Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[Sonic Doctor]

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?

As people have already said, to many and most likely most gun owners, their guns mean more to them than money.

I will add what I have said before in other gun threads:

You apparently don't know the make up of the US Military. The vast majority that serve in the military are people that privately own guns. They are the people that will defend the right to own them, tooth and nail.

I have a friend that has a cousin in the military. I've talked on many occasions to that cousin on this subject. When he was in training, he had such hypothetical discussions with his base mates and his commanders.

Everyone of them said that if the government ordered them to take people's guns away, they would refuse, and work against the government, if needed, to uphold the rights of citizens. So, right there, that is one whole military base that the government wouldn't be able to use if they decided to make the military remove guns from owns by force.

The US has more heart in such matters, and will not go quietly like other countries have with such bans. Gun bans and even the most strict gun control won't work.

 

[Vegosiux]

Everyone of them said that if the government ordered them to take people's guns away, they would refuse, and work against the government, if needed, to uphold the rights of citizens.

And if aliens invaded, I'd go out, and crap on their mothership.

My point?

Talk is cheap.

So, right there, that is one whole military base that the government wouldn't be able to use if they decided to make the military remove guns from owns by force.

Talk is cheap.

The US has more heart in such matters, and will not go quietly like other countries have with such bans. Gun bans and even the most strict gun control won't work.

Talk is cheap.

 

[Ryotknife]

Criminals will always have guns.

Therefore give everyone assualt rifles.

Logic.

you realize that assault rifles are actually hard (and expensive) to get right? im going to assume you mean "assault weapons" which is a term that gets thrown around a lot that people think means assault rifles. "assault weapons" is actually a very broad term that includes most firearms. It is used by people as a fear tactic and to promote misinformation.

 

[gphjr14]

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?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

Possibly because the US wasn't trying to colonize Vietnam but to prevent communism? Maybe you're thinking of France...

 

[Vegosiux]

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?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

Possibly because the US wasn't trying to colonize Vietnam but to prevent communism?

Just as some more historical irony....Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson. He respected USA. He wanted to be an ally of the USA. But no, you're a damn commie, we kill you, hurrrrr, was what happened.

 

[Wargamer]

Okay, so someone a long ways back was bringing the fifth into this. Let me just start by dismantling that logic about why the 5th Amendment forces the hand of US lawmakers:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, let's just be clear on the important bits here:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

More specifically

taken for public use

Gun control laws do not take private property "for public use." They just make it illegal to own said property.

Now let me be blunt; the US needs gun control. Any trigger-happy asshole can wander into Wallmart and buy sufficient firepower to take out a school, and no sane man would consider that a necessity in modern society. Ownership of guns in the US primarily comes down to two goals: to ensure the US is safe from outside invasion, and to ensure the US government never turns against its own people. If the former happens, the US citizenry will find that owning a handgun means jack-shit against tanks and fighter-bombers. The latter happened a long time ago and not a single Yank has done his patriotic duty, so it's clear nobody will. As such, it's time to bring US law into the modern world.

If you want a gun, you need to be licensed. You need to be checked out by the police and they need to be happy you're not criminal or a psychopath. There need to be laws and sane limits on what guns you can legally own, how they are stored, how much ammunition you can own, where the ammunition is stored, and so on and so forth. The idea of toting weapons that are borderline or full-on military grade hardware around like they're a Gods-damned iPhone is an insult to us as a species.

Now, someone go on a killing spree through Congress or Wall Street's top brass, and then I'll listen to your pro-gun ideology.

 

[PZF]

Heck, just today Iztapalapa in Mexico has started a 'depistolisation program' to reduce the number of firearms in town. And that's in the country with drug cartels with unlimited funds due to smuggling, and unlimited firearms because the US sells them as many as they need.

If it works even there, it'll work anywhere.

Yeah drug cartel are just massively crossing the boarder to come and get semi auto weapons for $500-$1500 when they can get full auto weapon (and grenades and rocket launchers) from other countries for much less. I also heavily doubt that drug cartels are just jumping at the chance to turn their guns in.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

The United States is a big place. And its pretty obvious that tackling the problem through extremes, legal vs. illegal, for the whole country is pretty ridiculous.

I'm not that smart, but even I can see that different areas deserve different laws that suit their needs. We already have a country that is conveniently split into 50 different areas.

Though honestly I don't see any reason for someone to have an assault rifle.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Oh, and Virginia Tech had an on campus police department, which is totally the norm for colleges to have. That didn't stop 32 people from dying and another 32 to be injured.

Now you want to put guns in the hands of teachers. Yeah, that would totally work. Because there has never been a mass shooting where there were a ton of guns and people trained to use them right?

Fucking wrong.

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

So did hassan just magic himself into that wheelchair or what? You clearly haven't spent much time on a military base.

Cho killed himself upon hearing the campus security quick reaction force start prepping to breach, he had plenty of ammo still on him at the time. He could have been dead even sooner had somebody shot back, but that's just something to review for the future. The reaction force actually did a very good job, Cho had just thought his attack through very well. Limited entrances/exits, solid doors, chains... I'd actually say they did damn well.


And yeah, there are some teachers out there who have the fortitude to do it. It's not the majority, but it's not the majority of people in general. There's a program called troops to teachers right now, so not only might there be a teacher out there with what it takes to shoot back, there may be some who already have in a previous career.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

I find these arguments extremely interesting, living as I do in Canada. We've had gun control for ages (although hunting rifles are pretty easy to get, handguns are insanely difficult and assault weapons downright impossible), and not only have we not been rounded up and murdered by the government, our homicide rate is less than a third that of the U.S.

So whenever someone starts saying that even the slightest attempt to reduce gun access and sales will lead to Mad Max, I get very confused.

