Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[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.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

And how do you "detect" these "nutjobs", anyway? I'm not naive, 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.

Certainly. And you're right. Some gun owners would try to convince you otherwise (and of those I'm sure many truly believe it), but I share your logic that a reduced supply would reduce crimes committed with said weapon. I simply accept that not everyone can be as responsible as Mr. FiveSpeedF150, and if I'm to have my freedoms they will be abused by others. People who do such should be imprisoned when it comes to weapons, for sure.

Current reports are that Adam Lanza's mother was trying to have her son committed, she recognized the problems, or at least some. I think we should be looking at greatly increasing the national capability to address violent scizophrenics & socio/psychopaths. We're pushing nationalizing healthcare with the ACA anyway, this is some good that can be incorporated.

If his mom had been able to get him committed quickly, those kids would still be alive and we all wouldn't be arguing about this.

 

[Falsename]

I know my post will be lost amongst all the others, but regardless I'm going to throw my hat in anyway.

Banning guns will work, perhaps not 'ALL' guns but just automatic guns and powerful handguns. You can argue about what 'might' happen, like an increase in crime and robberies and all those (unproven and largely ridiculous) facts, but that's all the comeback you have isn't it?

You ignore the actual statistics and say you know what will happen. But you just need to look at the deaths/injuries and other stats to know your society has to change.

And after that DREADFUL speech by the NRA rep, I can't imagine action won't be taken.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?" Here's a tip; if a child is throwing rocks you don't opt to give the other children rocks aswell!


Anyone still in favour of firearms is ignorant. Unfortunately, Americans won't simply surrender their guns, as one man (armed to the teeth with guns, camo gear and sporting gold teeth) claimed when asked if he'd surrender his guns to the government: "I'd like to see them take them from me". You've waited too long to take action, but that sure as hell doesn't mean you should wait even longer.

 

[noahd]

people say that it won't work. because guns is part of society, but, 'i tell you what' those are red neck, nra, paranoid fear tactics.

if you took the guns away from every single citizen out there, and properly regulated any 'sport' gun usage. than we wouldn't have a problem. people have got to the point where in their mind it's more easier using a gun to kill a bull, kill a horse, kill a person than anything else. so that's what they want to use, you give them a crossbow/bow or a spear to hunt and they won't know what to do. with them.

if you live in the suburbs and you have guns to protect yourselves than somethings wrong with the people in the city. this isn't the wild west, having guns don't make things better, it makes things worse. sometimes it's what causes a gun fight having a gun. it has nothing to do with it being loaded or not, just the fear of it being a tool for an easy kill.

they don't want to use fists or knives or knuckles, they want to use guns. because going around shooting with an assault rifle, sniper rifle, shotgun, pistol or anything else is easier to do damage to person than trying to kill with one owns power. this gun war with the people that are afraid of being without their guns, and the people that don't need them.

if you don't need a gun in your job, than don't have one. if you don't need to use a gun, than don't pull a gun. having guns in the everyday will be america's down fall and will continue to make america to be lower than they should be.

if i had a had a button with one push of it, instantly transported guns of civilian's that don't need any guns to go in their day to day. i would. even if you had a gun just for display, tbh, i wouldn't care. it'still usable when people get desperate. because they can't use their own hands, their own words to do what they do with guns. all the southerns that hold their bible and their guns close to them is what brings the rest of them down. a case of one person shooting x number of people isn't surprising, it happens all the time, but a lot of the time gets swept under the rug. the us kills thousand of innocent civilians, but when a u.s. civ kills one or more other civ's you tend to wonder, any crime in the law book has been done on u.s. ground. from the u.s. from others. every which way, it's already been done.

you have a gun to protect against rape, already to late for victims as cases of victims trying to cover it up or yell it at the top of their lungs and of course there's those that lie their way to a free settlement.

incest, adultery, theft, destruction of private and public property and many more happen more often than any of the gun welding people think "because we have guns" believe over and over.

here's a question, how many guns have rubber bullets? because most guns sold and used for personal defense are real bullets, no matter the caliber. the other side is blanks for in class training.

if a room full of guys with guns one guys shoots someone but no one knows who, most people with their guns out would look for the closest person that would be the killer even if that person was innocent fear and the power to use and abuse is common place. there are no slaves in the u.s. anymore, there are no people taking land by force. 100 years have already gone by, but still people who use guns use them to feel in control of something they're not.

