Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[loseyourname]

All firearms are banned in San Francisco.

And to add, the murder rate in San Francisco is higher than in Los Angeles. By 2/10 of a percent, but still.

 

[scorpa]

The types of automatic assault weapons generally used in public massacres like this are already banned. That doesn't stop people from obtaining them. The only thing that would do that is to completely stop the manufacture.

True but that would have to be a worldwide thing. Stop manufacturing them in America, and they just get smuggled in. Ideally most smugglers would be caught but unfortunately...


LOL that cheezy slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is coming to my head. Even without guns people would still be out there trying to kill each other, it would just turn from "Well I guess I can't get a gun anymore...hey let's look on the internet and learn to make a ridiculously simple bomb with the ability to kill even more people!"

This is a pointless debate really, fun but pointless. People are firm in their opinions and they won't change them. I am firm in the fact that 99% of the population are responsible firearms owners and they should not be banned whle others are firm in the opinion that firearms are completely evil and should all be taken out and destroyed.

Shawn I remember hearing about that slurpee thing on the news a few years back. Weren't some kids stealing it from the science lab or something like that?

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, let me correct myself. Looks like the San Francisco gun ban ended up getting struck down in court.

 

[Francis M]

IMO THis poll is pointless adn this thread should be locked.
The gun debate is an emotionally charged topic to begin with which makes it hard to debate at all any time let alone now.
I espesially don't like the idea of bringing up a poll like this right on the heels of a very public news making gun related incident. It smacks of thinly vieled confrontationalism.
Again I would ask a moderator to please lock this thread as I see no usefull debate coming from it especially so soon on the heels of what happended in the news today at Virginia Tech. T
His thread will just spiral into a flame war at some point and judging by the rhetoric it doesn't seem to be to far off from happening.

 

[Anttech]

hmmm I think you are reading another thread, I don't see any flaming here... It is a healthy thing to debate, we should confront this evil, and not back away from it!

 

[scorpa]

IMO THis poll is pointless adn this thread should be locked.
The gun debate is an emotionally charged topic to begin with which makes it hard to debate at all any time let alone now.
I espesially don't like the idea of bringing up a poll like this right on the heels of a very public news making gun related incident. It smacks of thinly vieled confrontationalism.
Again I would ask a moderator to please lock this thread as I see no usefull debate coming from it especially so soon on the heels of what happended in the news today at Virginia Tech. T
His thread will just spiral into a flame war at some point and judging by the rhetoric it doesn't seem to be to far off from happening.

Agreed, not the time or place for this thread. A flame war is probably inevitable.

 

[scorpa]

hmmm I think you are reading another thread, I don't see any flaming here... It is a healthy thing to debate, we should confront this evil, and not back away from it!

By evil do you mean the evil of guns or the evil of what happened at Virginia tech.

If by evil you mean guns I would have to disagree, a gun is an object it doesn't get up and kill on its own...it takes a person to do that. If by evil you mean the Virginia tech tragedy then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[Monique]

If you were to go on a rampage, would you kill people at the post office where nobody can legally fight back, or do you shoot people who are armed and ready to kill you, such as a gun show?

If that were true, why are there so many gun-related crimes in the US, when the majority of the population owns guns? Or is it only the few people that don't own a gun that are being attacked?

I think it is a false sense of safety. When being in the US the only thing that was on the news was people getting shot.

 

[Bystander]

IMO The American Society is getting more and more Masculine (snip)...

Thirty-two dead and dozens wounded --- at the hand of a single individual? Four planeloads of people flown into three buildings and the ground at the point of a half dozen boxcutters? This country has gotten so "touchy-feely" dependent on conflict resolution specialists and social workers that no one takes responsibility for his own survival.

When a lunatic puts you into the position that someone is going to get hurt, you take steps to see that the lunatic is the individual who gets hurt --- don't sit on your butt waiting for the cops, social workers, and the rest of the touchy-feely crowd to save you --- you're on the spot, not them.

 

[russ_watters]

Crime and stats aside, how am I supposed to defend myself without a gun? I'm 5'8", I'm only about 140lb, I'm not a black belt, and I don't have magic powers. If you take away my gun, I'm basically left to be killed by any thug who feels like breaking into my house. Call the cops you say? It takes 5 minutes to kill me. It takes 40 minutes for the police to show up. I would say do the math but there is no math, only a dead me when police show up 35 minutes too late.

