Guns need to go...or do they?

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Oh yeah, 'cuz my idea was that everyone should just throw their guns straight out the window as soon as the law was made? How about sending every gun outside law enforcement to termination? Or didn't that thought even strafe you?

Right. You honestly believe that would work?

Banning guns in the US will cause gun crime rates to reach levels even the middle east would go "Holy shit!" at. It is the absolute worst thing you could possibly do. But I don't suppose you'd understand that since you live somewhere where common gun ownership doesn't exist.

Not only that but do you honestly think the crims are going to go "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted!" and hand in their guns? Hell no. They're going to keep their guns, and they're going to go on a robbing spree since now they're the only ones with guns. They're going to burglarize, terrorize, rape, pillage, sack and otherwise take whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want it and there isn't anything left to stop them. They don't care about the law. They'll just break the ban while they're breaking the pre-existing burglary laws. Doesn't phase them at all. "But TestE, what about the police?" Average response time is over ten minutes, a half-way decent burglar is in-and-out in three. Even if the police do catch up later 9 times out of 10 they don't recover a damn thing stolen.

Guns will most likely become even easier to get a hold of if you banned them in the US because the black market won't bother with background checks or anything like that. Not only that but, if all guns are illegal, the only people that own them are going to be the people the ban was enacted to prevent owning them in the first place. I honestly think you underestimate just how many guns are in this country. There's probably more boomsticks than people.

But let's ignore all of that and focus on the economic issues of an outright gun ban in the US. See, guns are one of the few things Americans actually manufacture. And good god do we build a lot of them. That's a lot of skilled Americans that would be thrown into unemployment. It would stagger our economy. Even in the best of economic times an outright ban on guns would absolutely trash the economy. Gun production would plummet and any US firearms company without a government contract would very quickly go bankrupt. With the economy in the shitter already, as it is now, such a ban would likely completely destroy the economy to the point we're back in 1931. If our economy collapses to that point yours will suffer as well, because this shit is all interconnected. If our economy slumps so does everyone else's.

A US weapons ban is the absolute worst thing one could do to combat gun crime in the US. With that being said I'm done. I don't feel like getting into a flame war over it, which I feel is inevitable. I've seen it on other forums, every time gun control comes up people in favor of it always get into a clusterfuck with people against it.

I couldn't be assed to read another one of you people's rants about how guns make everything sparkle with the divine perfectness of God so i'll just say screw you and ignore anyone who tries to change my mind from now on. I've got the flu and i hate arguing with people who can't accept other's opinions or ideas.

 

[Still Life]

Gun laws really, in the end, only hurt honest citizens.

Last time I checked, statistically speaking, gun related homicide was America's (arguably the world's most gung ho state) number one crime. If it isn't number one now, then it is pretty much near the top.

In my experiences with working in the Justice system in Australia, if some prat wants to commit a crime, he/she will, and quite often with disregard for the consequences.

 

[Cazza]

People don't need guns to protect their homes. Common sense like locking doors/windows is enough. A robber would just go else where. You don't need a gun to do that.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Oh dear, there seems to be a lot of the 'I need a gun to protect myself from every other gun out there' mentality. How about this, if it was harder to gain access to a gun (not impossible, but a more strict process, such as background checks, yearly license renewals, strict gun registrations, etc) then people who would normally rob a store becaus they are desparate and have a gun won't, because they don't have a gun. Whereas, if a real criminal, whom would have aquired a gun anyway, decides to rob a joint, having a bunch of 'heroes' try and save people is likely to put the rest of the peopl at risk through sheer stupidity and recklessness. Also, by having a tighter gun control system, it is easier to check who owns what gun, as there are less guns and it is less likely to be mixed up with someone else's down at the local target.

So yeah, sure, let citizens have guns, but make it significantly more difficult for them to do so, that way, if they are a psycholgoically approved, repsonsible individual, then them having a gun won't hurt anyone (and if they do something illegal with the gun, it's fairly easy to track them down). Whereas if they are an ex-bank robber, or have jail time, or whatever, then thye can be denied access, making it harder for the 'high risk' population from getting hold of the 'high risk' weaponry.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

If someone is going to go rob a store and/or shoot someone, they aren't so concerned with the illegal arms charge.

 

[strum4h]

I would definitely have one to protect myself if needed.

 

[danintexas]

If you outlaw all guns do you think criminals will decide to just toss them out?

I have my guns for defense. I also have my guns because going to the rifle range and target shooting is fun.

 

[DeeWiz]

I think that everyone who is anti-gun sees it as normal people getting guns and going vigilante. This is not what the pro-guns are about, it is about the right and freedom it represents and enables.

Please use real world example in arguements. For example Columbia:
"Nearly 14,000 firearms will be melted down on 9 July, International Gun Destruction Day. The event has been organized by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Colombia has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. In 2005, 70% of over 17,000 homicides registered were committed with firearms. Cities registering the highest numbers of legal firearms were also those showing the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, cities with the highest murder rates were those with the lowest number of legal arms. Most homicides in Colombia are connected with the illegal ownership, manufacture and trade of firearms, El Tiempo reports."
http://www.iansa.org/regions/samerica/documents/Colombia_9july07.pdf - A UN report

Basically in a country with the largest murder rate, those places with the most legal guns had the lowest crime rates over those with the lowest legal guns. This is direct evidence to my arguement.
Unfortuantley tried to compare a place like Japan (anti-weapon) to the US does not work becuase it is trying to compare to different societies, and their is no real legitimate way to do that. In a place like the US where the are there are as many different combinations of race, creed, culture, class, and locations as there are stars in the skies does not apply to other nations with only small variations. It is the nature of the human race, where there exist difference there exists conflict. If a person is motivated enough to go kill someone for whatever reason, food, shelter, psycho, etc. the availabilty of a gun vs. any other killing implents including bare hands will not stop them.

For further resaoned discussion please support you statement with at least one citation, other posts will be ignored, flame wars are not my thing, but i dont care about specific gun related crime in that I dont think I care wether or not my family member was murder with a gun or a vegetable peeler, they're still dead. Relative rates are what is statisticaly pertinent here.

I do believe in the citizen controlling the destiny of the nation, not the government (cops and soldiers are part of the government, and yes i was a soldier.) As for just the government having the guns, usually the first thing a totalitarian leader does it disarm its populace thus solidifiy his/her power base. -for an example read anything on Stalin's rise to power and subsequent gun ban in 1929. If the leader is corrupt that means the civil services like police (which are usually disbanded in favor of troops) and federal i.e. army are under control of same corrupt leader.
And yes Americans where just a bunch of civilians with guns during the revolutionary war, and the "Shot heard round the World" was in response to General Gage attempting to disarm the populace - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lexington.htm

So yes I believe any person who would give up their right to the power to protect themselfes from tyranny does not deserve the freedom he/she enjoys that allows them to even have that discussion with fear of the government coming for them in the middle of the night. Please try an tell your views to any person who has lived through those times, go ahead look them in eye while you tell them they do not have the right to determine their own future against a government who had taken away their loved ones and made them live in terror.