Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Faraja]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

You can't exactly walk into a Walmart and buy a full-auto anymore, ya know?

 

[Faraja]

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Yeah, sorry if I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the government taking away my guns.

My God... the paranoia of you Americans is unbelievable. "Iff'n tha gunmernt takes mah shooty-sticks den dey gunna kill us all uh-huh-yup!"

Grow up.

A nation built upon dissent, with the idea of never trusting the government to act in your best interests ever, with a government that's been berated on all sides for doing terrible things, doesn't trust the government? Fucking shocking!

This also just in, 2+2=4!

 

[Flippincrazy]

Okay, some points,
1- It is not just the UK that has banned guns, Australia,(which is roughly the same size as the US by the way) banned its guns years ago, and while the US has more people, it also has a fuckton more police, so, you know per capita versus total and all that. Germany also has much more restrictive laws without flat out banning them, so there is another option. New zealand's laws are focused on the owner rather than the object which is a further option.

2- Criminals do not obey laws, this is true and a fact that is beloved by people who drop smug macros into discussions. However, if we stop and consider the actual ramifications of this, it becomes pretty goddamn irrelevant.
- If someone has an illegal firearm, that is a crime and they can be stopped there and then as opposed to simply letting them walk on.
- It will slow down or limit the permeation of these weapons (not eliminate, no one is claiming that it will eliminate them)
- Someone who fits the profile of a spree killer (isolated, angry, feels like they have been wronged) suddenly aquiring a weapon becomes a bigger red flag and they are more likely to be stopped.
- From what I can see, it is rarely career criminals that conduct these crimes and so average joe blog on the street is unlikely to know where to get a hold of illegal assault weaponry.
- Someone who is in need of mental help, and is likely to commit violent suicide by attacking those near themselves, is less likely to have a weapon to hand when they snap.
- Criminals, are, for the most part, profit motivated human beings. Someone who is already hiding from the law is not going to assist someone who will draw attention to themselves
- Criminals are often quite reasonable and are unlikely to support the person who is likely to gun down more than a dozen children.
- Not all people who commit these crimes use their own weapons, so if their friends and family do not own them, it is harder for the criminal to obtain it.

3- There is no need to immediately ban all guns, that is impractical, what needs to happen is a staged drawdown of firearm ownership, starting with making them illegal to sell, running buybacks and making it clear that, for example, your assault rifle will be illegal in five years time, but you have five years to obtain a weapon more suitable for hunting and will be provided proper training in the storage and security of your remaining weapons.

First of all, thank you for being one of the few on this thread to deal with the "Criminal do not obeys laws" macro, and for being one the few people to present the Gun Control case in a sensible and convincing manner.

But for the sake of enhancing your argument, here are several potential problems. Would you mind addressing the matter of the cultural significance that personal firearms have for many Americans? From what I've heard on the matter, both inside of and outside of this thread, this is no small matter, and thus even a lengthy period of warning on, say, making assault rifles illegal simply would not matter and many would not relinquish their weaponry, which hold great personal value. Also, knowing how many Americans cling to this section of the Second Amendment and pervert it on a level only ever before seen with their ability to warp religious texts, would many not see this as a direct assault on their personal freedom by the Government? Reactionary measures could be a very real danger. Finally, I know several gun owners in the UK and buying the sort of storage units for both weapons and ammo, as required by law, is no cheap matter and thus might add further inflammation to the issue.

I must emphasize that I agree with your argument and all of your points - I'm just poking holes wherever I can to make it as applicable and logical as possible to an American reader, as so far it has been regrettably ignored.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

You know what else bothers me about this whole thing; all this focus on stopping spree killers. It's emotional over-reaction. Spree killers account for what? Like 0.005% of annual firearms deaths in the US? Hell- I'll even take out all the suicides- 0.01%.

Everyone wants to know why the spree killer does it, but when 4 people were shot and killed last week in a home invasion/robbery here in Detroit, nobody gives a rat's ass.

