Should the USA ban guns?

[Kanzler]

@Johnny It's not a matter of "should the USA ban guns, it's a matter of can the USA ban guns?" I'm arguing with facts. The government cannot legally search everyones homes without either A) Consent or B) A warrant. Meaning they cannot go door to door to seize those with a weapon, that would be illegal force. "The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Which means what you guys are saying they would do would be illegal.

I think all the Fourth Amendment is saying is no searches without warrants, and no warrants without probable cause. If guns were made banned and made illegal to possess, and if the police have probable cause that someone possesses a now illegally-possessed weapon, then they are fully in their rights to search and seize. They won't be able to go door to door, but the weapons remaining will slowly be siphoned away in a non-illegal way.

 

[Jetfire]

Did you not read Livewire's post? Several committed crimes were conducted with firearms that were legally obtained.

Several?

Here's an instance where they weren't legally obtained.

Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, Adam Lanza, took his mother's licensed weapons and committed the crime. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/conn-school-shooter-had-4-weapons/

Here's one that was legal.

Virginia Tech shooting, Seung-hui Cho was mentally ill man, despite having a medical record of a number of symptoms, he was able to legally acquire guns.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/seung-hui-chos-mental-health-records-released/story?id=8278195

These two are one of the most horrific shootings in US history. These sparked national attention and a call for immediate gun control.

Gang related shootout - in the last week.

https://www.inquisitr.com/2894544/g...spect-killed-in-shootout-with-chicago-police/ 3/16/2016

https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2016/03/16/gang-shooting-in-escondido-claims-mans-life/

https://www.westword.com/news/gang-...it-at-double-shooting-that-killed-one-7688231 3/10/2016

https://www.insidebayarea.com/break...ce-shifts-from-richmond-streets-interstate-80 3/10/2016

My point is that, most of the homicides occur in heavily gang concentrated areas. These are criminals and these killings happen everyday. Yet we don't hear about it as much. Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech garnered NATIONAL attention. Don't get me wrong, I am saddened by these events and I wish it never happened. But, these events are a SMALL fraction of the shootings in America.

These people are CRIMINALS and do not respect the law. Again I ask, why should the rest of law abiding citizens be stripped of their property/protection because of the wrongdoing of others?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I think all the Fourth Amendment is saying is no searches without warrants, and no warrants without probable cause. If guns were made banned and made illegal to possess, and if the police have probable cause that someone possesses a now illegally-possessed weapon, then they are fully in their rights to search and seize. They won't be able to go door to door, but the weapons remaining will slowly be siphoned away in a non-illegal way.

Even then, I could hide a firearm somewhere they'd be unable to find it. Yeah, I'd have a registered firearm in my name but they can't seize what isn't there. That's what a lot of people would do. I knew a dude that hid a pound of weed in his backyard so when they searched they didn't find it. Same concept comes into play here.

 

[Kanzler]

Even then, I could hide a firearm somewhere they'd be unable to find it. Yeah, I'd have a registered firearm in my name but they can't seize what isn't there. That's what a lot of people would do. I knew a dude that hid a pound of weed in his backyard so when they searched they didn't find it. Same concept comes into play here.

Right, but it would still bring the number of guns down. Imagine how many bricks of cocaine would be lying around the country if the police didn't seize them at all.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Right, but it would still bring the number of guns down. Imagine how many bricks of cocaine would be lying around the country if the police didn't seize them at all.

For what cause tho, if those gun owners are responsible? As Jet said, it's gangs that's committing most of the crimes. Here's just a few murder cases in the city I live around, Chicago (I'll as well post Chicago's gun rights/laws afterwards:

Over 60 people shot in just 48 hours. Last 4th of July 2015

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-violence-20150706-story.html

Over 100 shot within 10 days of the new year 2016

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/120-people-shot-chicago-10-days-2016-article-1.2493741

12 shot January 6, 2016

https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/us/chicago-obama-gun-violence/

13 shot, 4 killed within 6 hours. March 15-16 2016

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-violence-20160315-story.html

These motherfuckers even shoot COPS!

