Should the USA ban guns?

[ShinyUmbreon189]

My opinion on this has always been no. But I definitely think there needs to be stricter laws regarding them, just as others have said. My main reason for not banning them is different than the popular opinion, though.

Basically, what I know would happen is that arms trafficking would grow exponentially. Suddenly everyday people, who have no intention of hurting anyone, will be forced to give up their firearms. But violent gang members, murderers and other sorts of criminals would not hesitate to use a black market to obtain the weapons they want. Then the only ones who have guns are the bad guys. The good guys are left vulnerable, not being able to defend themselves from a long range. Unfortunately, a baseball bat can't stop someone who's fifty feet away.

So, unless you want every non-military firearm in the country to belong to a criminal, banning guns is a really bad idea.

Thank you. You're right, it would make it easier to rob, rape, invade someones home, murder, etc because they know they don't have protection so what's to fear? People fear the unknown, even gang bangers. A gang banger isn't just going to break into someones home in a relatively nice neighborhood because they don't know if they'll have a gun or not. If a gang banger knew someone had a gun they'd avoid that person because they know they have a gun and this is one reason why we have guns, protection. Take our guns away, other crimes will sky rocket like never before.

Then the state is responsibly doing its job, even though they could move a little faster.

As I said, I agree with gun control but I'm against gun ban. some people on here (not you) seem to want to ban guns completely and that's not the solution. I'm a law abiding citizen I shouldn't give away my guns for something I didn't do. To be honest, I'll most likely never have to use it to kill somebody, or at least I hope so. I just wish everyone else felt the same with guns but that's obviously not the case. Ones that kill are dangerous in general. I wouldn't trust Charles Manson with a gun.

 

[curiousnathan]

Take our guns away, other crimes will sky rocket like never before.

How do you know this? Because people will have a tantrum and go on crime sprees?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

How do you know this? Because people will have a tantrum and go on crime sprees?

Wow... Jesus Christ it's not that hard to figure out really. It's common sense.. If you leave only criminals with guns that leaves everybody else vulnerable. A law abiding citizen with a firearm can prevent someone from robbing them, can prevent someone from breaking into their home to take their stuff, can prevent someone raping them, can prevent grand theft auto, can prevent getting murdered, etc. If you take away their guns they wont be able to protect themselves from these crimes. Criminals will take advantage of it. They don't now because they fear the unknown, they don't know who does and doesn't have a gun. Everyday a gun saves the life of someone, while someone is murdered as well. Guns have a ying yang to them, there's good and evil involved. You take away the good you leave only the evil.

I'm about to give up on this debate because I'm tired of repeating myself and answering questions a child could answer. Anti gun activists lack logic with firearms. They think if you take guns away from law abiding citizens it will stop criminals from getting them when in reality it would just make it easier for the law abiding citizen to become a victim. Take a knife to a gun fight and let me know how well it goes for you.

 

[Bounsweet]

Livewire nailed everything I wanted to say. I did also find sources that further illustrate exactly how common mass shootings are in this country. Same definition, an instance in which 4+ people are injured.

2016 mass shootings
2015 mass shootings
2014 mass shootings
2013 mass shootings

If you're too lazy to check - for perspective, there has been six mass shootings within the past week (since March 9).

Also relevant, however slightly outdated:

From the Uniform Crime Reports for the United States in 1995:
"As in previous years, firearms were the weapons used in approximately 7 out of every 10 murderes committed in the Nation... Among the remaining weapons, knives or cutting instruments were employed in 13 percent of the murders; personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) in 6 percent; blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) in 5 percent; and other dangerous weapons, such as poison, explosives, etc., in the remainder."

Point being, guns are the leading weapon of choice in crime. When they are so heavily and obviously favored going by the statistics, why is it so difficult for some people to realize that to eliminate that factor from the equation would result in a drop of gun violence entirely?

Do not berate me either with the tirade of "criminals are criminals, they will get the guns anyway, or use other means of destruction" because that is grade school logic. When you have the leading factor eliminated from the situation, then the rate of homicide will drop, period. For example, literally every single other developed country on this entire damn planet.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

Do not berate me either with the tirade of "criminals are criminals, they will get the guns anyway, or use other means of destruction" because that is grade school logic. When you have the leading factor eliminated from the situation, then the rate of homicide will drop, period. For example, literally every single other developed country on this entire damn planet.

You're right, eliminate guns entirely and the problem would easily be solved. However, you don't seem to realize that banning guns does not mean that they will all suddenly vanish into thin air. There are literally more than enough guns for each person in the United States to own one, and a large amount of those are already in the hands of criminals. Putting a ban on them will only make people hide those millions and millions of guns from law enforcement. It won't make the problem go away, it will only make guns much harder to track, because the serial numbers on them will become useless.

