Should the USA ban guns?

Kanzler said:

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.

Click to expand...

As long as there are individuals out there wanting to cause harm, the majority will feel the need for protection. I wish it wasn't so. I agree with you, there should be gun reform. Many believe that's the solution to the entire problem. That's not true, so much more needs to change.

Jetfire said:

As long as there are individuals out there wanting to cause harm, the majority will feel the need for protection. I wish it wasn't so. I agree with you, there should be gun reform. Many believe that's the solution to the entire problem. That's not true, so much more needs to change.

Click to expand...

The need for protection can be fulfilled without a dangerous amount of unregulated firearms in the population. We would have to fix poverty to improve security and reduce the need for protection. We would also have to fix relations with the police to prevent people from feeling that they absolutely need to have a gun. Once guns feel less necessary, then we can go about regulating them such that even criminals will have a hard time trying to get them.

Razor Leaf said:

Nathan, I really feel like you're making controversial threads just for the sake of it. ):

Regardless, though, I'll bite. It baffles me that anyone would believe that they have the "right" to the means end the life of another human being at any time that they choose. Guns exist to kill, or to threaten to kill, and despite this extreme purpose they're considered "normal" in American culture. Many consider it acceptable to have lethal force available for you to use should you feel that it is necessary. The result is disproportionately high firearm crime and mass killings. People with guns kill people, and taking away the gun part would at least be a start in bringing America's embarrassing gun crime statistics in line with other developed countries.

Click to expand...

Those mass killings were from individuals who were mentally unstable and couldn't legally own a firearm. Which proves my point, if someone wants a gun they'll get one. There's no sure way to stop someone from getting one. I don't understand how people think gun control will work?? If you want total government control, vote for a gun ban.. My question is.. How can you count to 10 by skipping 2? You take away one Amendment you take away all, eventually.

No they don't. People kill people and humans have been killing humans long before guns were even a thought, they used rocks and spheres. If a killer wants to kill they'll kill gun or not. It's asinine to even put the thought of "people with guns will kill people" in your head. You realize 95 probably more like 99% of the population that owns guns legally don't plan to use them to kill people? If everyone who owned a gun killed people there would be a lot more murders than there are now. You'd be scared to walk the streets in a safe neighborhood. A majority of firearm deaths are from criminals and gangs. Law abiding citizens don't kill people, even if they have a gun. So get that mentality out of here.

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.

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.

BadSheep said:

Taking away guns to stop gun violence is contradictory.

Click to expand...

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.

Esper said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that analogy doesn't work. If the individual wants to do harm, he/she will find the way to do so.

Banning guns isn't going to do anything. That would just strip away the guns from law abiding citizens. But, lets say they do ban guns. Okay cool. Guess what? They'll find away to get them anyways. It's easy to blame the government but they're not the ones committing the crime. It's the criminal that is defying the law to begin with.

I sincerely do not know how these criminals get their hands on guns. They definitely didn't buy them at Walmart. They're sold on the "black market". Last time I checked, the law doesn't apply in that area. Whether it's a knife, a bat, your fists, an axe, a gun .. these objects are not the cause of death. It's the one wielding it.

Jetfire said:

I'm sorry but that analogy doesn't work. If the individual wants to do harm, he/she will find the way to do so.

Banning guns isn't going to do anything. That would just strip away the guns from law abiding citizens. But, lets say they do ban guns. Okay cool. Guess what? They'll find away to get them anyways. It's easy to blame the government but they're not the ones committing the crime. It's the criminal that is defying the law to begin with.

I sincerely do not know how these criminals get their hands on guns. They definitely didn't buy them at Walmart. They're sold on the "black market". Last time I checked, the law doesn't apply in that area. Whether it's a knife, a bat, your fists, an axe, a gun .. these objects are not the cause of death. It's the one wielding it.

Click to expand...

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.

a question to all those who are saying something along the lines of "banning guns wouldn't change anything -- people that want to have one will still find a way!" why wouldn't we at least TRY to make it more difficult? like, sure, people would still find a way, maybe, but why would we keep it legal when there's clearly a difference between rates of gun violence in America, where they are legal, and, say, the United Kingdom, where they are not? there is a clear correlation. even if people still got their hands on them, let's at least restrict / control it a bit.

Esper said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are enacting violence on peaceful gun-owning individuals to take away their guns. And the purpose of this is to reduce violence. So, either way, you have violence.

Please explain how you have the right to take away others' property.

