Should the USA ban guns?

[Jetfire]

Dude, the thread's title is "Should the USA ban guns?" we're talking about banning something, making it illegal to have. If guns were banned, they'd be illegal, right? Which means that the government would be indeed, in the right to take away "your property". It's not like we're talking about banning television; we're talking about banning the main reason of deaths all over the globe.

I just don't see the comparison of guns to atomic bombs.

We're debating whether of banning something that is currently legal right? An atomic bomb is in no way obtainable. A gun is.

 

[Jetfire]

That comparison was made because everybody knows how much of a threat; an atomic bomb represents, but the same isn't happening regarding guns. There's a part that sees guns as a threat, and there's you guys who don't see them as threats.

A gun isn't a threat in the hands of a righteous and honest person. Which most gun owners are.

 

[Kanzler]

Okay. The point about atomic bombs is that if you think the government has the right to take away an atomic bomb from your backyard, it is because in that instance the public interest trumps your individual right to property.

You may disagree with that if you like. That point has nothing to do with whether guns should be banned or not. It has everything to do with what is the justification for the government to take your property, if one exists.

Please do not be wilfully ignorant and continue to construe my position as that guns and atomic bombs are equivalent. Please do not assume that you have an easy straw-man argument to knock down. Please do respect that all I am doing is questioning the position that the government never has the right to take away one's property.

If this thread keeps derailing, it's safe to say that it's on you. I think this is enough of a disclaimer from me.

 

[Jetfire]

Here's a cool idea. A giant electromagnet. Big enough to cover the US from the skies and utilize it to zap all of the guns away in this nation. #DreamBig

 

[Jetfire]

I thought we had already established that people are righteous and honest until they're not. Was it you that admitted that under certain circunstances you would kill someone?

As I said, everyone's a killer, you just have to push them enough. I might be wrong about the former, but I'm damn sure that I nailed this for at least half of the entire human population. That is why a gun is a threat, as I see it.

Nope it wasn't me. If I was ever in a situation where my gun was drawn, I would never shoot to kill.

 

[Somewhere_]

Regardless of how dangerous an item is, or how safe it is, no one else, but me (assuming I acquired the property legitimately) has any claim on my property. So no, even if I owned all of this ridiculous stuff (which would be impossible), only I have a claim on it. No one else does.

Just because something is dangerous does not make it your right to take it away from me. A knife can be dangerous in someone's hands, but that does make it my right to take away your knife. Guns are more dangerous than knives, but this just points out the inconsistency of your argument. Your argument is that because an item is dangerous, you have the right to my dangerous property. If you actually applied consistency to this, you would ban much more than just guns.

Consistency > inconsistency - your argument is inconsistent. if this were still somehow true, it would still not explain how you have the right to take my property.

And you still haven't explain how the majority ("public") nullifies individual consent.

 

[Kanzler]

Regardless of how dangerous an item is, or how safe it is, no one else, but me (assuming I acquired the property legitimately) has any claim on my property. So no, even if I owned all of this ridiculous stuff (which would be impossible), only I have a claim on it. No one else does.

Just because something is dangerous does not make it your right to take it away from me. A knife can be dangerous in someone's hands, but that does make it my right to take away your knife. Guns are more dangerous than knives, but this just points out the inconsistency of your argument. Your argument is that because an item is dangerous, you have the right to my dangerous property. If you actually applied consistency to this, you would ban much more than just guns.

Consistency > inconsistency - your argument is inconsistent. if this were still somehow true, it would still not explain how you have the right to take my property.

And you still haven't explain how the majority ("public") nullifies individual consent.

So in the hypothetical event that I have a vial of supervirus in my backyard that would annihilate all of mankind if not properly disposed of by the end of the month, the government has no right to take it away. My personal right to the property trumps the risk that all of mankind becomes extinct.

 

[Jetfire]

No one's saying that the government should take away your legally acquired possessions. We're talking about forbidding the ownership of guns, making guns illegal. Which means that your guns will not be legal anymore.

Ok, but the committed crimes were conducted by those who acquired their guns illegally. They're the problem. How would you tackle the issue of disarming them?

Drugs are banned/illegal yet they still make their way into the US.

 

[Murmansk]

I'd just advise that people here, wherein you want to have a debate about complex subjects or ideas such as this you should define your terms so your own position can be properly understood and addressed.

This is just advice that's generally helpful for keeping discussions on track.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Don't you agree that illegally acquiring guns would be tricky when there is literally no guns? For the already existing illegal guns, something should be done, of course. I'm gonna leave that up to whatever task force would be in charge of that. Regardless of how well they do the job, rather sooner than later, guns will go out of stock.

