Do you think guns should be banned?

[seliph]

There's absolutely a downside to banning guns. It takes away the right of home owners to defend themselves against intruders. You still have to wait for police officers to arrive when you call 911 (especially if you live in a small town with a small police force), and hiding isn't guaranteed to work. There's also the fact that no country is willing to invade the US by land because there's likely to be a gun behind every door. And then there's the reason the founding fathers added the right to keep and bear arms to the American constitution in the first place: with guns, we have the power to rebel against tyranny, should our government become too big and too controlling.

Also, the "criminals will always have guns" argument is completely valid! They will always find a way to illegally purchase guns, and banning them for average citizens only makes normal people easier targets. Look at how many people in Orlando got shot, even though it's a gun free zone.

The "heroic random citizen" is a fantasy that not only I have pointed out to you several times before but the posts above mine have already addressed it as well.

 

[Red Cat]

There's absolutely a downside to banning guns. It takes away the right of home owners to defend themselves against intruders. You still have to wait for police officers to arrive when you call 911 (especially if you live in a small town with a small police force), and hiding isn't guaranteed to work. There's also the fact that no country is willing to invade the US by land because there's likely to be a gun behind every door. And then there's the reason the founding fathers added the right to keep and bear arms to the American constitution in the first place: with guns, we have the power to rebel against tyranny, should our government become too big and too controlling.

Also, the "criminals will always have guns" argument is completely valid! They will always find a way to illegally purchase guns, and banning them for average citizens only makes normal people easier targets. Look at how many people in Orlando got shot, even though it's a gun free zone.

I can understand having a gun to protect your house, but let's not kid ourselves with the citizen militia thing. Other countries don't invade us because of the strength of our military as well as the fact that there are only two countries which share a border with the U.S. If the government becomes too autocratic, do you really think ordinary people with pistols and shotguns are going to stop a well-trained military with tanks, helicopters, jets, bombs, missiles, machine guns, body armor, and other goodies that we don't even know about?

 

[amanda1983]

Unfortunately in America, we're inundated with movies where a guy is able to shoot a bunch of bad guys with military precision and avoid getting killed himself. I think people see these movies and think they'd be able to do the same thing if they were in a similar situation. Real life isn't the same as Hollywood though. Chances are that civilians with guns are likely to cause more chaos and casualties rather than be a hero. I wonder if movies in other countries are filled with guns and shooting scenes as much as they are in American movies, because I sure think that Hollywood has a lot to do with the American obsession with guns.

This is a really good point that I hadn't considered when I wrote my comment, thank you! I agree completely, these fantastical movies feed directly into the obsession with guns. Hollywood makes gunfights seem unhealthily romantic and .. survivable. The idea that some hero can pull a gun and "save the day" is very appealing psychologically. It's also almost entirely fiction. The times in RL this kind of thing DOESN'T end in tragedy make the news *because* it was so statistically unlikely to end well. Around here, this reporting also includes warnings from law enforcement that this kind of thing is NOT encouraged, and everyone was very lucky to come out alive (assuming they did), but that crimes need to be left to law enforcement to deal with - not civilians.

Those same rubbish Hollywood popcorn movies and tv shows are shown in Australia and are fairly widespread worldwide. It's all so romanticised, so fictionalised. It boggles my mind that people seem to think these stories are realistic - it's like thinking superhero movies are documentaries. A nice fantasy.

In real life, guns are ****ing DEAFENING, aiming and shooting is very difficult on the move even for experienced personal who have trained for years in this. Most civilians practice on targets or hunting, and neither of these scenarios is adequate preparation for trying to shoot the "bad guy" during a crime without shooting or injuring any bystanders (ricochet is deadly, which Hollywood only remembers when it looks good on screen).

