Should guns be banned?

[Nordland II]

This thread is about debate about if guns should be banned. I am mostly referring to the United States. 

 

I am personally in favor of banning all firearms from regular citizens and allowing the police to do their job. Maybe we could give the police more funding and weapons as well. 

 

When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment they did not think we would have guns such as the AR-15 (Assault Rifle 15) or the FAMAS. They only imagined that people would use muskets to hunt bears with. Obviously since the second amendment is about hunting, and assault rifles will blow the animal to bits, they should be banned because they serve no use. 

 

Look at how many people were killed in sandy hook, if only we had universal background checks the shooter would have been stopped. I propose that all guns be banned except muskets, which will require a license. 

 

Take these assault weapons of the the streets, like the dangerous Mosin Nagant, or "moist nugget" as some criminal gangs call it. Invented in Russia as a HIGH POWER MILITARY RIFLE known for its ability to shoot down planes.

 

Think of the children and ban guns.

[Obongo the Paultifex]

I completely agree. All these crazy right-wing gun nuts are destroying this nation. The NRA is just a freak show of gun-toting ignoramuses that have the audacity to say that adding more of the problem to the situation would remedy the situation.

[Viking_Swan]

Flamebait post redacted. Please follow the rules. http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

Sheepy

[Alex]

Not a right wing nut at all here, in fact I'd consider myself very moderate. However, I live in Montana, and while I see the good intent in banning guns especially in urban areas, I don't think it's the correct path to take. I firmly believe in our civil rights and while Sandy Hook was a tragedy I don't believe it's an excuse to take away our rights. The same people you think that only the police should have guns tend to be the same as the ones who think the NSA should be allowed unrestricted surveillance.

 

I believe in the right to privacy and the right to bear arms. I digress, however. There is an ongoing trend of shifting the responsibility of people from themselves to the "system". People are becoming dependent on the government and I don't think it's right to rely solely on the police to protect you. I live 10+ miles from the nearest police station, if someone breaks in to my house and I don't have a gun I'm probably going to get shot and/or killed along with my family. Doesn't sound fun to me.

 

I think that majority of the problem is that people are just uneducated and don't know anything about guns. They don't understand that power that they hold because they've never been around them. Around here, people learn to shoot guns at an early age and obviously everyone makes sure that kids know not to !@#$ around with guns. I think kids in urban areas lack that experience. It's important that people can be individuals and take care of themselves, if you rely on someone else as soon that someone else turns against you or isn't there you're going to fall apart. I think that gun skills along with a lot of other basic skills, cooking, cleaning, etc. are important to learn at a young age and simply relying on your parents to take care of you and do everything is really bad for you, it creates a sense of laziness and lack of work ethic. It's important to stress the value in working to achieve things instead of just having them handed to you.

 

Basically, dependence on the government is bad. School shootings or any shootings are also bad. I think that the answer isn't in taking guns away, but teaching people to be responsible with guns. The power should lie in the people, not the government.

 

Tl;dr - Gun rights are important. Don't take away my guns.

[Nordland II]

You might "need" guns. But do you need an assault weapon? They have no practical use except for criminals to shoot up people with 30 round assault clips. 

[Unkajo]

all it would do is take guns out of the law abiding citizens

[Obongo the Paultifex]

all it would do is take guns out of the law abiding citizens

But are not a reasonable portion of gun-related injury and deaths due to the negligence of these same law-abiding citizens? Not every gun-related death has gang members involved, you know.

[Alex]

You might "need" guns. But do you need an assault weapon? They have no practical use except for criminals to shoot up people with 30 round assault clips. 

 

You might think I'm crazy, but again, I know many people that have AR-15's and none of them have gone on any killing sprees. I support allowing these weapons to be possessed for a couple of reasons, things that you might think are outlandish (and I do as well) but I think are still important to precaution against.

 

Firstly, if we were ever to be invaded, an armed civilian force might be the difference between a successful invasion and a failed invasion. Yes, America is the #1 nation is the world, but still even in WW2 (70 years ago) there was a threat of Germany taking over Britain and then possibly the United States, as well as a large scale invasion by Japan. Japan did in fact invade parts of Alaska. It seems far fetched but who knows what could happen in the future, it's not impossible.

