Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[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

 

[AMMO Kid]

Killers and thugs will get guns regardless of whether or not they are made illegal. I want a gun to protect my family from those killers and thugs. Plain and simple.

 

[Dangit2019]

-wonka-

Again, I'm going to slap this one on here.

Isn't that almost exactly what the guy in China did?

OT: For all of you saying that we could enforce a gun ban because we have a shitload of policemen, you should probably notice that a lot of policemen are just as gun-obsessed and conservative as the general populous and they won't be willing to turn in the ones they personally own...

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

With the cost of shipping buying a box online will usually be more expensive than an in-store purchase.

Now, buying ammo by the case (1k rounds) makes a lot more sense, economically... and yeah there are plenty of shooters who may grab 6k rounds at a time if they sense a deal.

And no, they shouldn't be put on a government list somewhere for it.

 

[Your Gaffer]

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.

EDIT: Nevermind.

So,
1. The founding fathers probably new guns would get better as time went on. There own guns and munitions where much improved on weapons of the past and they were well aware of continued technical progression of weapons. They had some firearms as accurate as modern firearms.

2. Their is no refusal to change overall, the US has changed a lot about its laws, spending priorities, tax rates, and social mores over the last 50 years. That being said...

It does not matter whether any of us think banning guns is a good thing or not, it just is not going to happen in the US in my lifetime. That is political reality. I don't own guns and I don't really have a strong opinion about it. But that is the truth. The best they will do is pass legislation that has been passed before and will accomplish nothing.

 

[Dumoras]

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!

Yes! Lets have ANOTHER prohibition. That will most definitely decrease shootings.
That bill would never get past the house or congress and would literally be unconstitutional. Also do have any idea what a mass ban on weapons would do to the us economy? Let alone the worlds?
If you want gun control use sensibility not knee jerk reactions that don't solve the problem.

 

[el derpenburgo]

Killers and thugs will get guns regardless of whether or not they are made illegal. I want a gun to protect my family from those killers and thugs. Plain and simple.

I've heard somewhere that the majority of gun-related crime in the US arises from domestic disputes rather than gang violence or thugs. For every 1 in 10 use of the gun that involved defending a family or loved one, there are 9 emotionally damaged people who go nuts because their wives were unfaithful, their friends betrayed them, or whatever and do something they'll regret. I would argue that it's a pretty steep price to pay for the privilege of having relaxed gun laws. What's wrong with a taser or another non-lethal option? Surely they are just as effective in a defensive capacity?

 

[invadergir]

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.

The social and economic issue was slavery. States-rights vs federal, free-states vs slave-states in the new territories (as it related to voting power), agricultural economies vs industrialism. All of it is rooted in the ability of the Southern states to keep slaves.