. America can't afford this.

2. Gun makers. They cant exist in a country with banned guns. They leave and look to other countries, taking every single prototype and project with them. Paid by tax payers. Also need compensation as well for their stock. Basically buy out the endless supply of defense contractors America employs in ADDITION to the gun owners.

The tally total for banning guns numbers in the trillions.

3. You need a search warrant. For every house in America. That and its also against the law in America for the government to just come in without probable cause. To search every house without cause, without warrant, and illegally is a tyrannical act. The populace WILL rebel.

Not only that, but the police would be STRETCHED TO THEIR LIMIT, and they cant stay in one house longer for an hour because they have a lot of shit to do. So you might not even get all the guns, crime goes uncontested, and we have all of our homes raided.

Any more questions?

gun owners dont need compensation. they made their own foolish choice when they decided to buy guns.
gun makers can GTFO the faster the better.
gun prototype contracts will stay, because army will still use them, and thier userbase wont change.
that can easily be changed. they will rebel? crush them with rain of thier own medicine - bullets. and then tell them that this is EXACTLY what they are fighting for. because thats what it is - a right to go on a shooting rampage.
hiring more police officers is always a good idea.

 

[surg3n]

If banning firearms wouldn't work, what about banning lethal ammo? - like, only sell low velocity ammo, stuff that is a lot less likely to kill. Then people can keep their guns, they'd still be an effective defense against intruders, but the wounds would be less severe. Theres a lot that can be done with shotgun shells for example.... let people have non-lethal rounds and shotguns for home protection.

I live in the UK, where guns are not too common - I also have had the horrible experience of being attacked at home. If I had a gun I'd probably have used it, they were armed with knives. I know one thing, if you look at the statistics, there are roughly 5 times more people in the US, but you are 250 times more likely to be shot. That 250 times, is error corrected for population, unlike a lot of statistics that are there to just scare you. What does this say about the US? - there's a 0.002% chance that you'll be shot and killed in the US, in the UK, that's more like 0.000008%.
Alternatively, in the US you have about a 1 in 500 chance of being shot during your lifetime - in the UK that's more like 1 in 120,000.

Something needs to be done, whether gun-toting retards accept that or not.

 

[Rblade]

I seriously, seriously, doubt there would be armed riots if guns where banned. Only the trully stupid would pick up guns against an organised armed force. But thats besides the point, I'm not going to force my opinion eventhough I personally do feel safer in a country were guns are prohibited.

I once heard the point made they should just make bullets super super expensive for regular consumers. Meaning that if you wanted to take that shot, it will cost you thousands. I always found that a funny suggestion but interesting suggestion. Maby they could have cheap bullets in shooting ranges that you couldn't take home

 

[Strazdas]

So no 2nd amendment.

No 5th amendment.

No judicial trials. No prisons. Just the death penalty for infractions and unlawful seizure of property. Something that hasn't been seen in the civilized world in centuries. Taking America and plunging it straight back 1712.

Gun factories will just have their stock stolen. After all, these are contractors. Not the actual military. Won't solve a thing.

And to murder all these people, to destroy the entire judicial system, and perform tyrannical acts straight out of the 18th century. Mass murdering thousands, just so there won't be mass murders.

Really great plan there. /sarcasm

I told you this once, I'll tell you twice:

You are wrong, and frankly your incessant need to gun down people is bordering on the creepy. Providing the Escapist an example of why mental health care professionals are sorely needed.

Because I am 99% sure "gun down all who oppose me" is a fucking red flag.

you need drastic actinos if you want to change the puss that we call "gun culture".
you can ahve trials, you cna have prisons, you can pay for all those idiots who want to keep guns for the res of your life if you want. heavens as if you havent done worse.
seizure of property happened in europe, last year. the country got better because of it.
gun factories knew the risks of law change when they decided to set up shop. that is all planned by them ahead, and if not, they run bad business. military contractors wont get hurt, other contractors will just sell thier research elsewhere.
and yes i would never give someone like me a gun. sadly, i could easily buy it without much hassle. draw your own conclusions from that.

i did overdramatize the "gun everyone down" duh. obviously i didn't mean just bomb the shit out of everyone. but if your population is revolting against a law that is long overdue you need to find a way to get their brains to turn on.