The very worst thing that could happen in an armed robbery of a shop is that some hero thinks they can save the day and stop the bad guy. That automatically escalates the situation, raising the stakes. The criminal had a gun out, sure, but exactly what is gained by someone pulling another gun out? Call me crazy but that would make me feel less safe, as statistically I would be MUCH more likely to die or be seriously injured in that case than just a random lone gunman robbing the store I'm inside. I knew this before I was old enough to watch any of the dozens of US crime scene procedurals that clogged our tv channels (I'm sure they still do but I don't watch commercial tv anymore). There is so much information available on how and why "every civilian should be armed if they want" doesn't work, on how and why crisis situations aren't improved in the slightest by random civilians being armed.. I just don't get it. It's not rational in my opinion to claim that guns protect people. It is illogical to think that being armed yourself as a citizen with no specialised training can possibly help save people in the event of a crisis.. It actually worries me that people who don't seem to have a firm grasp of the complex dynamics at play here are allowed to buy, own, and use guns at all.

Those myths that "guns don't kill, people do" and "armed civilians can protect themselves and others" were all blown away by one lone gunman in my country in April of 1996. No one else being armed could do a ****ing thing to save all those people. In the most gun-happy state of Australia, not one shot was actually fired at the gunman by anyone except police. He killed people so quickly because he had guns that are intended to mow people down. In the heat of the moment, all that practice at a rifle range or duck hunting does sweet **** all when you walk into a room and see people being gunned down before your eyes. That is just not a situation civilians are mentally equipped to handle, actually. The human brain doesn't process the sensory input fast enough without intense training and conditioning. Adrenaline floods the body and survival instincts kick in, if they're lucky. In this situation, instincts played little part in who lived and who died. That was decided by the gunman with his bag of guns and ammunition.

Many of the people who died at Port Arthur in 1996 never even knew they were being shot. Of those that did know there was a gunman, they realised only after they were trapped with no hope of escape. Almost everyone else thought it was an historical reenactment until they either saw people falling and dying, or else were told it had been a real massacre later after they were rescued.

 

[Miii]

The "heroic random citizen" is a fantasy that not only I have pointed out to you several times before but the posts above mine have already addressed it as well.

So what about in the case of home invasion, or a business being robbed? Is there a better, more efficient non-gun related way of ensuring your safety? There are situations where you can't call the police right away (like if you're held at gunpoint or if you're being assaulted), and even when you can call them right away, they take time to get to you, especially if you live in a more rural area, which the US has a lot of.

Farmers also use guns to protect their livestock and crops from things like coyotes, which are omnivorous, highly intelligent, will eat any smaller pets you might have in your back yard (even in urban areas) and are all over Texas and the rest of the US (they used to eat entire litters of kittens, chickens, sheep, deer, rabbits, small to medium sized dogs and all kinds of other things where I used to live, 5 miles from the nearest town).

My point is guns are useful and banning them has consequences.

 

[Red Cat]

So what about in the case of home invasion, or a business being robbed? Is there a better, more efficient non-gun related way of ensuring your safety? There are situations where you can't call the police right away (like if you're held at gunpoint or if you're being assaulted), and even when you can call them right away, they take time to get to you, especially if you live in a more rural area, which the US has a lot of.

Farmers also use guns to protect their livestock and crops from things like coyotes, which are omnivorous, highly intelligent, will eat any smaller pets you might have in your back yard (even in urban areas) and are all over Texas and the rest of the US (they used to eat entire litters of kittens, chickens, sheep, deer, rabbits, small to medium sized dogs and all kinds of other things where I used to live, 5 miles from the nearest town).

My point is guns are useful and banning them has consequences.

If only there was a thing you could put around your yard or farm to keep unwanted animals out so you wouldn't have to constantly sit outside with a gun and hope you can hit that animal. You know, something kind of similar to that thing your preferred candidate wants to build.

 

[seliph]

So what about in the case of home invasion, or a business being robbed? Is there a better, more efficient non-gun related way of ensuring your safety? There are situations where you can't call the police right away (like if you're held at gunpoint or if you're being assaulted), and even when you can call them right away, they take time to get to you, especially if you live in a more rural area, which the US has a lot of.