 

Secondly, if we were threatened by our own government, assault rifles would make it a great deal easier to overthrow them. If we truly want power to the people, we should not be taking away our power. The right to defend yourself is important, I believe.

 

I'd be okay with further background checks before assault rifles like AR-15s can be purchased, and there should be some regulations like if your kid sees your assault rifle lying around on the couch and goes and kills 10 people with it you should probably go to jail for being so irresponsible. But you shouldn't ban them outright, no.

 

all it would do is take guns out of the law abiding citizens

But are not a reasonable portion of gun-related injury and deaths due to the negligence of these same law-abiding citizens? Not every gun-related death has gang members involved, you know.

 

 

Like I said, increased education about gun use and skills would prevent these instances.

[Hereno]

I think asking "why shouldn't this be illegal?" is a dumb position to go down. Things are legal by default; until a government makes a law saying that something is illegal and then enforcing that law on the population.

[Nordland II]

But civilians and normal people aren't trained like the military to defend our country. You wouldn't trust a random person to run around and be a doctor would you? If people want to defend our country they could join the national guard. 

 

We can't just allow people that are untrained to have these dangerous weapons. 

[Unkajo]

But civilians and normal people aren't trained like the military to defend our country. You wouldn't trust a random person to run around and be a doctor would you? If people want to defend our country they could join the national guard. 

 

We can't just allow people that are untrained to have these dangerous weapons. 

id like to see the government try to take them

[Hereno]

But civilians and normal people aren't trained like the military to defend our country. You wouldn't trust a random person to run around and be a doctor would you? If people want to defend our country they could join the national guard. 

 

We can't just allow people that are untrained to have these dangerous weapons.

Guns are much more lethal in trained hands than in untrained hands. If someone is going to go on a shooting spree, you want it to be someone without any firearms training; not some ex-marine sharpshooter.

[Kurdy]

 

But civilians and normal people aren't trained like the military to defend our country. You wouldn't trust a random person to run around and be a doctor would you? If people want to defend our country they could join the national guard. 

 

We can't just allow people that are untrained to have these dangerous weapons.

Guns are much more lethal in trained hands than in untrained hands. If someone is going to go on a shooting spree, you want it to be someone without any firearms training; not some ex-marine sharpshooter.

 

 

A gun is lethal no matter what training. A bullet does serious damage whether or not you've been trained to use it or not. To be honest, I'd rather not be around anyone who is going to go on a shooting spree. The true solution to this problem isn't prohibition - which has rarely worked on either alcohol or drugs - it's a change in society and social policy.

[WISD0MTREE]

Banning assault rifles will do NOTHING without BOARDER PATROL!!! If I tried to smuggle 100 weapons in cargo ships, only 5 would get caught. If I tried running 66 across the boarder with Mexico, 1 would get caught. 

 

Blaming guns for deaths would be blaming planes for 9/11, or blaming video games for blood clots. So, we need to enforce our laws (before this blew up and got a million executive orders) better. 

 

Banning guns is an invitation to let the gov. oppress you because you have no way to fight back. That is why when kids fight, it is usually some kids against a nerd because they know the nerd won't fight back. This is why George Washington put that in the Constitution. Constitution outdated? So is the law preventing murder outdated, too? We even update the Constitution to make it still relevant. Saying we can't own a type of weapon would be like saying you can only practice a type of religion. 

 

http://www.genocidewatch.org/

Look at the Central African Republic. What if the people were armed? Then they could have a government that they like. Sure, people would die, but that will always happen. And less people would die, since they can fight back. 

 

Now, you say think about the children. I AM thinking about the children. I don't want them to be speaking Korean and becoming Kim Sung Il Jun IV's (random name) slave. Now, I know that the US Military could handle N. Korea and day, but if every country that had any of our debt to collect came and attacked us, what would happen then? Now, we know that China wouldn't attack us because we produce most of their food, unless they can take over the food production ASAP. Now, if the people have assault weapons, we could help the Military when this happens (http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Trade Numbers close to the bottom and look at our military's budget decrease). The fact that the people were armed was why Japan didn't attack the mainland in WWII. 