 

[girzwald]

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.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2969912/posts

 

[blaize2010]

I can't shake the feeling that the law is meant to stop crime, but criminals are criminals and criminals commit crimes, and if having a gun is a crime and it's a crime so that criminals won't have the ability to commit a crime with a gun, then isn't that just another crime for the criminal to commit, which the criminal won't hesitate to commit because he is a criminal



... who commits crimes

Prohibition comes to mind. The American government decided "no more booze", and that didn't exactly go over well. People who wanted to drink drank, and criminals became kings. I doubt the same exact thing will happen, obviously, but there is a previous example of what happens when you try to take things away from Americans after allowing them to have them for so long.

Personally, I'm keeping my grandfather's old double barrel, it's been in the family since his grandfather, and is a pretty neat heirloom. If they come for it, they will likely not find it.

 

[J Tyran]

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.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2969912/posts

You might as well suck it up because this time it looks like something is going to happen, historically there has never been such a political will to actually bring changes in. At least not since the 1930s, total bans will not happen but there almost certainly will be changes. People against firearm control are being cat called and mocked as accessories to murderers and both parties want to be seen as trying to do something, as for the NRA... well they have done nothing but embarrass themselves.

What people consider assault weapons are almost certainly going to be banned and before anyone starts with the whole "they where not assault weapons!" the legal definition of assault weapon is going to re-defined. This is so the White House can bypass congress.

 

[J Tyran]

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.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2969912/posts

You might as well suck it up because this time it looks like something is going to happen, historically there has never been such a political will to actually bring changes in. At least not since the 1930s, total bans will not happen but there almost certainly will be changes. People against firearm control are being cat called and mocked as accessories to murderers and both parties want to be seen as trying to do something, as for the NRA... well they have done nothing but embarrass themselves.

What people consider assault weapons are almost certainly going to be banned and before anyone starts with the whole "they where not assault weapons!" the legal definition of assault weapon is going to re-defined. This is so the White House can bypass congress.

You want to know what will most likely happen?

They will make a big deal about it, form their commitees, come up with solutions and write their bills, make a show of these things then submit it. It then takes a long time to come before a vote, people will obsess over the next hot button topic, because people are short sighted, and completely forget about this one.

The bill will fail, maybe with a close vote but probably not really and people will go on as things have been for a while and those politicos get to keep their NRA funding, vacations and the like and the people get to go on with their daily lives uninterrupted.

Well the finer points of the laws in the US escape me but it seems it will not need a vote or a bill, moving the goalposts and re-defining or adding new clauses to the definition of "assault weapons" appears to be an executive piece of legislation. If it is its not an outright ban but it makes the acquisition of certain semi automatic rifles with large magazines more difficult.

Is that the right thing to do? I do not know.

 

[J Tyran]

Well the finer points of the laws in the US escape me but it seems it will not need a vote or a bill, moving the goalposts and re-defining or adding new clauses to the definition of "assault weapons" appears to be an executive piece of legislation. If it is its not an outright ban but it makes the acquisition of certain semi automatic rifles with large magazines more difficult.

Is that the right thing to do? I do not know.

No, the president cant just go and change legal definitions of things without any input, that is a bit beyond his purview. And if he did find a way to weasel around it the supreme court would be fairly quick to slap him down, as that opens up a whole range of frightening thoughts.

It is similar to when the govt wanted to broaden the definition of occupied territory (or was it a state of war?) but either way they had to make a vote on it which passed, allowing them to do some wonky things with their civilian populations for national security.

In this case he pretty much can, he can also do all kinds of ridiculous things like demand they need a child proof safety catch and other stuff. The fact that he hasn't done anything like it yet doesn't mean he cannot do it, in fact fiddling with executive clauses and definitions is one of the NRAs greatest fears. The Supreme Court isnt a given either, the last major decision only passed by one vote iirc.

 

[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.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2969912/posts

Not sold on that one, friend.