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/chicago-shooting.html

Chicago gun laws

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Nirz3i8qtGdhCW-RA&sig2=kOpaFJZLvoHa7v6KlStbzA

That type of crime happens everyday here. It's worse here than any other city but murders happen daily in other cities as well. There's more gang violence than any other violence in America.

 

[Kanzler]

For what cause tho, if those gun owners are responsible?

Okay. What I was saying is that if guns were banned, meaning that possessing a gun would be a crime, then the police could find probable cause that somebody was still in possession of a now-illegal firearm, and obtain a warrant, and seize it.

You said:

@Johnny It's not a matter of "should the USA ban guns, it's a matter of can the USA ban guns?" I'm arguing with facts. The government cannot legally search everyones homes without either A) Consent or B) A warrant. Meaning they cannot go door to door to seize those with a weapon, that would be illegal force. "The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Which means what you guys are saying they would do would be illegal.

Now what I'm saying is that if the USA did ban guns, then they can search and seize guns legally on the grounds that you have guns. It wouldn't be so different from the government's ability to seize drugs, which are banned.

 

[Jetfire]

the police could find probable cause that somebody was still in possession of a now-illegal firearm, and obtain a warrant, and seize it.

I really wonder why they don't do that now. Are these shootings not "probable" enough for them to bust through those doors and seize those weapons? They mostly happen in certain cities. They're listed as America's dangerous cities. So they know. They'll probably find some drugs in there too.

Edit: Ah, wait I know. Then it would be considered a hate crime.. Seeing that these cities are heavily populated with colored folks. Sigh. Never mind.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Okay. What I was saying is that if guns were banned, meaning that possessing a gun would be a crime, then the police could find probable cause that somebody was still in possession of a now-illegal firearm, and obtain a warrant, and seize it.

You said:



Now what I'm saying is that if the USA did ban guns, then they can search and seize guns legally on the grounds that you have guns. It wouldn't be so different from the government's ability to seize drugs, which are banned.

I was quoting a different post you wrote, about the numbers of murders going down which wouldn't be the case. I suggest reviewing through those links I posted about Chicago's murders (which are gang related btw). They already shoot cops now, they'll continue to shoot cops especially if they tried to seize their guns, you'd just have a large number of dead gang bangers and cops. Why use violence to reduce violence? That's like fighting fire with fire, it would only make a bigger fire..

 

[Kanzler]

I really wonder why they don't do that now. Are these shootings not "probable" enough for them to bust through those doors and seize those weapons? They happen mostly in certain cities. They're listed as America's dangerous cities. So they know. They'll probably find some drugs in there too.

You would need some kind of evidence to get the warrant, I imagine. It'd be up to the judge. They have to be reasonable and intelligent about it.

I was quoting a different post you wrote, about the numbers of murders going down which wouldn't be the case. I suggest reviewing through those links I posted about Chicago's murders (which are gang related btw). They already shoot cops now, they'll continue to shoot cops especially if they tried to seize their guns, you'd just have a large number of dead gang bangers and cops. Why use violence to reduce violence? That's like fighting fire with fire, it would only make a bigger fire..

Are you honestly suggesting that cops should not seize the weapons of gang members?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Are you honestly suggesting that cops should not seize the weapons of gang members?

No.. I'm saying if the government sent cops out to seize everyones weapon after a gun ban (if it were to happen) the end result would just be a bunch of dead gang members and cops meaning it wouldn't reduce violence without getting more violent. You'd literally have to send the military out with humvee's and tanks to seize the guns of gang members. Which in America is illegal. It's illegal to have the military strolling the streets. This isn't just a misconception either, go through the hood of South Chicago, you'd see exactly what I mean.

^ That's EVERY building in the hood Chicago. Bars on all the doors windows as well as a 12 foot fence surrounding the premises of some areas. that's how you know the crime rate is high. that's how you know you're in the ghetto.

