Should guns be banned?

WISD0MTREE · July 23, 2015

Hell, the notion that if you don't let people carry guns the government will become tyrannical and oppress everyone is laughable. Only in the United States could someone have so little trust in their government (which consists of people, just like you) and believe anything that ridiculous. It's just paranoia and narrow-mindedness running amok.

In my country the police don't carry guns, gun control is strict, and you cannot bring knives out in public. We have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and violent crime with weapons pretty much never happen. In the United States, where many states have very liberal gun laws you have one of the highest murder rates and violent crime rates in the entire world.

And yet, you still cling onto the idea that letting people own guns makes your society safer. It's almost like some kind of joke. "Hey guys, we have a problem with violent crime and murder in our country so obviously to have less shootings and violent crime, more people should carry guns! What could possibly go wrong?!"

Only in the United States can the government write a 500+ page paper on a weather balloon crash and censor over half of it.

Which country?

Would you rather be able to defend yourself or let the government protect you with its all watching eye?

Big Brother · July 23, 2015

Let's just say I'm from the glorious utopia of Scandinavia

I'm perfectly content with the government protecting me, through the police and the military. This so called "all watching eye" is not something that has any basis in reality, and I would argue it's a result of paranoia and unfounded mistrust.

I would rather live in a society where guns are controlled and violent crime is fought efficiently, than a society where regular people are forced to arm themselves in order to be safe.

Doktor Avalanche · July 23, 2015

This is so stupid. The solution to fighting criminals with guns is not giving everyone else guns so they can shoot back. More guns will only cause more violence, you'll have bands of "good guys" having shootouts with "bad guys" in the streets.

The real problem is that criminals have a lot of guns, and the solution is taking those guns away from the criminals who possess them, not giving everyone else the right to bear arms so they can shoot them back. It's just complete and utter nonsense, but I do realize you people who actually believe in that nonsense will never ever see the light.

Hell, the notion that if you don't let people carry guns the government will become tyrannical and oppress everyone is laughable. Only in the United States could someone have so little trust in their government (which consists of people, just like you) and believe anything that ridiculous. It's just paranoia and narrow-mindedness running amok.

In my country the police don't carry guns, gun control is strict, and you cannot bring knives out in public. We have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and violent crime with weapons pretty much never happen. In the United States, where many states have very liberal gun laws you have one of the highest murder rates and violent crime rates in the entire world.

And yet, you still cling onto the idea that letting people own guns makes your society safer. It's almost like some kind of joke. "Hey guys, we have a problem with violent crime and murder in our country so obviously to have less shootings and violent crime, more people should carry guns! What could possibly go wrong?!"

But hey, if you really want to cling onto your guns so much, go right ahead. It's more amusing for the rest of us that way.

Technically the rate for violent crimes globally, the most violent nations are found in Africa and South America. The US has the highest crime rate, but the rates are more along the lines of drug use/possession/misdemeanors, which is starting to go down due to progressive policies opening up towards allowing possession of narcotics.

Damn I had something funny to say but instead, you are not British.

Edited July 23, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

saeton · July 23, 2015

This is so stupid. The solution to fighting criminals with guns is not giving everyone else guns so they can shoot back. More guns will only cause more violence, you'll have bands of "good guys" having shootouts with "bad guys" in the streets.

Do you think the US is some wild west movie? The only shootouts here are between police and criminals, and gangs vs other gangs.

I have never seen a shoot out in my life, but I guarantee you that if someone started shooting at me, I'd be pretty damn glad that I carry protection and will be able to shoot back.

Kevin D · July 23, 2015

"The best defence against a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" - NRA

"The worst defence against a bad guy with a gun, is a broomstick" Any Republican

Big Brother · July 23, 2015

Do you think the US is some wild west movie? The only shootouts here are between police and criminals, and gangs vs other gangs.

I have never seen a shoot out in my life, but I guarantee you that if someone started shooting at me, I'd be pretty damn glad that I carry protection and will be able to shoot back.

Well, I didn't say that's what it's like currently, only that that's what you'll end up with. I'd be more glad if no one started shooting at me in the first place.

Kevin D · July 23, 2015

Criminals can get guns illegally too, u know.

July 23, 2015

Guns should only be carried by minorities to protect us from right wing, slack jawed yokels.

guns are used by police offficers to shot minorities, look at all the times white police officers have shot black people

Braunsberg · July 23, 2015

Let's just say I'm from the glorious utopia of Scandinavia

I'm perfectly content with the government protecting me, through the police and the military. This so called "all watching eye" is not something that has any basis in reality, and I would argue it's a result of paranoia and unfounded mistrust.

I would rather live in a society where guns are controlled and violent crime is fought efficiently, than a society where regular people are forced to arm themselves in order to be safe.

For the record, I find the US government considerably less reliable than the governments of northern Europe. In comparison with politicians there, politicians in the United States have less education and are much more concerned with empowering their ideology than with simply doing their job as a civil servant. While some decisions do require a stance of opinion, many, many political decisions can be made simply by using data and numerical evidence. There is also the problem of abuse by the police in certain areas; overall I certainly trust the police force, but this doesn't mean very shocking abuses don't happen, and they're more common nowadays than they should be.

I'm not in favor of a complete gun ban, but I do support full gun registration. Criminals will still be capable of acquiring guns in some instances, but for the most part a strict and complete registration process would help prevent potential criminals from buying firearms while allowing responsible citizens to own them. But I don't think that should justify anyone's so-called "right" to carry guns wherever they want to go - perhaps even concealed carrying, although I'm mixed-opinion on that.

Do you think the US is some wild west movie? The only shootouts here are between police and criminals, and gangs vs other gangs.