Great point, and pretty much mine. More people dies because of guns in the US outside the CT incident than because of it, and no one cares.

I'm in favor of stricter gun laws because while the spree shooters will still exist, the ability to acquire guns for other purposes will drop, and there will be less gun deaths overall. Look at Norway, spree killer on the 22nd of July still got a hold of military grade weapons, in a country with insane gun control laws, but very low amount of deaths otherwise.

 

[tkioz]

Americans are nuts.

We had a single mass shooting here in Australia in the '90s, and what was the reaction? We tightened our gun laws (they were already tougher then America currently is), people can still own guns (I own several), you're just limited to what you can own and you need a valid reason (sport, pest control, collection) to do so; of which self defense IS NOT accepted as a valid reason (for good bloody reason) and we have some of the lowest gun related crime in the world.

Granted there are some minor technical issues with the laws that I think are silly and need changing (very minor stuff that only gun nuts like myself care about), but overall as a sporting shooter and a firearm owner I support our laws, they work!

You yanks have had how many mass shootings and you're still wringing your hands and allowing people to buy military grade firearms with little to no regulation!

It's plain crazy!

 

[Rastien]

It won't work as there is far to much money in guns in america corperate greed, plus you are in a situation now where people feel the need to have guns to defend themselves because everyone else has guns.

Criminals use guns argument is null here really, compare it to drugs how many of you are actually able to get drugs and know the right people? probably not a great deal, gun's wouldn't even have a recreational use like drugs to be sold illegally.

Whilst i know you can get gun's here in the UK illegally good luck approaching the right people who would sell them to you they would soon as stab you as talk to you. Using the latest example of a socially awkward kid with aspertchers he wouldn't have had the nuts to approach criminals to get his hands on them.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

You can't exactly walk into a Walmart and buy a full-auto anymore, ya know?

No, but the general public can buy full automatic weapons legally. It doesn't matter if it's not at the general store, the fact that it's even possible is fucking ridiculous. And I don't care how well you check out mentally, the average joe should not be able to buy military weaponry.

And wait... "anymore"? You mean it was actually possible at one point to buy full automatic weapons at Wallmart? For Christ's sake...

 

[loa]

Who the hell talks about illegalizing guns?
Obviously people who say "just get rid of guns" are full of it.
That only creates a black market and isn't even physically possible or feasible.

This is about stricter gun regulations.

 

[UltraPic]

I'll have to repeat myself from your other topic, because my point still stands.

Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!

Some fun facts, the u.k has not banned all "guns" and only idiots think that the u.k banned all "guns". And the only reason the ban on most privately owned pistols went through is that so few people owned them in the first place (only an idiot would compare a country that has a big gun culture to one that hasn't and never has).

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

You can't exactly walk into a Walmart and buy a full-auto anymore, ya know?

No, but the general public can buy full automatic weapons legally. It doesn't matter if it's not at the general store, the fact that it's even possible is fucking ridiculous. And I don't care how well you check out mentally, the average joe should not be able to buy military weaponry.

And wait... "anymore"? You mean it was actually possible at one point to buy full automatic weapons at Wallmart? For Christ's sake...

The general public cant buy automatic firearms.

You have to have the authorization of your local LEOs (extremely hard to get, I tried) and then you have to have a government agency COME TO YOUR FUCKING HOUSE to inspect it, and make sure you have secure storage for said weapons, and then you have to be a business and fill out a massive stack of forms and go through several background checks by your local law enforcement, the ATF, and the FBI and then, and only then, can you purchase an automatic weapon that was made BEFORE 1986.

No wonder so many people go "OMAGAD MERICA AND DER GUNS" they dont know what the fuck they are talking about.

Then how the hell did a mother who had a son with obvious mental issues get a clear check by the ATF, and the FB?

I don't care how much paperwork you have to sort through and how many inspections you have to pass, allowing civilians to own automic weapons in their own home is dangerous. If you really, really, REALLY want one it should be kept locked away at the local firing range whenever you're not using it for target practice or cleaning.