 

[Ivysaur]

Living in the EU, where gun ownership is heavily restricted and the crime rates are far lower than in the US (because, go guess, getting guns is harder when you ban them, and trying to kill people with something that is not a gun is much, much harder), the "criminals will get guns anyway" and "if we ban guns, then everybody will start killing each other using literally everything else, even cars or rocks" arguments sound so hilariously stupid to me, because... it's not even a "what if" scenario... it's a matter of looking at how things already work in the rest of the Western world.

Unless you are saying that the US is somehow less civilised than Europe or Australia and their population has such a bloodlust that the best idea is keeping with giving guns to everybody so it remains a "Hunger Games" sort of dystopia where the fastest one to pull the trigger wins, instead of going for the "taking firearms away and educating people so people won't look for other alternatives to kill" route we took here.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

The idea is to leave everyone without guns, and if you see someone with a gun, you imprison them.

If things in the world were as simple as this, there wouldn't be any problems anywhere.

Living in the EU, where gun ownership is heavily restricted and the crime rates are far lower than in the US (because, go guess, getting guns is harder when you ban them, and trying to kill people with something that is not a gun is much, much harder), the "criminals will get guns anyway" and "if we ban guns, then everybody will start killing each other using literally everything else, even cars or rocks" arguments sound so hilariously stupid to me, because... it's not even a "what if" scenario... it's a matter of looking at how things already work in the rest of the Western world.

Unless you are saying that the US is somehow less civilised than Europe or Australia and their population has such a bloodlust that the best idea is keeping with giving guns to everybody so it remains a "Hunger Games" sort of dystopia where the fastest one to pull the trigger wins, instead of going for the "taking firearms away and educating people so people won't look for other alternatives to kill" route we took here.

The problem with your thinking is that you don't understand a lot of Americans. (I don't a lot of times either, and I am one) One huge thing that separates America from the rest of the world is it's overwhelming love for guns and the archaic second amendment. People love hunting, people love target shooting, people love to have them to protect their family. (Though I think that last one is often an excuse) I don't understand why they are like that, and I personally find it to be ridiculous.

In all honesty, I would love for there to be absolutely no guns. It would drop the crime rate, murders would be far more rare, and idiots would stop accidentally shooting themselves cause they don't know what they are doing. But it's just not going to work out that way. Take away peoples precious second amendment, and they might even start a revolution. It's stupid, but so are all those Americans who refuse to put down their firearms.

 

[Somewhere_]

I still do not comprehend how anyone has the right to seize another's property. Can anyone please explain this to me?

This is purely philosophical, not a practicality question btw.

 

[Jetfire]

I'm all for gun reform but against banning them. I don't know how reform would ultimately affect those who don't even follow the law to begin with. But, I'm open to trying.

I've followed the law. I refuse to give up my firearm because of the actions of others. Some people call it an "excuse" but like I previously mentioned, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for a firearm.

 

[Kanzler]

I still do not comprehend how anyone has the right to seize another's property. Can anyone please explain this to me?

This is purely philosophical, not a practicality question btw.

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?

 

[Somewhere_]

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?

Majority rule does not nullify individual consent. The majority does not have the right to my property. And in the same way, a minority does not have the right to the majority's property.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Put it this way.. Put 100 people in a group. All from different areas, all disciplined differently, etc. Give them all a firearm... I bet MAYBE 3 out of that 100 would be unstable and in the mindstate to kill someone with a firearm. That's only 3% being unstable to own a firearm, IF that. The anti gun activists act like all 100 would be dangerous with guns when that's not the case. Jetfire probably hasn't killed anybody, I haven't killed anybody, my grandfather hasn't killed anybody, my sisters bf didn't kill anybody, not all gun owners are killers and most gun owners don't even plan to kill somebody, most wouldn't be able to live with the guilt of taking another life. Most are peaceful human beings. What I'm trying to imply is you can't punish the other 97% for the bad 3%. That's like putting a bowl of candy out in front of 100 kids and saying none can have a piece because 3 are obese therefore taunting them (only politicians/government/law and military would have guns). It's stupid.

 

[Kanzler]

Majority rule does not nullify individual consent. The majority does not have the right to my property. And in the same way, a minority does not have the right to the majority's property.

So if I had an atomic bomb in my backyard, the state has no right to take it away. If I created a stockpile of 2000 nukes, the state still wouldn't have a right to take it away.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

So if I had an atomic bomb in my backyard, the state has no right to take it away. If I created a stockpile of 2000 nukes, the state still wouldn't have a right to take it away.

Now you're just making completely asinine statements. You can't even compare a gun to a fucking bomb or nuke. A nuke would kill millions at once a gun wont. So it's okay to disarm citizens through search and seizure but you're also okay with the government having enough nuclear missiles to blow up the planet numerous times? You're just trying to justify the government raiding homes to seize guns to hopefully reduce violence when the general public doesn't even partake in this violence. You get rid of gang bangers, you get rid of most of the violence in America. Banning guns would only give the gang bangers more power.