Drugs are far easier to transport/smuggle.

Cartels, mafias, mobs, etc transport drugs whilst transporting guns at the same time. It's just as easy to smuggle that drugs.
Then you have blacksmiths that could make a firearm in their garage or basement with the proper tools and a 3d printer. You can say it's not possible all you want, but it is. So even if you ban guns, they would make their way into the country, even after search and seizures, which is illegal btw. The government cannot legally search someones home without a warrant and even then they need proper evidence for that warrant. So technically doing a search and seizure of every home would be illegal, even if they were to ban guns.

 

[Jetfire]

Don't you agree that illegally acquiring guns would be tricky when there is literally no guns? For the already existing illegal guns, something should be done, of course. I'm gonna leave that up to whatever task force would be in charge of that. Regardless of how well they do the job, rather sooner than later, guns will go out of stock.

Drugs are far easier to transport/smuggle.

Guns can be dissembled into pieces though. I agree that it would be tricky to acquire them but that doesn't take away their instinct (or whatever) to kill.

 

[curiousnathan]

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.

Ok, but the committed crimes were conducted by those who acquired their guns illegally. They're the problem. How would you tackle the issue of disarming them?

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

 

[Somewhere_]

So in the hypothetical event that I have a vial of supervirus in my backyard that would annihilate all of mankind if not properly disposed of by the end of the month, the government has no right to take it away. My personal right to the property trumps the risk that all of mankind becomes extinct.

How did I obtain the vial? It is impossible to have obtained the viable in the first place through voluntary exchange because it would require me to take samples from a dead individual, and I do not own that body. OR by voluntarily gathering samples from people in the virus, in which case, I would have contracted the disease. If I contracted the disease, but walking around I am violating self-ownership.

Ill go with the nuke example instead. I am a peaceful individual, and I have no intentions of using the bomb. If I did, others would have the right to defend themselves.

You still have not explained how you have the right to my property while I am acting peacefully, or defended your point on how your argument is inconsistent.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

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 simple logic.. The government can't "legally" perform search and seizures of everyone's home in America without a warrant which they need proper evidence for. It's even stated as the 4th Amendment.

It's simple logic that if someone wants a gun they'll get one. Why are there bars on windows in dangerous neighborhoods? To stop home invasions and burglaries right? Does that tactic always work? No. Those criminals still find a way into the home!! Same thing would happen with guns!! How is that so hard to understand? I can't dumb it down anymore for you.

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

Which means those crimes would still happen. Same class crimes happened with illegally obtained firearms as well. If somebody wants to commit a mass murder with a gun but a guns not available it doesn't mean they can't get a gun. yes, it would make it harder but it would still enable them to get one if they really wanted.

Do you agree that violence is inevitable or no?

Edit: You guys also seem to be forgetting the government can't "legally" ban guns without the general population voting. In order to ban guns all 51 states would have to say no to gun ownership by a 51% or higher, which would never happen. The amount of people that want to keep guns far outweighs the ones that don't. this isn't a matter of politics it's a matter of American values and freedoms and both democrats and republicans would vote for keeping the Amendments in tact. If they don't, they're not a true American. I say, probably about 20-30% of America would vote for a gun ban.
If the government were to take all our guns away, look at what happened to Cambodia, they slaughtered them. Look at what Hitler did, he threw them in concentration camps. A government that wishes to disarm the population wants tyranny. They know, that if they disarm us they can do as they please with us because we have no way to protect ourselves.

 

[Kanzler]

How did I obtain the vial? It is impossible to have obtained the viable in the first place through voluntary exchange because it would require me to take samples from a dead individual, and I do not own that body. OR by voluntarily gathering samples from people in the virus, in which case, I would have contracted the disease. If I contracted the disease, but walking around I am violating self-ownership.

Ill go with the nuke example instead. I am a peaceful individual, and I have no intentions of using the bomb. If I did, others would have the right to defend themselves.

You still have not explained how you have the right to my property while I am acting peacefully, or defended your point on how your argument is inconsistent.

Nobody knows how you obtained the vial, maybe you inherited it from a relative passed away. It legally belongs to you. There are no laws proscribing the way you came to obtain the item. Does the government still lacks the right to take away your property, which if it does not dispose of by the end of the month, will destroy humanity?

I'll explain how the government can take away your right to the property once we finish this line of reasoning, because my explanation is dependent on how you answer.