 

There is actually already a ban on assault rifles, and has had one since 1934. What you are wanting banned are rifles. An assault rifle is a rifle that can fire intermediate powered cartridges on selective fire. So you guys want to ban a gun that looks like another gun. So, should my golf video be illegal because it teaches the same thing as another, just in a different way? 

 

Handguns kill people, too! They are also more concealable. Is Chicago safe? It is more than twice as likely to be killed there than in the Army in Iraq ans Afghanistan. 3,371 people in Chicago were shot. Only 37 were killed with rifles (less than 1%). So you say rifles are too dangerous? So a Glock .40 cal. is only a little dangerous? All guns are deadly in the wrong hands, so don't let mentally unstable get them. We had good gun laws before Obama, we just needed to enforce them better. 

 

JOBS!!! No, not Steve. Gun makers employ 184,000 people in America, and average $45,000 a year. A ban on rifles would lay off about 50,000 of these people. But, we don't need jobs, I guess... 

http://iget2work.com/unemploymentclock.html

 

One ban leads to another, so we would end up without pressure cookers, and less jobs. 

[Grillick]

More than six out of every ten handgun deaths in the United States are suicides.  Handguns are the real problem, not rifles.

 

Studies have shown that when a particular method of suicide is made more difficult, alternative methods do not increase.  Suicide is often an impulsive activity, and those who attempt it, and are thwarted, are unlikely to attempt it again.

 

Therefore, removing handguns from private homes will reduce handgun deaths by more than 50%.  That alone is reason to support it.

[WISD0MTREE]

More than six out of every ten handgun deaths in the United States are suicides.  Handguns are the real problem, not rifles.

 

Studies have shown that when a particular method of suicide is made more difficult, alternative methods do not increase.  Suicide is often an impulsive activity, and those who attempt it, and are thwarted, are unlikely to attempt it again.

 

Therefore, removing handguns from private homes will reduce handgun deaths by more than 50%.  That alone is reason to support it.

But handguns save more lives. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya2Kx9qSa_g

 

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year, or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Firearm suicides

• Number of deaths: 19,392
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.3

[Grillick]

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year, or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 

 

Mischaracterizes the evidence.  This study shows that firearms were used only about 2.1 million times per year from 1988 to 1993 in defense against crime generally.  It does not say it is used that many times in defense of one's life.  In fact, over 60% of these instances are used in defense of crimes against property.  More than half of them involved an unarmed perpetrator.  46.8% of them involved a perpetrator who did not even threaten the "victim."

 

Forgive me if I don't think this justifies putting handguns into homes.  It seems to me that most of these people would have been just as likely to successfully defend themselves and their homes from crime by brandishing a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or even a bottle.

[WISD0MTREE]

 

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year, or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 

 

Mischaracterizes the evidence.  This study shows that firearms were used only about 2.1 million times per year from 1988 to 1993 in defense against crime generally.  It does not say it is used that many times in defense of one's life.  In fact, over 60% of these instances are used in defense of crimes against property.  More than half of them involved an unarmed perpetrator.  46.8% of them involved a perpetrator who did not even threaten the "victim."

 

Forgive me if I don't think this justifies putting handguns into homes.  It seems to me that most of these people would have been just as likely to successfully defend themselves and their homes from crime by brandishing a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or even a bottle.

 

So, let me get this straight. You don't want to hurt someone breaking into your house with a gun, but you want to stab him to death with a bottle and give them a concussion with a baseball bat? What else do you want? Inmates to get surgery to become a transgender from taxpayer dollars? 

 

Look, if you want to get your house robbed, go ahead. I'm keeping my shotgun, or die trying. 

[Hereno]

So, let me get this straight. You don't want to hurt someone breaking into your house with a gun, but you want to stab him to death with a bottle and give them a concussion with a baseball bat? What else do you want? Inmates to get surgery to become a transgender from taxpayer dollars? 

 

Look, if you want to get your house robbed, go ahead. I'm keeping my shotgun, or die trying.

I'm all about being anti-government and pro-bearing arms, but somewhere between the "items are more valuable than people" and transphobia you've lost me entirely.