 

[Kanzler]

No.. I'm saying if the government sent cops out to seize everyones weapon after a gun ban (if it were to happen) the end result would just be a bunch of dead gang members and cops meaning it wouldn't reduce violence without getting more violent. You'd literally have to send the military out with humvee's and tanks to seize the guns of gang members. Which in America is illegal. It's illegal to have the military strolling the streets. This isn't just a misconception either, go through the hood of South Chicago, you'd see exactly what I mean.

Then the government obviously wouldn't just send cops out to seize everybody's weapons. I don't know if Nathan's mentioned this yet, but you could have a grace period, maybe a year or two, where there's a gun buy-back program. And then the seizures start to happen based on warrants. So I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions where you literally have to send the military out.

 

[Jetfire]

Then the government obviously wouldn't just send cops out to seize everybody's weapons. I don't know if Nathan's mentioned this yet, but you could have a grace period, maybe a year or two, where there's a gun buy-back program. And then the seizures start to happen based on warrants. So I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions where you literally have to send the military out.

There's already a buy-back program in motion. Walk through (see picture above) those types of neighborhoods and you'll see a sign somewhere. I forgot how they go exactly, but it goes along the lines of "We'll buy your gun, unregistered or registered, no questions asked"

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Then the government obviously wouldn't just send cops out to seize everybody's weapons. I don't know if Nathan's mentioned this yet, but you could have a grace period, maybe a year or two, where there's a gun buy-back program. And then the seizures start to happen based on warrants. So I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions where you literally have to send the military out.

?? So you're saying it's impossible to end gang violence if you can't seize their weapons correct? Which is what I was saying the whole time. They can't even legally send the military out, that would be their only way , but it would be illegal. Because they wouldn't just 'turn them in' and using 'force' to seize gang members gun would result in dead cops and gang members. See why banning guns wouldn't work?

 

[Kanzler]

There's already a buy-back program in motion. Walk through (see picture above) those types of neighborhoods and you'll see a sign somewhere. I forgot how they go exactly, but it goes along the lines of "We'll buy your gun, unregistered or registered, no questions asked"

The point is a gun ban isn't necessarily going to tear shit up if it took place. Maybe they'll expand the program, or publicize it more, yadda yadda yadda

?? So you're saying it's impossible to end gang violence if you can't seize their weapons correct? Which is what I was saying the whole time.

Yes. Taking weapons away from people who intend to do violent crime is the way to go.

They can't even legally send the military out, that would be their only way , but it would be illegal.

ahahahahaha reading comprehension -1

Because they wouldn't just 'turn them in' and using 'force' to seize gang members gun would result in dead cops and gang members. See why banning guns wouldn't work?

So the alternative is to let the gang members keep their guns right? Because that's how we create a safe society, by allowing criminal elements to have weapons. If I was a gang member, and you were the politician in my neighbourhood, I'd practically start an arms race because I know that you are not going to come for me.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

The point is a gun ban isn't necessarily going to tear **** up if it took place. Maybe they'll expand the program, or publicize it more, yadda yadda yadda

Reread my latest post. they wouldn't turn their firearms in anyways. They need their firearms to defend themselves from rival gang members or to roll up on someone for revenge or to send a message. As stupid as that sounds. (Yes I know how the streets work, you can't question something somebody's witnessed as myself)

 

[Kanzler]

Reread my latest post. they wouldn't turn their firearms in anyways. They need their firearms to defend themselves from rival gang members or to roll up on someone for revenge or to send a message. As stupid as that sounds. (Yes I know how the streets work, you can't question something somebody's witnessed as myself)

Then they're going to surrender or die. The alternative is letting them have their way. Cops would have reason to be scared, but I don't think they'd turn down the opportunity to take down cop-killers. At some point you have to draw a line. You can't just give into the streets. Law enforcement are supposed to, well, enforce the law.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Then they're going to surrender or die. The alternative is letting them have their way. Cops would have reason to be scared, but I don't think they'd turn down the opportunity to take down cop-killers. At some point you have to draw a line. You can't just give into the streets. Law enforcement are supposed to, well, enforce the law.