Having a gun ups the ante to the point where you can't afford to lose the game. It is inherrently dangerous to both you and anyone else involved in an altercation for you to whip out a gun in, for example, a bar fight or a mugging. I'm the same size as you, but if I carried a gun in such situations (I've never been in either), I'd be much more afraid of the inherrent risks and consequences of having the gun than the risks of the situation itself.

There are two main types of murders today: gang wars and personal altercations (people killing people they know for personal reasons). The risk of getting killed by someone robbing you on the street or in your house is much, much lower: they don't want to kill you, they just want your stuff. But if you have a gun, then you put their life at risk and they may kill you in a twisted version of self-defense. To me, it just isn't worth the risk.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, let me correct myself. Looks like the San Francisco gun ban ended up getting struck down in court.

It's kind of too bad. It would have been interesting to see if the ban had any effect on homicide rates, which reached a decade-long high in 2005.

 

[Anttech]

Thirty-two dead and dozens wounded --- at the hand of a single individual? Four planeloads of people flown into three buildings and the ground at the point of a half dozen boxcutters? This country has gotten so "touchy-feely" dependent on conflict resolution specialists and social workers that no one takes responsibility for his own survival.

When a lunatic puts you into the position that someone is going to get hurt, you take steps to see that the lunatic is the individual who gets hurt --- don't sit on your butt waiting for the cops, social workers, and the rest of the touchy-feely crowd to save you --- you're on the spot, not them.

Thanks for proving my point, again.

 

[Anttech]

Having a gun ups the ante to the point where you can't afford to lose the game. It is inherrently dangerous to both you and anyone else involved in an altercation for you to whip out a gun in, for example, a bar fight or a mugging. I'm the same size as you, but if I carried a gun in such situations (I've never been in either), I'd be much more afraid of the inherrent risks and consequences of having the gun than the risks of the situation itself.

Hey here is a first, I think we are in total agreement.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a BS statistic though. That's like saying being killed by a knife is better than being shot by a gun because it does not include guns. Murder is murder, rape is rape, robbery is robbery.

Doesn't that seem a little illogical considering the context of today's events? What are the odds the murderer at Va Tech could have killed 30 people in one room with a knife today?

And how much worse could Columbine have been had the kids been successful in purchasing the .50 cal machine gun they were eyeing at a gun show?

Guns are the weapon of choice of murderers for a pretty straightforward reason: they are by far the most effective tool for the job. We don't know yet how the shooter today got his guns, but we do know that the kids at Columbine were able to easily get the weapons they needed illegally, from a legal vendor (some may have been borrowed too...can't remember). Meaning: it is too easy to cheat the system. There are plenty of straightforward, common-sense things that can be done to help fix the availability issue. And I don't buy the 'genie-out-of-the-bottle' thing: a lot of guns are manufactured a year (I'm not sure how many) and restricting that flow does make a difference:

Regulations that limit the number of handgun sales in the primary, regulated market to one handgun a month per customer have been shown to be effective at reducing illegal gun trafficking by reducing the supply into the "secondary market."

Also, a very high fraction of guns used in crime are bought legally and/or borrowed. Increasing accountability for owners and sellers would make a big difference there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Firearms_market

 

[drankin]

If that were true, why are there so many gun-related crimes in the US, when the majority of the population owns guns? Or is it only the few people that don't own a gun that are being attacked?

I think it is a false sense of safety. When being in the US the only thing that was on the news was people getting shot.

Actually, not a lot of Americans own guns. I don't know the actual ratio but maybe 1 out of 8 (if that) people own defensive firearms, like a handgun or assault rifle. More people have hunting or target rifles that collect dust in a closet but not many people actually exercise their right to possesses defensive firearms.

If you look at the stats, many more people die from car accidents. It's just not as news worthy. Gun violence is "news", car accidents aren't that exciting. So one can get the impression that shootings are happening everywhere all the time. They just get a lot of press.

 

[Monique]

If you look at the stats, many more people die from car accidents. It's just not as news worthy. Gun violence is "news", car accidents aren't that exciting. So one can get the impression that shootings are happening everywhere all the time. They just get a lot of press.

When I compare the local city news of Detroit with the news here in the Netherlands, there is world of difference. I had the feeling everyone in Detroit owned guns and everyone was shooting everyone, a lot of gun violence.

