Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[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.

 

[omega 616]

[quote="WolfThomas" post="18.396399.16137216") we have pretty strict gun laws......

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

Doesn't seem that strict then.

I think the best option would be ban things like assault rifles. Make bolt action rifles for hunting and hand guns for defense.

Have annual psych tests, to make sure the owner isn't going to go loopy from stress or the like.

I don't know if age restrictions is a factor but think about upping it 10 years or so

 

[Vegosiux]

I also gave you an example of somebody killing MORE people IN AMERICA without a GUN. Why are ignoring that?

Because it had nothing to do with gun control at all.

1) You can't blame that one on someone deciding to use a bomb because of gun control laws
2) I still haven't heard anything solid to support the "argument" that with gun control, all the "bad guys" will just use bombs or hijacked planes instead.

Why do people insist on strawmanning the gun control arguments as if we're saying gun control will stop all violent crime dead in its tracks? Yes, some people will still use other instruments of massacre if a gun isn't readily available. Our point is that some won't and that's where you can limit such occurrences.

 

[BakedZnake]

On the same day the Sandy massacre, a man in China was able to stab 22 children in a school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

While none of them died, he was able to go into a school, and stick one knife in almost the same number of children as Sandy.

Yes yes, I've heard that one before. About four times in this thread even. It's been responded to by not only me, but several others as well.

And there's something inherently funny about an American trying to defend free for all gun rights with something that happened in China.

Also quite funny that none of the 22children died, but the one with the gun invovled 28 died, wow go figure

Also lets not forget if someone gets a nuke it might kill even MOAR PPL!!! ZOMG!!! QUICK ARM THE GOOD GUYS WITH NUKES OUTSIDE THE SCHOOLS SO THEY CAN KILL DA BAD GUYS WITH NUKES BEFORE THEY USE THE NUKES ON THE CHILDREN!!! wait one second....

 

[PZF]

Why not compromise? Everything west of the Mississippi will be total gun ban states. Everything east of the Mississippi will be no gun restrictions states. People in the west will have 1 year to move or turn in their guns. Anti-gun people can be happy in the west, Pro-gun people can enjoy the east. 10 years from now we can compare statistics. Problem solved.

 

[BakedZnake]

Why not compromise? Everything west of the Mississippi will be total gun ban states. Everything east of the Mississippi will be no gun restrictions states. People in the west will have 1 year to move or turn in their guns. Anti-gun people can be happy in the west, Pro-gun people can enjoy the east. 10 years from now we can compare statistics. Problem solved.

I would like to see another AMerican Civil war, where EAst vs West except West don't have guns.... but they have since developed cool force fields and light sabers. Now this is a plan I can put a stamp of approval on

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Why not compromise? Everything west of the Mississippi will be total gun ban states. Everything east of the Mississippi will be no gun restrictions states. People in the west will have 1 year to move or turn in their guns. Anti-gun people can be happy in the west, Pro-gun people can enjoy the east. 10 years from now we can compare statistics. Problem solved.

Let me guess, you are on the side of the Mississippi that supports your opinion (be it pro or anti gun). Me, being on the west of it, I'd have to give up my entire life just to keep my property. Give up my job, my home, to pack up and move because of some stupid law. And what would that even solve? If someone wants a gun they'll just drive over the river and grab one. If you say that won't happen, look at taxes. In Illinois their cigarette tax is outrageous, and tons of people drive across the river here (Missouri) to buy cigarettes.

Along the same lines as your idea, why do we even need to change anything? Those people who don't like guns could just move to another country where guns are already banned. I already gave a reason above for why people would be against that, and other reason is the selfishness of the people already. I had this whole "move to somewhere where guns are legal/illegal" debate without someone already. He was super anti gun (and a complete ignorant ass about it), but he feels that everyone in this country has to give up their rights and property because he doesn't like guns and he thinks that that should be required to live in a society. Back to the point, the dividing line wouldn't work anyway because both sides would refuse to move.