And hundreds upon thousands of cops will die as well. All I know, is if I was a cop and they told me I'd be going through the most dangerous hood in the city to enforce and seize guns I'd turn my badge in and say, "fuck that" and walk out unemployed. My life is more important than getting killed trying to disarm a gang member.
They can't enforce all the crime, there's simply too much crime in those areas. Hell, most incidents the cops don't even bother showing up because they're not imortant. In east St. Louis, they cops sometimes wont even go that area after a murder took place. East St. Louis is the most dangerous city in America.

 

[Jetfire]

(Yes I know how the streets work)

It's off topic but maybe some of you would get a giggle out of it.

At my local gamestop, they were hosting a pokemon tournament. I obviously attended and I was not prepared for what I walked into that day. I kid you not, the group clearly belonged to a gang. They were all wearing the same colored bandanas. Absolutely nuts!

The tournament was ready to start and they were checking off the registered names. The proctor stopped and said, "... Sneaks?" They guy stood up, straighten up his hat and said, "yea n***a, dats me. Sneakz wit a Z" His fitted cap had "Sneakz" embroidered on it.

Fast forward, I made it to the semi finals and I got to play Sneakz. I wreaked his team with my Jolteon. Afterwards he approaches me and says, "yo ma dude, watchu tryna trade 4 dat jolt? ill give u dis pikachu." I refused and my answered didn't settle too well with him. He's like "iight bet..." I could literally feel them staring at me. I lost in the finals and wanted to stay for a bit. But, I didn't feel too safe.. So I left lol

I swear folks, I thought I was going to get jumped for my Pokemon that day. Thankfully I wasn't followed home lmao... oh man....

Sorry guys, definitely wanted to share that story.

 

[Kanzler]

And hundreds upon thousands of cops will die as well. All I know, is if I was a cop and they told me I'd be going through the most dangerous hood in the city to enforce and seize guns I'd turn my badge in and say, "**** that" and walk out unemployed. My life is more important than getting killed trying to disarm a gang member.
They can't enforce all the crime, there's simply too much crime in those areas. Hell, most incidents the cops don't even bother showing up because they're not imortant. In east St. Louis, they cops sometimes wont even go that area after a murder took place. East St. Louis is the most dangerous city in America.

Tell that to the Mexicans, who are fighting a literal war on drugs. I don't think we'll agree on the appropriate toughness on crime.

 

[Mobile Tsk]

Do you think the USA should ban guns?

Other interesting points to think about:

• Is it necessary to carry around a loaded firearm?
• Are guns valued over the preservation of life?
• Are guns tools that preserve or destroy life?
• Is it a human right to carry a firearm?
• How many more innocent people must die before major changes are made?

My opinion is a resounding, unwavering NO. No gun ban and as little gun control as possible. For most people it is not necessary to carry a loaded firearm. However, I could never make the decision of whether it was necessary for someone else to. It is not within my jurisdiction to make this decision. Guns and the preservation of life are not mutually exclusive categories -- for many guns are valued because of the value of life. Guns are obviously capable of both preserving and destroying life. It is a human right insofar that humans have the right to produce, sell and purchase goods. I think the last question is leading so I will skip it.

Is it a human right to carry a firearm?
I think people confuse a humans right to life and liberty and to self-defence with the right to walk around with a weapon. The US bill of rights does allow for this, but it's an outdated amendment that needs a lot of further amending.

The Bill of Rights shouldn't bend to mob rule. Just because there are people who disagree with it today doesn't mean it's outdated. While some feel that the Second Amendment is unclear in what it authorizes, it clearly gives the people the right to carry firearms. This is to allow citizens to protect themselves from those who try to violate their safety.

I think that the real question is "how messed up is the US society to make carrying wepons around the street a legitimate choice".

US society is very sick, which is why it is fully necessary for this right to be sustained.

You are aware that the black market isn't like a walmart where you can just walk in and buy an ak-47 and an 8-ball, right? Not everyone has criminal connections.

You are right, only criminals have criminal connections. So we should make it so that only criminals can purchase firearms?