Neighbours killing each other because the freshly mown grass was blown by the wind into the next doors' neighbour his garden. Children finding guns and shooting themselves or their friends. Stuff that happened on a daily basis, which never happens here. If people didn't have guns available, they wouldn't reach for it in conflicts and children couldn't find it.

I know violence in Detroit is fueled by more than just guns, but I'm convinced that without guns (and other weapons) people would just fight it out in words or fists instead of blood.

 

[russ_watters]

Just to clarify my position a little: I'm not in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment and I occasionally shoot guns recreationally (and in the Navy). However, I just spent $200 on my annual car inspection and I had to take two tests to get a license to drive it. And this for a machine that though it is inherrently dangerous, engineers and regulators go to enormous lengths to minimize the dangers. The effort that goes into regulating and engineering cars for safety is far, far greater than for guns, despite the fact most guns sold are the only product class specifically designed to kill people. I think that warrants tight and sensible legislation.

 

[Castlegate]

I'd rather find kids dieing by the busloads by guns that protect us, than take the the extra chance of being ruled by an iron fist.

 

[ukmicky]

IMO THis poll is pointless adn this thread should be locked.
The gun debate is an emotionally charged topic to begin with which makes it hard to debate at all any time let alone now.
I espesially don't like the idea of bringing up a poll like this right on the heels of a very public news making gun related incident. It smacks of thinly vieled confrontationalism.
Again I would ask a moderator to please lock this thread as I see no usefull debate coming from it especially so soon on the heels of what happended in the news today at Virginia Tech. T
His thread will just spiral into a flame war at some point and judging by the rhetoric it doesn't seem to be to far off from happening.

Agreed, not the time or place for this thread. A flame war is probably inevitable.

I disagree ,this is the perfect time for a DEBATE on the issues of guns , its normally public opinion at times like this when people can actually see all the dangers right in front of them that actually causes the people in power to think and possibly take action to prevent them from occurring again..

I didn't start this in order to produce a flame war and i hope it doesn't go that way ,its a simple debate and I'm sure the MODS will watch over it.

 

[Anttech]

I'd rather find kids dieing by the busloads by guns that protect us, than take the the extra chance of being ruled by an iron fist.

Because your guns will protect you against that right? Bravado BS. Your Education system, and people, and political constitution, and History protect you from that, not your semi-automatic guns!

 

[Integral]

It's really a pretty stupid question, since it is totally meaningless. There is virtually no way to enforce such a law if it were passed, so ?

One thing we certainly do NOT need is yet another rights robbing law such as the one proposed by this thread. Rather then considering new laws why not look for laws to repeal, we have way to many, and as the Patriot Act has proved, our lawmakers don't even read them before voting on them.

 

[Castlegate]

Because your guns will protect you against that right? Bravado BS. Your Education system, and people, and political constitution, and History protect you from that, not your semi-automatic guns!

For starters - I don't own a gun. Never shot one either, but would be perfectly willing to get one should it become illegal to own one. History is rife with governments gone bad. We need to at least make em work for their booty.

 

[Kurdt]

Well it works fairly well in countries that don't allow guns to be sold to the public. There are still gun crimes but there are a lot less and to be honest who needs the right to own a dangerous weapon, and what purpose does it serve?

 

[drankin]

Guns are dangerous, and they aren't going away. They day "they" come to take away our firearms is the day this country has another revolution. We need to embrace the fact that they are here to stay and educate on the proper use of them rather than fear them. Fear of guns is why none of those college students or the staff were able to defend themselves.

 

[loseyourname]

When I compare the local city news of Detroit with the news here in the Netherlands, there is world of difference. I had the feeling everyone in Detroit owned guns and everyone was shooting everyone, a lot of gun violence.

I know violence in Detroit is fueled by more than just guns, but I'm convinced that without guns (and other weapons) people would just fight it out in words or fists instead of blood.

Violent crime in Detroit is six times the national average, and murders are eight times the national average. It's not a very representative city. Baltimore, Newark, Washington DC, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Detroit always top these lists and far outdo the rest of the country when it comes to murder and violent crime. I really don't know what it is about these cities, except that they have very large poor black populations and huge drug problems. The problem with drug violence is that getting rid of guns would likely do nothing to prevent or lower it, being more likely to affect crimes of passion and accident.

 

[ukmicky]

It's really a pretty stupid question, since it is totally meaningless. There is virtually no way to enforce such a law if it were passed, so ?