 

[Coppernerves]

It looks like there are some guys who reckon guns are needed as a defence against the government going totalitarian on their asses.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it working that way, the government forces have a variety of fully automatic weapons, tanks, artillery, aircraft, body armour,thorough training, and decades of experience fighting insurgents, terrorists, and guerilla armies, from Red Indians, to the Viet Cong, to Al Quaeda.

I still reckon guns are needed in the US for defence against animals and criminals, but guns need to be kept out of the hands of teens, the mentally handicapped, and the insane, through tight regulation of gun transfer, strict storage laws, and tough licensing.

 

[Al77994]

What about redefining what the term "arms" refers too in the constitution to solve the problem.
restricting it to single shot rifles and 6 shot pistols with limits on caliber, times between shot and the limitation of the sale of the bullets which wouldn't fit those weapons (maybe requiring a licence for each specific class of weapon as well as a lengthy training coarse for each).

any suggestions for improvements or explanations of how it won't work?

also wasn't the constitution intended to be modified as times changed, how often are amendments to the constitution passed?, shouldn't the public (everyone) have a vote on it if gun control is such an important issue?

 

[IronMit]

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Yeah, sorry if I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the government taking away my guns.

Sorry since when did the US become a Stalinist dictatorship?

It might as well be a dictatorship. you get to choose between gay marriage, taxes and welfare. Everything else stays the same. Illusion of democracy.
Yeah that's right I went full conspiracy. Never go full conspiracy

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone literally say 'ban all guns', seeing as that's pretty much impossible.

But there's no reason not to stop public access to automatic weapons. You want a gun for home security or to feel save in your neighborhood? Your standard revolver is more than enough to fill that task. You don't need AK-47's, M-16's, or even a 9mm.

Military grade fire arms should be kept out of the public's hands.

But then it's already too late. This whole gun problem in America is just one big fucking vicious circle; "Oh my God, another shooting spree... We should get more guns to protect our selves!"

You can't exactly walk into a Walmart and buy a full-auto anymore, ya know?

No, but the general public can buy full automatic weapons legally. It doesn't matter if it's not at the general store, the fact that it's even possible is fucking ridiculous. And I don't care how well you check out mentally, the average joe should not be able to buy military weaponry.

And wait... "anymore"? You mean it was actually possible at one point to buy full automatic weapons at Wallmart? For Christ's sake...

The general public cant buy automatic firearms.

You have to have the authorization of your local LEOs (extremely hard to get, I tried) and then you have to have a government agency COME TO YOUR FUCKING HOUSE to inspect it, and make sure you have secure storage for said weapons, and then you have to be a business and fill out a massive stack of forms and go through several background checks by your local law enforcement, the ATF, and the FBI and then, and only then, can you purchase an automatic weapon that was made BEFORE 1986.

No wonder so many people go "OMAGAD MERICA AND DER GUNS" they dont know what the fuck they are talking about.

Then how the hell did a mother who had a son with obvious mental issues get a clear check by the ATF, and the FB?

I don't care how much paperwork you have to sort through and how many inspections you have to pass, allowing civilians to own automic weapons in their own home is dangerous. If you really, really, REALLY want one it should be kept locked away at the local firing range whenever you're not using it for target practice or cleaning.

You can't argue against the system with anecdotal scenarios. Systems are ultimately kept and run by people, and people make mistakes, someone is bound to slip the net eventually just to human error alone.

With weapons like this you can't efford to make mistakes.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but this "right to bear arms" stems from a time when guns and rifles were single shot weapons. Technology has advanced drastically. American civilians have the right to protect themselves, sure, but do they have they right to arm themselves with weapons that can kill 30 people in the space of one minute?

Back in the Victorian age duelling for ones honour in a sword fight was legal. But when everyone started carrying a pistol duelling qiuckly became outlawed because too many people were getting killed.