Can you imagine Chicago without gun control though? Wouldn't crime and violence be even more out of control? That's kind of like having a bandage over a wound but the wound's still bleeding so you're like well this bandage obviously doesn't work so let's get rid of it.

Except gun control is no bandage to the festering wound of Chicago gun violence. You think that attempting to confiscate guns will make Chicago safer? The only people who will give them up without a fight... law abiding citizens who registered them in the first place. So we only take away the guns from these responsible gun owners. That's not smart.

I'm happy that you were defended thanks to a firearm, but we have to look at the bigger picture. I am convinced that any society would be safer if nobody had guns. I am also convinced that American society would still be safer if guns were less abundant than they are today. I understand that a lot of the motivation for getting a gun is rooted in very relevant problems today, but like you said, guns destroy more than they preserve. The long term goal should be to significantly regulate the firearm market so it's not so easy for them to fall into the hands of those who would cause us harm. I don't know how we'll get there, but I am convinced that it's what the end state should look like.

I don't see how there is a "bigger picture" than that. The central idea is that guns allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves from others that do them harm. Yes of course society would be safer if no one had guns. This is truly an impossible goal, though. You can only confiscate firearms without force from those who are compliant with the law. The ones that you claim will do us harm are not compliant with the law.

It is no one's right to take another's property. So the government should not ban guns at all.

Taking away guns to stop gun violence is contradictory.

Excellent reasoning and generally precludes any kind of discussion about gun control since the government has no right to confiscate personal property.

Should it? Yes. Americans have shown they're not responsible enough to have guns. There are some responsible people, probably most people with guns, but they keep electing people into government who won't do even the smallest thing to stop gun violence and that's what's irresponsible of them. Not their own actions with their own guns, but their unwillingness to put up with a little less gun freedom for the sake of saving lives.

How exactly? Like, if I want to stop people from playing basketball I can take away their ball. No basketball without a ball, no gun violence without guns.

Many Americans have elected politicians who defy the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights was intended most importantly to curb the power of Congress to make laws that violated the rights of Americans. While these politicians have had numerous chances to introduce gun control, they are often rejected by politicians who do support the Second Amendment. There is nothing irresponsible about electing a candidate that will defend your rights that are expressly granted to you in the Constitution.

Well, the way things are now, they don't need to buy a gun from the black market depending on which state they're in. And a lot of the guns that are on the black market were supplied from the legit market in the first place.

And the point is not that criminals are going to break the law anyways. The point is that we're going to make criminals have to break the law in order to get the weapons they want. The harder it is for a criminal to get a gun, the less of them will have guns.

It is obvious you are not familiar with how guns are sold on the black market. For if I wanted to purchase an illegal gun, I could probably do so very easily, but it would almost definitely from someone who didn't legally own the gun. These laws don't make it harder for criminals to get guns, just law abiding citizens.

Police will get warrants and raid houses that are suspected to hold unlicensed firearms. Those who are guilty of possessing unlicensed firearms will be punished. So guns will be taken away from criminals too.

So yes, banning or severely regulating guns will take them out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But they'll be taking them out of criminals' hands as well. And even if it's the case that criminals still have their weapons, crime will still be down.

OK, so we throw out the Fourth Amendment (forbidding unreasonable search & seizure) in order to destroy the Second Amendment? Also, your logic in the final paragraph doesn't make sense to me. If law abiding citizens give up their guns and criminals don't, how does that result in reduced crime?

Because it's for the greater good, if you can't understand that then I don't know what to say. Besides, you might as well be a victim of a circunstance in which your emotions take over and your mental capacity is reduced. Meaning that you're in condition of killing someone and fully armed.

This is a dangerous argument to make, for I could subjectively argue that nearly any violation of rights, illegal search and seizure or law is for the greater good.

I'm tired of mass shootings every other week and dead school children. Universal background checks, in addition to other common sense gun laws, help keep unfit people from having access to firearms. This is neither controversial nor political, it's common ****ing sense.