[WISD0MTREE]

 

So, let me get this straight. You don't want to hurt someone breaking into your house with a gun, but you want to stab him to death with a bottle and give them a concussion with a baseball bat? What else do you want? Inmates to get surgery to become a transgender from taxpayer dollars? 

 

Look, if you want to get your house robbed, go ahead. I'm keeping my shotgun, or die trying.

I'm all about being anti-government and pro-bearing arms, but somewhere between the "items are more valuable than people" and transphobia you've lost me entirely.

 

Who knows, the guy breaking into my house could be a hitman from a cartel trying to kill me for supporting the requirement of IDs to vote. Doubtful, but could be. 

 

Items are more valuable than people. So, would you save a blind man from walking into a street or save a blood truck that crashed? The blood truck will save more people, but it's an item.  

[Hereno]

 

 

So, let me get this straight. You don't want to hurt someone breaking into your house with a gun, but you want to stab him to death with a bottle and give them a concussion with a baseball bat? What else do you want? Inmates to get surgery to become a transgender from taxpayer dollars? 

 

Look, if you want to get your house robbed, go ahead. I'm keeping my shotgun, or die trying.

I'm all about being anti-government and pro-bearing arms, but somewhere between the "items are more valuable than people" and transphobia you've lost me entirely.

 

Who knows, the guy breaking into my house could be a hitman from a cartel trying to kill me for supporting the requirement of IDs to vote. Doubtful, but could be. 

 

Items are more valuable than people. So, would you save a blind man from walking into a street or save a blood truck that crashed? The blood truck will save more people, but it's an item.

 

The blood in the truck is only valuable because it can save human lives. If you can only think of objects being more important than people in situations where the large value of the object is derived from its ability to assist in sustaining human life, that's pretty much proving my point in and of itself.

 

Killing someone who is trying to destroy a truck full of blood headed for a hospital is one thing. It is another entirely to suggest lethal force be used to defend a television. You would be better off sticking to the point that home invaders often use or threaten to use lethal force, as pretty much everyone sans Gandhi is content with defending yourself.

 

The point gets interesting when we talk about, say, the moral grey area in which a person might kill someone for trying to burn down a library or destroy irreplaceable artifacts that could be of great use to us in one way or another. Of course, I'm not in favor of the "gun control" being suggested in this thread, either. I just thought you made a really weak counter-argument.

[WISD0MTREE]

The blood in the truck is only valuable because it can save human lives. If you can only think of objects being more important than people in situations where the large value of the object is derived from its ability to assist in sustaining human life, that's pretty much proving my point in and of itself.

 

Killing someone who is trying to destroy a truck full of blood headed for a hospital is one thing. It is another entirely to suggest lethal force be used to defend a television. You would be better off sticking to the point that home invaders often use or threaten to use lethal force, as pretty much everyone sans Gandhi is content with defending yourself.

 

The point gets interesting when we talk about, say, the moral grey area in which a person might kill someone for trying to burn down a library or destroy irreplaceable artifacts that could be of great use to us in one way or another. Of course, I'm not in favor of the "gun control" being suggested in this thread, either. I just thought you made a really weak counter-argument.

 

I'm sorry. Next time someone breaks into my house and I am legally allowed to kill him, I'll charge him with a box of Cheerios.

 

Nah. If someone breaks in, he could be trying to start a fire for all I know. I'll send him to hell and back. 

 

1. Innocent's lives

2. My guns and rights

3. My stuff

4. Someone's life who is breaking the law

[TheGreatManColter]

ur mum should be b& lol

[Grillick]

I'm sorry. Next time someone breaks into my house and I am legally allowed to kill him

 

You accurately describe the law in most states here, but I question the legitimacy of this premise regardless.  If an unarmed person enters your home without your permission, there is no reason this should mean s/he deserves to die.

[WISD0MTREE]

 

I'm sorry. Next time someone breaks into my house and I am legally allowed to kill him

 

You accurately describe the law in most states here, but I question the legitimacy of this premise regardless.  If an unarmed person enters your home without your permission, there is no reason this should mean s/he deserves to die.

 

They COULD be armed. That is why we have CONCEALED CARRY. Pistols fit in your back pocket. Nobody ever sees it, unless it has a flashlight, laser, and a scope.