You would never catch everyone breaking it . but it would be enforceable enough to make it worthwhile if the law makers and politicians want it to be so

In the beginning you couldn't imprison everybody who broke it as the prisons would soon fill up but give everyone a few thousand dollar's fine if caught breaking it in the first two years and the majority of people would obey.

And then after two years put those caught breaking the law or who haven't handed their gun in in prison for 12months and i think you will find that the vast majority of people would be compliant.

 

[ukmicky]

um so far that's 19 more than likely US citizens voting against the ban .

I wonder how many of the 12 people voting for the ban are also US citizens.


_________________________________________________________________

Anything which saves lives is good and worthwhile ain't it.

 

[Anttech]

I voted to ban them, and I am not American...

 

[ukmicky]

I voted to ban them, and I am not American...

I think you would probably find that the vast majority of people voting to ban them are non American

 

[scorpa]

Guns are dangerous, and they aren't going away. They day "they" come to take away our firearms is the day this country has another revolution. We need to embrace the fact that they are here to stay and educate on the proper use of them rather than fear them. Fear of guns is why none of those college students or the staff were able to defend themselves.

That is true to *some* degree, people tend to fear what they do not understand. If the kid with the gun could have been overpowered, the students could have taken the gun, safed it and unloaded it...but would they have even known how to do that? That being said it is one big *IF* that they could have overtaken him...pretty hard to get close enough to someone with a semiauto to disarm him.

I agree with the education. Like I said before I learned about guns in school. If I came across a loaded gun I would be able to safe it and unload it no problem. I could also if need be shoot it to defend myself, however it would be unlikely it would come to that. That program has been running at my school for over 20 years, and is taught in grade 9, an incident has never once occurred. I am very glad I had the opportunity to take it.

 

[scorpa]

So so far that 19 more than likely US citizens voting against the ban .

I wonder how many of the 12 people voting for the ban are also US citizens.


_________________________________________________________________

Anything which saves lives is good and worthwhile ain't it.

I voted not to ban them, and I am not American.

 

[ukmicky]

I voted not to ban them, and I am not American.

Canadian ,near enough

 

[Bystander]

You would never catch everyone breaking it . but it would be enforceable enough to make it worthwhile if the law makers and politicians want it to be so

In the beginning you couldn't imprison everybody who broke it as the prisons would soon fill up but give everyone a few thousand dollar's fine if caught breaking it in the first two years and the majority of people would obey.

And then after two years put those caught breaking the law or who haven't handed their gun in in prison for 12months and i think you will find that the vast majority of people would be compliant.

You've got the gist of the "political" attraction for such legislation --- same game as seat belt laws, mandatory auto insurance, implied consent, vehicle emissions inspections, and all that crap --- cops behind every billboard and hidden in every ditch at the ends of fiscal quarters making up the revenue shortfalls to cover their own payrolls. However, if you'll think back to the Stamp Act, Boston Tea Party, Whiskey Rebellion, and other such historical precedents springing from overzealous revenue acts, you may get some idea of the chances of success for such nonsense --- taxes and other revenue mechanisms are tolerated in this country only so long as there are benefits to be derived --- given a legal system that takes 10-15 years to stir-fry or needle the likes of Ted Bundy or Clarence Williams, plea bargains felonies to misdemeanors, and is generally underfoot rather than facilitating the business of living by the law-abiding, it ain't going to fly.

 

[Kurdt]

Fear of guns is why none of those college students or the staff were able to defend themselves.

I don't think even the most educated people in that situation would have been able to do much. If you've got somebody seemingly determined to kill as much and as indiscriminately as in this case then there's nothing much you can do as you'll most likely be shot before you get near. If however you could enlighten the rest of us as to how to take out a crazed gunman while unarmed we'd all love to know.

 

[drankin]

I don't think even the most educated people in that situation would have been able to do much. If you've got somebody seemingly determined to kill as much and as indiscriminately as in this case then there's nothing much you can do as you'll most likely be shot before you get near. If however you could enlighten the rest of us as to how to take out a crazed gunman while unarmed we'd all love to know.

Actually, what I meant by that is that fear of guns is why they aren't allowed on campus. So, no one there was armed and able to defend themselves against a gunman. Most mass murders like this happen in "gun free" zones. "Gun free" zones were created because of an unhealthy fear of guns. These zones supposedly make you "safer" when in fact you are more vulnerable.