Also, insert "Second Amendment is an antiquated amendment from revolutionary times and in its original context has nothing to do with individual gun ownership rights" post here. The NRA is a lobbyist group, and a successful one at that, and people need to remember the sheer amount of money involved here. The only reason you have rights to open carry an AR-15 in Texas is because there is an incredible revenue stream to be exploited, that's all. The NRA, gun lobby, and gun corporations don't give a rats ass about your personal freedoms and they only care about your "right to bear arms" so long as you keep purchasing said arms, one bullet and assault rifle at a time.

Obviously it is controversial, because you feel strongly about it one way, many people agree with you and many people disagree with you. Just because you feel adamantly doesn't mean there aren't people who disagree with you just as strongly. The Second Amendment is not antiquated. It is entirely about individual gun rights. Some argue that the wording "In order to form a well armed militia" contradict this. But if people don't have individual gun rights, there is no way for them to form a well armed militia. Did you think it meant, a well armed militia, with weapons provided by the federal government? That's not a militia; that's a military.

Nothing. But it is about that small percentage that are dangerously trigger happy and murder such law abiding, responsible citizens.

So we take away the rights of law abiding citizens in order to criminalize the behavior of someone who is already committing criminal acts?

When the public interest is so compelling.

If I created an atomic bomb in my own backyard, couldn't you comprehend why the government would want to seize it? Could you see the overwhelming public interest in seizing it, even though it belonged to me?

Well there is eminent risk to public safety if I have an atomic bomb in my backyard. It is not an eminent risk to public safety for me to have a firearm in my bedside drawer.

It's simple logic. If there are less guns available, then chances of a shooting will decrease. This debate has boiled down to a few people cracking a tantrum, because they don't want their goodies taken away. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the greater good.

It's not fair for you to post a controversial thread and then say that anyone who disagrees with you is cracking a tantrum. The debate actually boils down to people who believe that rights expressly granted to individuals in the US are moot. For gun owners (I am not one, for the record) this can be frustrating, hence why you feel that others are cracking a tantrum. It was also disingenuous for you to post a debate thread and then imply that the answer is simple and that it is a resolved debate. That does not invite meaningful discussion in any way.

Are you honestly suggesting that cops should not seize the weapons of gang members?

I am not threatened by the weapons of gang members. I would more likely be killed by a mass shooter than a gang member.

There's already a buy-back program in motion. Walk through (see picture above) those types of neighborhoods and you'll see a sign somewhere. I forgot how they go exactly, but it goes along the lines of "We'll buy your gun, unregistered or registered, no questions asked"

It is a good program and a good start to solutions that curb gun ubiquity without violating rights.

So the alternative is to let the gang members keep their guns right? Because that's how we create a safe society, by allowing criminal elements to have weapons. If I was a gang member, and you were the politician in my neighbourhood, I'd practically start an arms race because I know that you are not going to come for me.

Gang members can have an arms race all they want all day long; they are rarely an eminent threat to people who do not associate with them and their cavalry will never match that of the militarized police state, so why are you fretting so much about gang members? Conversely, if gun control were in effect where I lived, I would move. Why should someone who uses the force of government be able to tell me what I can and can't have? It is extremely hypocritical.

Then they're going to surrender or die. The alternative is letting them have their way. Cops would have reason to be scared, but I don't think they'd turn down the opportunity to take down cop-killers. At some point you have to draw a line. You can't just give into the streets. Law enforcement are supposed to, well, enforce the law.

Who's going to surrender or die? The police or the criminal? Or have you forgotten they both have deadly weapons? You are right. Law enforcement officers are responsible for upholding the laws passed by local, state and federal legislative bodies. For instance, law enforcement officers are responsible for upholding the Second Amendment, which expresses the unabridged right of US citizens to carry firearms.

TL;DR -- Gun bans/gun control are contrary to the US Constitution, in addition to being counterintuitive, dangerous and just plain wrong. The government cannot confiscate things that do not pose an eminent risk to public safety. A gun owned by a responsible person doesn't.