JohnnyMustang said:

When that "property" is something that can take other people's life in a blink and it's one of the main causes of death, I'd define it as a dangerous posession, instead of a property.

Click to expand...

You still haven't explained how you have the right to take their property away. And guns are property, regardless of how "dangerous" they are.

JohnnyMustang said:

You're wrong there. You're assuming that all those crimes were commited by mentally ill people? Not true.

Click to expand...

Sandy Hook: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/n...ms-completely-untreated-report-says.html?_r=0

Denver movie theater shooting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/james-holmes-mental-health-colorado_n_1820450.html

Virginia Tech shooting: http://abcnews.go.com/US/seung-hui-chos-mental-health-records-released/story?id=8278195

Most mass murderers are mentally ill. Only a sadistic human being would even think about mass murder. You can't tell me a normal conscious person would think about mass murder. Look at Charles Manson. Mentally ill mastermind manipulating others to kill for him. Didn't even use guns I believe.

Esper said:

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.

Click to expand...

So only politicians should be protected with guns? The same ones that are anti-gun activists yet they refuse to go out in public without gun protection? Sounds like tyranny to me.
Most gun owners know about proper gun safety.. I'd trust a country boy with a gun over a random person that's not of that culture.. Why? They grew up around guns and learned about gun safety and shit at like age 12. How is that irresponsible? What's irresponsible is giving a gun to some random moron without questioning why he wants or needs a gun. I feel to own a gun it should be a requirement to take evaluation of psychological testings, background checks, and PROPER GUN SAFETY CLASSES! If you qualify and meet all the requirements and pass the class, why shouldn't they be allowed to own a firearm?
I'm going to answer a possible question.. How do you stop children from getting ahold of them? It's easy. PROPER GUN SAFETY!! Buy a safe and lock it up!! Any smart gun owner with children should know this.

Esper said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. That just shows basic lack of logic. Again, ban heroin, crack, meth, etc. You can take the addicts drugs away but that doesn't mean they can't get it. Same with guns.

Kanzler said:

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.

Click to expand...

As Jetfire said.. You're only stripping guns away from law abiding citizens.. why take something away for something a small percentage does? If a majority of the population was killing people that would be different but only a very small percentage are killing people. If anything, it would make home invasions, robberies, rapes, etc easier. Because what's to fear if they know they don't have a gun? See the issues it would bring? Yeah, you reduce murders but you skyrocket other crimes and potentially bring murder rates back up.

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

As Jetfire said.. You're only stripping guns away from law abiding citizens.. why take something away for something a small percentage does? If a majority of the population was killing people that would be different but only a very small percentage are killing people. If anything, it would make home invasions, robberies, rapes, etc easier. Because what's to fear if they know they don't have a gun? See the issues it would bring? Yeah, you reduce murders but you skyrocket other crimes and potentially bring murder rates back up.

Click to expand...

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.

And you can't get rid of all guns in the hands of criminals, of course you can't. Even in Canada we have a shooting every now and then. But you know what? Most of our shootings are done with illegal firearms, but they happen at a fraction of the rate as you have in the United States. And our neighbourhoods are by and large much safer.

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.

Again.. How do you count to 10 while skipping 2? You can't. You guys also seem to ignore the question... Why strip LAW ABIDING CITIZENS guns because of something CRIMINALS or a SMALL PERCENTAGE does? Maybe 5%-15% of gun owner all together commit crimes with them, including criminals. the rest have them for protection or other reasons. So ban hunting as well? Okay, got it. guess we'll ban fishing while we're at it since killing animals is 'inhuman' and force everybody to be a vegetarian. Guess we'll obliterate the military or send them to war without guns because violence can be stopped right? Violence and war is INEVITABLE!!! Let's take away everyones guns and allow politicians to be protected by guns whilst rubbing it in the face of the general public and law abiding citizens. Banning guns would be a slap in the face to an American. what I'm saying is... If I can't have a gun as a law abiding citizen, why should they?

JohnnyMustang said:

Like Esper said, people being irresponsible with guns is reason enough. Doesn't matter if the government is taking away someone's property when the whole nation are killing the **** out of each other.

Click to expand...

Why should I give up my firearm because of the actions of others? I've followed the law every inch of the way. All of my neighbors have firearms too. We're not committing any crimes.

Kanzler said:

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.

Click to expand...

Guess what? This information exists!! Take a stroll through these neighborhoods and I promise you that just based on instinct you can just feel the level of danger. You don't need a scholar to realize. Why don't they do these "raids" there? I obviously live in a better area now. We're all gun owners. Come by my neighborhood and someone might even pass you a beer.