 

[Kanzler]

Now you're just making completely asinine statements. You can't even compare a gun to a ****ing bomb or nuke. A nuke would kill millions at once a gun wont. So it's okay to disarm citizens through search and seizure but you're also okay with the government having enough nuclear missiles to blow up the planet numerous times? You're just trying to justify the government raiding homes to seize guns to hopefully reduce violence when the general public doesn't even partake in this violence. You get rid of gang bangers, you get rid of most of the violence in America.

I'm not responding to you, I'm responding to BadSheep, who said he could not understand why anyone has the right to seize other's property. I'm trying to illustrate that when there is a significant public interest that somebody should not possess something, it's okay for the government to take it away.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I'm not responding to you, I'm responding to BadSheep, who said he could not understand why anyone has the right to seize other's property. I'm trying to illustrate that when there is a significant public interest that somebody should not possess something, it's okay for the government to take it away.

I don't care who you're responding to, I'm questioning you and you're avoiding it. A law abiding citizen can't have a gun but you're okay with the government having enough nuclear bombs to blow the planet up numerous times?

Answer my question. So it's okay to disarm citizens through search and seizure but you're also okay with the government having enough nuclear missiles to blow up the planet numerous times? You're just trying to justify the government raiding homes to seize guns to hopefully reduce violence when the general public doesn't even partake in this violence. You get rid of gang bangers, you get rid of most of the violence in America. Banning guns would only give the gang bangers more power.

 

[Somewhere_]

So if I had an atomic bomb in my backyard, the state has no right to take it away. If I created a stockpile of 2000 nukes, the state still wouldn't have a right to take it away.

Government is a group of people preforming actions. These people are just like you and I, and are not exempt from morality. The majority, which is made up of individuals, does not own my property. In the same way, government does not own my property. And individuals cannot delegate rights they do not have- no one has a right to my property, so they have no right to make a government (group of people) take away my property.

The physical object that is my property is irrelevant. Regardless of how ridiculous owning such a think is, it does not explain how someone has the right to my property.

 

[Jetfire]

You talk about your property as if any thing you could possibly own, were 100% exempt of the government's right to take it away from you. That is incorrect; that's the reason why you can't own an atomic bomb, or certain species of animals, or an infinite number of dangerous things that you could possibly own.

What you're listing are illegal and quite possibly unobtainable things. We're talking about the government taking away legal property and obtainable ones. If we're going to use examples, lets use reasonable and realistic ones.

 

[Somewhere_]

You talk about your property as if any thing you could possibly own, were 100% exempt of the government's right to take it away from you. That is incorrect; that's the reason why you can't own an atomic bomb, or certain species of animals, or an infinite number of dangerous things that you could possibly own.

Government does take it away from people. Government does not have the right to take people's legitimately owned property from people. Likewise, a murderer has no right to kill someone, but he just does.

Your logic:
It is incorrect to own an atomic bomb, certain species of animals, other dangerous things because the government takes them away from me or prevents me from legitimately owning them.

If I got that correct, then that is illogical. I can take away, say, your T-shirt collection. If I take all T-shirts from you and prevent you from buying more T-shirts, that means you have no right to a T-shirt? I never owned your T-shirt collection, nor do I have the right to prevent you from buying more T-shirts, or acquiring them some other way.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't care who you're responding to, I'm questioning you and you're avoiding it. A law abiding citizen can't have a gun but you're okay with the government having enough nuclear bombs to blow the planet up numerous times?

Answer my question. So it's okay to disarm citizens through search and seizure but you're also okay with the government having enough nuclear missiles to blow up the planet numerous times? You're just trying to justify the government raiding homes to seize guns to hopefully reduce violence when the general public doesn't even partake in this violence. You get rid of gang bangers, you get rid of most of the violence in America. Banning guns would only give the gang bangers more power.

1) I never said that law abiding citizens can't have a gun. I haven't even been addressing the core question of this thread. What I am addressing is loopy logic from the pro-gun side. Forgive me if you mistook my examples as an expression of my belief on the topic.

2) I agree that we have to reduce violent crime in the country. I never justified that the government should raid homes to seize guns - I said that is what should happen if you ban guns, because you want to remove legally and illegally owned guns. The point is if you're going to do something, might as well do it right.

3) I hope you're satisfied with my answer. I'm going to say once again that I was not talking to you, I was addressing someone else's point.

Government is a group of people preforming actions. These people are just like you and I, and are not exempt from morality. The majority, which is made up of individuals, does not own my property. In the same way, government does not own my property. And individuals cannot delegate rights they do not have- no one has a right to my property, so they have no right to make a government (group of people) take away my property.

The physical object that is my property is irrelevant. Regardless of how ridiculous owning such a think is, it does not explain how someone has the right to my property.

Then answer me this: If I had 300 atomic bombs, an industrial container full of Ebola, or even a squirrel vaporizer in my backyard, does the government have the right to take away my property?