 

[Somewhere_]

Nobody knows how you obtained the vial, maybe you inherited it from a relative passed away. It legally belongs to you. There are no laws proscribing the way you came to obtain the item. Does the government still lacks the right to take away your property, which if it does not dispose of by the end of the month, will destroy humanity?

I'll explain how the government can take away your right to the property once we finish this line of reasoning, because my explanation is dependent on how you answer.

For me to answer this question properly, I would have to go into a side debate that would be off-topic. I still want to answer it by avoiding this... Does the vial, no matter what, will release the virus at the end of the month? Even if I bury it or keep it safe?

If that is what you mean to ask, then I know the vial will kill everyone, and I am against all initiation of force (mass murder is clearly an initiation of force), and so to prevent this from happening, I have an obligation to hand it over the agency that can keep it safe (assuming that the government is 100% trustworthy and cannot make human errors). In this instance, I agree with you- if the vial will kill others inevitably, then my actions by keeping it are threatening violence.

However, should the vial be safe in my possession, no one has the right to the vial. It is my property.

Did I answer this to your satisfaction? I hope it makes sense lol.

 

[Kanzler]

For me to answer this question properly, I would have to go into a side debate that would be off-topic. I still want to answer it by avoiding this... Does the vial, no matter what, will release the virus at the end of the month? Even if I bury it or keep it safe?

If that is what you mean to ask, then I know the vial will kill everyone, and I am against all initiation of force (mass murder is clearly an initiation of force), and so to prevent this from happening, I have an obligation to hand it over the agency that can keep it safe (assuming that the government is 100% trustworthy and cannot make human errors). In this instance, I agree with you- if the vial will kill others inevitably, then my actions by keeping it are threatening violence.

However, should the vial be safe in my possession, no one has the right to the vial. It is my property.

Did I answer this to your satisfaction? I hope it makes sense lol.

Yes the vial releases the virus at the end of the month.

So the public interest in preventing unspeakable violence, in this case, trumps your right to the property. Your right to your property is therefore not 100% insurmountable.

Now let's say there's no 1-month time limit. You may be able to keep the vial for an extended duration of time without any consequences. But it is unknown how safe you could keep the vial. What you do know is that if anything goes wrong, all of humanity is destroyed. The government has the means to properly dispose of it. Does the public interest in having the risk of unspeakable violence be properly disposed of trump your right to your property in this scenario?

 

[Somewhere_]

Yes the vial releases the virus at the end of the month.

So the public interest in preventing unspeakable violence, in this case, trumps your right to the property. Your right to your property is therefore not 100% insurmountable.

Now let's say there's no 1-month time limit. You may be able to keep the vial for an extended duration of time without any consequences. But it is unknown how safe you could keep the vial. What you do know is that if anything goes wrong, all of humanity is destroyed. The government has the means to properly dispose of it. Does the public interest in having the risk of unspeakable violence be properly disposed of trump your right to your property in this scenario?

In the first question I just answered, it was not public interest that overrides my property rights. It was the illegitimacy of my threatening of force. I had no "right" to that property because I was using it to hurt people.

Again, this would be a question, not of public interest, but if my actions are threatening violence. Because if I am threatening violence, the property can be taken from me, but if I am not, the property cannot be taken from me.

Ill honestly have to think about this question more and study my philosophy more to give you a better answer, but I can affirm that this is not a case of public interest overriding my right to my property. I have a break from school coming up, so is it ok if you give me a few days to answer?

 

[Kanzler]

In the first question I just answered, it was not public interest that overrides my property rights. It was the illegitimacy of my threatening of force. I had no "right" to that property because I was using it to hurt people.

Again, this would be a question, not of public interest, but if my actions are threatening violence. Because if I am threatening violence, the property can be taken from me, but if I am not, the property cannot be taken from me.

Ill honestly have to think about this question more and study my philosophy more to give you a better answer, but I can affirm that this is not a case of public interest overriding my right to my property. I have a break from school coming up, so is it ok if you give me a few days to answer?

You weren't threatening anybody. You weren't using your property. You did not act. The only thing relevant is that you had the property. How can I accuse you of threatening violence when literally all that you did in the example was possess that very dangerous vial?

As you can see, I continue to assert my argument that it is in fact the public interest that is overriding your right to your property in that case. I don't mind if you take a couple of days to answer.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

@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.

The bigger question is could they ban guns? It's yes but it's highly unlikely. As I said, the American vote needs to exceed 51% in all 51 states for the bill to pass, which is highly unlikely.