In respect to Canada, you can't compare your country to ours. All of the headlined mass shootings are a very small percentage of the gun violence we have in this country. Like I said before, homicides are the leading cause of deaths in the United States. Where are these killings happening? In gang concentrated areas. Crip vs. Blood, whatever gang is out there.

Jetfire said:

Guess what? This information exists!! Take a stroll through these neighborhoods and I promise you that just based on instinct you can just feel the level of danger. You don't need a scholar to realize. Why don't they do these "raids" there? Come by my neighborhood and someone might even pass you a beer.

Click to expand...

I can guarantee you now if they took a stroll through a neighborhood in St. Louis or Chicago (where I'm from, not currently tho) they'd wish they had a gun on them. They're oblivious to these areas and the danger because they've never witnessed these areas before. Guys, these areas are no joke. You wear the wrong color you have a good chance of being filled with holes GUN OR NO GUN. If you're the wrong color, same. These people dunk bullets daily and those bullets have no names. These streets are filled with uncaged animals. These are the ones committing damn near all the crimes. These people don't give a fuck. They don't value human life. They rep their set and block/projects (whatever you wanna call it), you interfere you'll end up in a body bag. If they find out you're with the ops you have a price on your head and they have connects throughout the country, even some the globe. These are the neighborhoods I'd only feel safe if I was cruising in a humvee wearing a juggernaut suit, I'm dead ass serious. A gun is NECESSARY in these areas.

JohnnyMustang said:

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.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is if I have a gun (I may have one, I'm not telling) , I'm going to kill someone? The only time I'd kill someone is if me or my sister was in danger. If someone broke into my house while I was home they better pray I kill them because I value the life of myself and my sister more than someone that may rape my sister or potentially kill us. If someone raped my sister and I found out who it was, I wouldn't hesistate to bust a whole clip in the motherfucker, he doesn't deserve life in my eyes. He deserves a bullet. I'm in no way a killer, but push me by endangering me or a loved one I will. If you can't understand that then I don't know what else to say. If someone broke into your home (say if you had a sister or child) and they had a gun what would you do? Oh that's right, take the bullet because you can't bring a knife to a gunfight. Or you'd call someone with a GUN. Which by then it would be too late. If you can't understand why one may need a gun then I don't know what else to say.

I would like to bring something up with everybody. This happened awhile back but it's a valid debate. What's your thoughts on this? I think she did the right thing. She had to do what she had to do to protect her child.

JohnnyMustang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well dude, we obviously come from 2 completely different atmospheres. If you can't understand then I don't know what to say either.

I'm not going to even try to understand what you just wrote. If you're in anyway saying that I'm a victim, I am no where near a victim. I've experienced things that no teenager should live through. However, that gave me the strength to live for a better tomorrow and strive for a better future.

JohnnyMustang said:

Like Esper said, people being irresponsible with guns is reason enough. Doesn't matter if the government is taking away someone's property when the whole nation are killing the **** out of each other.

Click to expand...

You haven't stated how people have the right to take away others' property, or explain the contradiction of using violence to take away guns from peaceful citizens to prevent violence.

Gun violence isn't nearly as big of an issue as you think it is. There is no "gun violence" culture in the united states.

JohnnyMustang said:

You said it yourself. Everybody's a potential killer, you just have to push them hard enough and there are plenty of people with a low level of tolerance.

Click to expand...

And there's nothing wrong with that. I justify someone killing someone to protect themselves or their family. Do you feel the same or no?

I have, you just don't want to see it. Regulation is not violence, there's a reason why we have a government and we elect people to represent our nations and do what it's necessary.

Click to expand...

But it would lead to violence. those peaceful victims forced their guns away will force them to take action. You have old vets that wont stand for this bullshit. It would be a blood bath, America isn't like other countries. You take away our rights (ones made by our founding fathers) you'd have a bunch of pissed off people, and I mean A BUNCH. Most likely a revolution and an extremely violent one.

You have no idea dude. The government is to control not protect. the government abuses their power more than anything, they don't give a shit about you. They care about money and power, which leads to tyranny to achieve what they want. Look at Hillary Clinton for example...

No gun violence? Then what do you call the huge amount of people getting killed by guns everyday?

Click to expand...

Reread his post.

I rather rely on myself than the government to protect my immediate family and my loved ones.

With that being said, I respect and admire our military.