My opinion is still that this whole "debate" is pointless. Outlawing guns won't do much good (because it worked REALLY well for drugs). A few days ago, another thought game to mind: culture. I know for a fact that here in the US we waste a lot more (as in trash). I've also heard that we are a lot more focused on work here, have way more fast food restaurants, etc. During that hurricane over in Japan (or wherever, honestly don't care much about the location) the news channels over here were asking why the people weren't looting, and it puzzled them. Point is, culture between the US and other countries is different. All these people from other countries, and everyone else saying "it works in the UK" and "it worked in Australia" hold no weight because it isn't the same culture that we have here, so who knows if it would even work or not?

 

[Your Gaffer]

The bottom line is the it is currently politically impossible to ban gun ownership in America. We have a constitutional right to bear arms and the government can not enforce a law that is unconstitutional. The courts have largely already decided the issue of what kinds of restrictions on ownership are constitutional and which are not.

To change this two thirds of the states would have to ratify an amendment to the constitution nullifying the second amendment. The fact that it is one of the first ten articles, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, means that it is going to be virtually impossible to get amend the constitution to remove the 2nd amendment. While states like California might vote for it all those fly-over states certainly wouldn't.

So that leaves them do to what they are trying to do now, and it won't accomplish a single thing in regards to school shootings. They will basically re-pass the assault weapons ban that expired several years ago, the one that was originally passed during Clinton's term in office.

So once they pass that, IF they pass that, they all pat themselves on the back, act like they've done something worthwhile, and in six months we will all be reading about the next school shooting.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

On the same day the Sandy massacre, a man in China was able to stab 22 children in a school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

While none of them died, he was able to go into a school, and stick one knife in almost the same number of children as Sandy.

Also, the largest school massacre in US history, the Bath Massacre, 45 dead, was committed with three bombs: http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacres/

And how many mass killings are there in China?

Also did you know that out of the last 25 mass shootings, 15 were in the States? A lot of the guns that are legal in the US are legal here in Canada as well, difference is our gun laws are a lot more strict. Last school mass shooting we had was over 20 years ago I believe.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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?

You've mixed up what I've said about the Colorado shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting when it came to the rounds.

You're also ignoring my major point again.

It's too easy for people to get hands on massively destructive guns in the US. Jared Loughtner should not have been able to buy a gun over the counter in Arizona due to his on record mental illness.

And 6,000 rounds of bullets is a massive purchase to be done with such little background checking.

That's my point here. Guns are way too easy to acquire in the States. I'm not saying ban guns (with the exception of most Assault rifles), but there needs to be more restrictions on them. I'm looking at this from a Canadian perspective here. We're next door neighbours with similar cultures overall. Why is it that the US experiences way more mass shootings than us here in Canada? Like for crying out loud a man in the States was recently shot ever an argument about the Sandy Hook shooting. A mother sent her 11 year old son to school with a pistol for protection because of the Sandy Hook shooting. The kid proceeded to hold the gun against another child's head. There seems to be a lack of serious attitude about guns in the minds of most US citizens. Obviously not you, you know your guns well. But you knowing your guns well doesn't mean that guns aren't way too easy for people to acquire.

 

[Falsename]

While I have no real objectivity on America's constitution, given I've never been there. But a refusal to change is refusal to grow. Society changes, nothing stays the same and we have to accomodate.

The right to bare arms was back when muskets were used, I think they would have rethought that right if they knew how powerful firearms have become.

Gradual change should be welcomed. Staying in the past is counter-productive. I'm not trying to start a debate, just stating.

The bottom line is the it is currently politically impossible to ban gun ownership in America. We have a constitutional right to bear arms and the government can not enforce a law that is unconstitutional.

Original Post: Banning Guns won't work so sayeth the man who read a book! Hear his wisdom.

 

[a ginger491]

I believe in our second amendment, but to be realistic I don't think our founding fathers were informed about the advent of 30 round pistols and assault shotguns. While I do know that crazy people be crazy, I think that the laws should be a lot more strict. Restrictions on magazine sizes are really my biggest issue, but other than that I think it's America's mental health system is what really needs scrutiny. At least there may be some actual progress making that kind of legistlation