 

[Flippincrazy]

To be honest, I'm not sure how the US can do this but a few things that couldn't hurt, note that these are all very long term and incredibly expensive, but when ISAF pulls out of Afghan, you have a lot of manpower, experience in nation building and the removal of the other long term expensive project
1- Increase police engagement in the community, it is a lot harder to see them as evil oppressors when it is joe from down the street.
2- Make attempts to increase community cohesion, maybe through local area projects on the suburb level. I dunno this isn't my area of expertise.
3- Shift the image of the US military into one as peacekeepers and builders. This does not nessecitate getting rid of the big stick, only that they are seen to be a force of construction as well as one of destruction. You can see this in Australia, where service in Rwanda and Timor is highly respected and a lot of what you see in the papers is grinning engineers building school buildings in disaster areas, this can also be followed on in country, with US troops being used more extensively for disaster relief. A follow on from this will be a highly visible positive effect that the government has on people's lives while also diminishing the 'super badass M4 w. holographic sight and underslung 203' effect.
4- Make classes on the responsibility of holding a weapon a condition of keeping that weapon, focus on that weapon's effect on others and ensure that you have a visible police element involved.

That's really all I have for now, but it is really a focus on Education to ward against the 'threats' these people think their facing, Engagement so people see themselves as part of the community and not against it and a efforts to make the gun seem less cool. I don't have any answers as this is more outside my field of knowledge, but there all I know is that there needs to be a concerted, non-judgemental and non hostile effort to shift the culture away from gun worship.

My new favorite Escapist.

Whilst certainly difficult, I believe that Clockwork's argument demonstrates that limiting weaponry is indeed possible in the long-term. Therefore in response to the OP, yes, making guns immediately illegal would certainly be impossible, but it certainly might be possible to limit/change gun circulation and policy through the sorts of cultural manipulation that America has already put into place overseas. Something of a long-term 'Hearts and Minds' strategy might change public thought and reduce the chance of such shootings happening in future.

It is possible, but it'd be a hard road to take - yet probably beneficial for America.

Spoiler: Captcha

Gung ho.

 

[schtingah]

Go back in time, and the same arguments would have been made about Slavery. It's never too late to change anything.

 

[Neyon]

I really do try to ignore stereotypes but every single discussion like this on every website they exist on strongly reinforces many of the negative ones about Americans. I honestly don't understand how so many of you, who are otherwise intelligent people, can be so bigoted.

You ignore blatant statistical evidence that shows how the presence of guns is strongly correlated with gun crime. You think that to prevent deaths you should allow everybody to kill each other as easily as possible. You think that your 225 year old constitution is set in stone and written by infallible individuals who meant for it to remain unchanged forever. Your elected government wants to kill you all, because they are just like that. Oh and "Criminals" are a completely separate part of the population who can easily do whatever they like, completely uninhibited by morals, laws and the police. Non-criminals however are ALL good, well meaning individuals who will never either become criminals themselves later in life nor will they experience negative human emotions such as fear, anger & depression that could ever cause them to do something they wouldn't normally, like lash out.

Honestly you live in the richest country in the world with one of the most capable police forces in the world with a fully democratically elected government. Heck, you are the ones ranting about how much freedom you all have all the time. So why do you need guns? You don't live in a warzone or middle-earth, which seems to be what so many pro-gun commenters feel they do.

 

[Angie7F]

I live in japan and we do not even have a "military" let alone access to guns.
However I am pretty sure we are as, or even more, free and safe as the americans.
Many countries have been successful in banning guns.
Sure there will be a lot of politics and business that will suffer, but many industries have come and gone with change in technology and trend.
I think eventually they have to come to terms with the fact that having guns so accessible to everyone is a bad idea.