I'm sure the data is out there, but it'd be interesting to view US gun crime if you take away young black males killing each other & suicides.

America is nothing like Canada. Fundamentally different cultures. And to each their own, Canada seems like a pretty nice place. But... we like AR15's down here. And I don't really mind that you guys don't, though I would get deeply offended if you stated that I shouldn't be allowed to have them just because you aren't.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

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?

As people have already said, to many and most likely most gun owners, their guns mean more to them than money.

The US has more heart in such matters, and will not go quietly like other countries have with such bans. Gun bans and even the most strict gun control won't work.

Well said. My guns are worth more than their cash value to me (which is significant, every time Obama opens his mouth lately the price of magazines jumps another 10 bucks, AR15's are selling 3x value if you can even find them).

The really interesting thing is the number of posters here who view the idea of armed soldiers going door to door confiscating guns as a good (or at least "not that bad") thing.

Incredible.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Well said. My guns are worth more than their cash value to me (which is significant, every time Obama opens his mouth lately the price of magazines jumps another 10 bucks, AR15's are selling 3x value if you can even find them).

The really interesting thing is the number of posters here who view the idea of armed soldiers going door to door confiscating guns as a good (or at least "not that bad") thing.

Incredible.

Good to know there are fellow posters like you that know what they are talking about.

I think that your argument that Americans are somehow heavily inclined to domestic terrorism and murder makes little sense. There's nothing indicating that a gun ban in the US wouldn't work, like they worked anywhere else they were tried.

Heck, just today Iztapalapa in Mexico has started a 'depistolisation program' to reduce the number of firearms in town. And that's in the country with drug cartels with unlimited funds due to smuggling, and unlimited firearms because the US sells them as many as they need.

If it works even there, it'll work anywhere.

Do you realize who are the largest supporters of gun control in the US are?

Criminal organizations and gangs. They of course don't want the people they try to steal from or kill to fight back on equal footing.

So, of course gun control in Mexico is "working". If guns are flowing so freely into the country, who's getting the guns that the citizens aren't getting, because they have had to give their guns up to the government.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Also don't forget that the Posse Comititus act, which forbids the military from acting as a law enforcement agency in US borders, would probably shoot the whole idea down right there. Now, think MasterChiefPWN can find enough votes to repeal that and explain it to the voting public?

Another good point. Though I hope such a thing could be strong enough to stop the government from trying. It tends to ignore such things, and I'm sure I remember times when the government has been called out to keep the peace and wrangle up people breaking laws(causing damage).

Those things maybe more violent breakings of the law, but it ends up turning the military into a law enforcement agency.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Oh, and Virginia Tech had an on campus police department, which is totally the norm for colleges to have. That didn't stop 32 people from dying and another 32 to be injured.

Now you want to put guns in the hands of teachers. Yeah, that would totally work. Because there has never been a mass shooting where there were a ton of guns and people trained to use them right?

Fucking wrong.

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

So did hassan just magic himself into that wheelchair or what? You clearly haven't spent much time on a military base.

Cho killed himself upon hearing the campus security quick reaction force start prepping to breach, he had plenty of ammo still on him at the time. He could have been dead even sooner had somebody shot back, but that's just something to review for the future. The reaction force actually did a very good job, Cho had just thought his attack through very well. Limited entrances/exits, solid doors, chains... I'd actually say they did damn well.


And yeah, there are some teachers out there who have the fortitude to do it. It's not the majority, but it's not the majority of people in general. There's a program called troops to teachers right now, so not only might there be a teacher out there with what it takes to shoot back, there may be some who already have in a previous career.

Sorry, but your points really do fall flat here. Yeah Hassan is now paralyzed. But that's one paralyzed guy who beforehand, shot down 45 people. 13 of which are dead. One asshole paralyzed isn't going to bring back those 13 people or remove the trauma from the other 32 victims.

And your point about Cho isn't really the best considering that Cho was killing people for about 2 and a half hours before he offed himself. He killed the first 2 at 7:15. The other 30 at between 9:40-9:51. And that was 30 out of 53 people he shot. I'm sorry but I would not call that a good job on the parts of the reaction force. Adding teachers with guns to that would have made things worse.

Your point about teachers with guns really irks me, as you essentially say that not all teachers would have the fortitude to use a gun in a situation where it was warranted. And its great that there is a program for called Troops to Teachers getting veterans into the teaching field, but that completely ignores what I brought up about gun theft on school property. The Columbine shooters and the Sandy Hook shooter both stole legally acquired assault rifles from their parents.

Now I know this is a what if, but you can't deny the possibility of a mass shooting happening where the guns used were just stolen from teachers during school hours. You'd have guns out of schools really quickly with headlines reading, "Guns used to protect children used to kill them" plastered on every newspaper and internet article for the world to see. Then what an ass you would feel like for advocating guns in the hands of teachers for protection. Potential killers wouldn't have to steal their parents guns anymore, and stealing the guns of the parents is in the majority of cases where a lot of these school shooters get them from.

They had guns in the hands of well trained police in the Empire State Building when that guy earlier this year decided to blow his boss away in the lobby. Those cops wound up grazing 9 other civilians AFTER shooting the killer. Now, I'm not saying that cops should not have guns obviously, but that point is more there to point out that having a bunch of guns in an area doesn't make it safer. Putting guns in the hands of teachers would open the door for opportunistic like: teachers accidentally shooting students, other faculty members, police on the scene. All opportunities that aren't there now.

Hell, there were armed guards at Columbine during the time of the shooting. One of them got into a shootout with Harris but could not take him out. Having teachers on top of that is unnecessary and would just be putting more guns into school than need be. And I doubt that teachers would be packing anything more than handguns if such craziness were to happen. Most school shootings involve people in bulletproof armor and assault rifles so the odds of survival are still vastly in the killers' favour.