Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Vegosiux]

Here's statistic for you. States with the least restrictions tends to have less crime, in general to the states that have the most restrictions. Mass shooting sprees have occurred in areas with the most restrictions than those that has the less. Oh when shooting occurs, on average when the police arrive you'll have a death total of 14.2 deaths, compare to Concealed carry who averages at 2.3 deaths. Seems like we need less gun control, not more to me.

Source please. Not saying you're pulling the numbers out of your ass or cherry-picking, but for all everyone that's not you knows, you might be. So let's see those numbers at the source so we can put them in context and discuss them.

 

[Cyfu]

You need to go to another country.

Banning all guns in the US at one point will just make this point stand out more:

Yes, we should just get rid of laws all together because obviously they don't work.

 

[Xanex]

Remember when the US outlawed alcohol? It didn't work. Every one who wanted it could still get it.

Has the US been at all successful in ridding the country of illegal drugs in the last 30 years? Not even close. The "drug war" is a joke. Anyone who wants it can get it.

How is outlawing guns going to fix anything when the US has failed so spectacularly every time it outlaws something?

 

[Bailos]

-wonka-

Again, I'm going to slap this one on here.

You don't win an argument with a quickmeme generator, and if "But criminals will always break laws because they're criminals!" is all you have to say for your case, maybe you should stand aside and let people who actually make good points speak for that case, as you're doing it a disservice.

A guy stabbed an old woman and 22 children in China that very same day. For the record.

 

[Vegosiux]

A guy stabbed an old woman and 22 women in China that very same day. For the record.

None of which died. So the problem with that Wonka is that it doesn't say "stab to death" instead of "stab", while it does talk about "killing" to begin with.

That, and it's a bloody "Condescending Wonka" presented as an argument, which I'd never have done to actually make an argument (was posted merely as "on level" counter-nonsense).

 

[Xanex]

A guy stabbed an old woman and 22 women in China that very same day. For the record.

None of which died. So the problem with that Wonka is that it doesn't say "stab to death" instead of "stab", while it does talk about "killing" to begin with.

Because the goal was not killing. The reported goal was mutilation. If the guy wanted to kill, he very well could have.

 

[Vegosiux]

A guy stabbed an old woman and 22 women in China that very same day. For the record.

None of which died. So the problem with that Wonka is that it doesn't say "stab to death" instead of "stab", while it does talk about "killing" to begin with.

Because the goal was not killing. The reported goal was mutilation. If the guy wanted to kill, he very well could have.

Well, we were kind of talking about "killing". Also, just throwing this out there, but...are people seriously trying to insinuate that USA will turn into China if the gun laws get just a tiny bit stricter?

 

[KiloFox]

y'know, 2 the Ranting Gryphon did a stint on guns and gun laws. namely on how banning a weapon is pointless, and how putting the blame on a weapon rather than the person USING the weapon is a incredibly stupid act. for as long as there are more than 2 people in the world, SOMEONE will want to kill, hurt, maim, or whatever, SOMEONE ELSE. and they will FIND a way to do it. take away guns, and they'll just use something else, take that away, and they'll use something else. eventually you have everything banned because "it could be used as a weapon to kill people" but wait, you can still kill people with your hands! so what're we gonna do? chop off everyone's hands too so they can't beat each other to death with their fists?

you know what would solve gun problems? if EVERYONE had a gun, and was trained on how to use it. you can bet your ass that any gunman will think twice about opening fire when EVERYONE is armed.

 

[CAMDAWG]

As an Australian who strongly favours gun restrictions, as most of us do, I just want to take the opportunity to say that anyone suggesting a total ban, enacted tomorrow, across the entire US is just stupid, or facetious. No one who has thought about the issue for more than 20 seconds should be espousing that idea. It's lunacy.

But something needs to be done to set in motion changes that slow down how fast you guys are killing each other. As someone else said, it's not just these spree killers that are significant, although they get all the spotlight, people are being shot and killed far too frequently in the US for it to just be accepted.

Also, with the stupid second amendment. Can you please look at that in context? The thing was written when a firearm meant a long gun, single shot, that took longer to reload than it would take to build a new one from scratch, and when the country was still young, and nowhere near as stable as it is now, and certainly not the global power. It's ~220 years old. It's not going to be universally appropriate for all time, and the way so many Americans (or at least the ones who get news coverage) treat it reverentially just freaks me out. I don't know if it's the religiosity of the US as a whole that engenders the viewpoint of infallible or near-infallible documents, but seriously guys. It was written by a bunch of reasonably clever men, but who had no fucking clue what the world would be like today, and while it contains some good ideals, it's got some fucking stupid ones too.

Owning a weapon capable of killing someone with ease from a large distance should never be a right. It should be a privilege of the mentally sound, who have an appropriate reason to need one.

 

[Iron Criterion]

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!

Man, it is hard to sniff out that irony stink over the internet, isn't it?

The problem with this entire argument (not the one I quoted, I mean the issue at large) is that everyone who says we should ban or strictly control guns feels the automatic right to call everyone on the pro-gun side an uncaring, violence-glorifying gun nut. I am glad not to have seen much of it on the Escapist yet, but man is it running rampant out there in the real world.

It pisses me off like fucking crazy. Points like thebobmaster's are dead on; it is literally impossible to take away guns from the U.S., and if we did, it still wouldn't work just because it works somewhere else. The people against banning guns are no more violent or hate-filled than anyone else, they are just as appalled by mass murder, but they can also see past the emotional grief to the reality of things. Guns are here, and they are not going anywhere. Doesn't mean we can't try some things to reduce the violence, but banning them is an absolute fool's errand.

Don't worry about it, this is the only time where gun control advocacy groups in America gets to have a say in some vain attempt to get people to change their minds as they watch Ameirca become more pro gun. I find them hilarious, and I don't really pay mind attention to them. Within a week they would have lost the emotional wave, and the pro-gun group shall already be armed and ready for war, compare to the Gun control groups who's lost their wave yet again. I'm prepare for this, gonna get my congressmen to vote no on the "assault weapon" ban which generally means scary guns. I support the right for Americans to have and own a Assault rifle for whatever reason, because 2n amendment, baby.

People like you are the reason why America is Darwinian timebomb. I support pro-gun people, as I wish I could have one myself, but nobody needs a fucking assault rifle (unless you are in the armed forces), there's absolutely no need for it.

 

[Krantos]

The problem isn't our access to guns.

It's the cultural understanding we have of them.

See, what we have here is a spurious relationship. America has more guns (X) and America has more Shootings (Y). the problem is X does not cause Y. Rather they are both being caused by a third factor Z which is our culture's understanding of guns and what they mean/do/are/etc.

We have lax gun laws because of the cultural understanding we have of them. These shootings happen because some crazy blows that understanding to the nth degree.

Forcibly banning guns would not stop these shootings, because the guns aren't causing them. Our perception of guns does.

Try fixing that problem if you can.

Meanwhile...

 

[GoddyofAus]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

You're clearly underestimating the amount of gun owners we have here who value their firearms more than their own lives.

Please tell me you're not defending this mentality or putting it on a pedestal as something to be proud of.

 

[Me55enger]

People killed by handguns last year: UK - 8 USA - 10,728.

British Police are unarmed, and while there are at least 2 Armed Response Police teams per county, on top of proper Armed Response, I will stand by the fact that we have the best trained Police in the world. Oh, and theyre unarmed.

Criminals dont follow laws, thats the definition of a criminal. But Arming the police presents them with the "justification" argument.

But trying to tell the average American that is like demanding water to stop being wet. Its in thier blood now.