I have never seen a shoot out in my life, but I guarantee you that if someone started shooting at me, I'd be pretty damn glad that I carry protection and will be able to shoot back.

Here is where the "good guys with guns" can be problematic. In a scenario when a criminal starts shooting, there would of course be a good reason to fire back in order to keep even more violence from occurring. However, many gun advocates believe it is proper to use a firearm in any criminal situation, and that is very, very unwise. In most cases when a criminal is armed, they do not use the weapon to wound or kill, but simply to intimidate to get what they want - in situations when the criminal doesn't fire, pulling a gun out yourself could easily start violence and end with deaths and injuries that would not have occurred otherwise.

In essence, in some situations armed citizens can help where the police are unable to reach the scene quickly enough. But in the vast majority of cases, guns only complicate the problem, and if you consider all such situations in total, teaching everyone to be tough good guys would probably end up provoking more deaths from violence, rather than decreasing them.

Adama · July 23, 2015

Let's just say I'm from the glorious utopia of Scandinavia

I'm perfectly content with the government protecting me, through the police and the military. This so called "all watching eye" is not something that has any basis in reality, and I would argue it's a result of paranoia and unfounded mistrust.

I would rather live in a society where guns are controlled and violent crime is fought efficiently, than a society where regular people are forced to arm themselves in order to be safe.

Not sure if you are trolling or not; but in the case you aren't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_secret_police_organizations

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality_in_the_United_States

----

The 20th century is filled with examples of governments turning on their people. And if you think its all something of the past then you need to look a little closer and realize we have had genocides all the way up to the turn of the century, such as in East Timor, Rwanda and Bosnia. And while not all of these genocides were directly the results of governments inflicting harm on their people, most of them were. Every nation is different, and I am not someone who thinks we're going to see the US government trying to harm its own people anytime soon on a mass scale, though we see countless small incidents daily where this is happening and where our rights are being ignored.

There are many factors that go into maintaining good governance, and having guns isn't at the top of the list, but it is on the list as a tool to maintain accountability when everything else goes sour. I agree with background checks and common sense gun reform, but the idea that governments can never turn bad is hilariously preposterous. When the government stops being unaccountable to you, you start being accountable to them.

July 23, 2015

the american athiest goverment plans to ban guns and then use their police force to commit genocide of christian black people you can already see that starting now

The Governor · July 23, 2015

the american athiest goverment plans to ban guns and then use their police force to commit genocide of christian black people you can already see that starting now

Braunsberg · July 23, 2015

the american athiest goverment plans to ban guns and then use their police force to commit genocide of christian black people you can already see that starting now

Right now the American government, especially Congress, is filled with more evangelists than it has been since like 1970.

The police force is also not committing "genocide" against anybody. In some areas they are certainly not playing fair with African Americans, but they definitely aren't laying a hard finger on Christians anywhere.

Besides, I hear that God's getting ready to wipe America clean anyway, now that we allow gay marriage.

Bored now Leafing · July 23, 2015

Yes, ban guns so we can have a rerun of 1776 after all there is not enough people getting killed by there government this century we are going to have to work hard to beat the record set last century might as well get started off with a bang.

Big Brother · July 23, 2015

The 20th century is filled with examples of governments turning on their people. And if you think its all something of the past then you need to look a little closer and realize we have had genocides all the way up to the turn of the century, such as in East Timor, Rwanda and Bosnia. And while not all of these genocides were directly the results of governments inflicting harm on their people, most of them were. Every nation is different, and I am not someone who thinks we're going to see the US government trying to harm its own people anytime soon on a mass scale, though we see countless small incidents daily where this is happening and where our rights are being ignored.

There are many factors that go into maintaining good governance, and having guns isn't at the top of the list, but it is on the list as a tool to maintain accountability when everything else goes sour. I agree with background checks and common sense gun reform, but the idea that governments can never turn bad is hilariously preposterous. When the government stops being unaccountable to you, you start being accountable to them.

And the 20th century is also filled with examples of governments that haven't turned on its people. Regardless, the answer isn't to turn to violence and start an insurgency or civil war against your government. Peaceful movements have been shown to be far more effective at facilitating change and once you take up arms against your government, it's far more easy for them to justify shooting you back, while once your government takes up arms against its people, it has already lost.

I never claimed that governments are incapable of "turning bad", only that I believe it to be incredibly unlikely to happen in the Western world, in the 21st century.

A society that requires its citizens to arm themselves to ensure their own safety is a flawed society and it's also very much like treating the symptoms of a disease when you should be curing the disease itself.

WISD0MTREE · July 24, 2015

Let's just say I'm from the glorious utopia of Scandinavia

I'm perfectly content with the government protecting me, through the police and the military. This so called "all watching eye" is not something that has any basis in reality, and I would argue it's a result of paranoia and unfounded mistrust.

I would rather live in a society where guns are controlled and violent crime is fought efficiently, than a society where regular people are forced to arm themselves in order to be safe.

Not very specific... Okay, then.

So I shouldn't be paranoid about a huge paper on a weather balloon that the gubbament won't let us see? I mean, it's just a weather balloon that crashed...

Guns are controlled here, but not efficiently. If I lived in NYC, I could rent an apartment somewhere else to buy a gun that is banned in NYC. Also, I made a 59 round magazine in my garage from two 30 round magazines. Why ban something that you can make in like 10 minutes? If waiting periods are to prevent suicides, then why do I have to wait if I already have other guns that I could blow my brains out with? Why are guns banned by name and not features? According to this list, I can't get an HK-91, but I could get a PTR-91. They are almost exactly the same gun, but made by different companies. (I couldn't find the actual list, since it 404s on me. That list could be wrong, but my point remains.)