Farmers also use guns to protect their livestock and crops from things like coyotes, which are omnivorous, highly intelligent, will eat any smaller pets you might have in your back yard (even in urban areas) and are all over Texas and the rest of the US (they used to eat entire litters of kittens, chickens, sheep, deer, rabbits, small to medium sized dogs and all kinds of other things where I used to live, 5 miles from the nearest town).

My point is guns are useful and banning them has consequences.

Point out to me examples of when that has helped rather than caused more of a mess.

Aside from what Red Cat's already said, most places have hunting guns legalized. I don't really have much against them, but they should require a lengthy licensing process with thorough background checks and not just be chilling on the rack at Wal-Mart.

 

[tae]

please look at Australia's gun laws and notice how well they've done with the heavy regulation / banning of firearms.

 

[Miii]

I can understand having a gun to protect your house, but let's not kid ourselves with the citizen militia thing. Other countries don't invade us because of the strength of our military as well as the fact that there are only two countries which share a border with the U.S. If the government becomes too autocratic, do you really think ordinary people with pistols and shotguns are going to stop a well-trained military with tanks, helicopters, jets, bombs, missiles, machine guns, body armor, and other goodies that we don't even know about?

No, I don't think that average citizens would win against the US military if they went power crazy like North Korea, but if we didn't have guns at all, it would be so much easier for a dictatorship to arise in the future because there would be no fighting them at that point. If you look at dictatorships from the past, you'll see a pattern of disarmament then slaughter of unarmed citizens (Germany under the Nazi Party's rule, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, China under Mao Tse Tung, Uganda under Idi Amin etc.).

And for the record, a coyote can jump a 7 foot privacy fence and barely touch it.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Point out to me examples of when that has helped rather than caused more of a mess.

Aside from what Red Cat's already said, most places have hunting guns legalized. I don't really have much against them, but they should require a lengthy licensing process with thorough background checks and not just be chilling on the rack at Wal-Mart.

Look at the case of Lavauntai Broadbent, the 16 year old that (with 3 accomplices) held two adults at gunpoint and was shot and killed by one of them, who had a concealed carry permit. The other 3 accomplices ran, and the two people that could have died to a kid involved in gang violence lived. One person died, two people lived.

And Walmart is actually pretty responsible about their gun sales. Only Walmarts licensed to sell firearms sell them, they require background checks for all employees selling or handling firearms, anyone purchasing a firearm is videotaped, and they've exceeded the federal government's requirements as licensed gun dealers since 2002 when they started refusing to make default proceed sales (where a gun retailer is allowed to sell a gun to a person if their NICS background check isn't completed within 3 business days) because a person is statistically something like 20 times more likely to be a prohibited gun buyer if their NICS background check takes longer than 24 hours.

 

[KantoKraze]

yes. I despise violence of any kind, and guns promote that. Therefore, I despise guns as well.

 

[Bellrich]

Its mixed for me. Law enforcement should have guns, and civilians should have a very deep check when purchasing them. Do guns count hunting rifles? Some people just need them for self defense.. ive been almost broken into (my house) twice and its scary af

 

[Celestefey]

Also, the "criminals will always have guns" argument is completely valid! They will always find a way to illegally purchase guns, and banning them for average citizens only makes normal people easier targets. Look at how many people in Orlando got shot, even though it's a gun free zone.

I am forever confused as to how you can say banning guns is a bad thing. That argument is totally invalid. Yes, people will always find a way to get around laws but that doesn't mean we shouldn't implement them anyway. Some countries ban drugs yet people will still find ways to obtain them. But it just means it's HARDER to get ahold of them, and so reduces the amount of people who would consume drugs. If it was more readily and easily available then more people would take them. I know guns and drugs are not exactly the same (ie: drugs harm the person taking them directly, whereas guns have the ability to harm others), but my point still stands. If you ban guns = harder to get ahold of them = less chance of attacks happening such as in Orlando. The attack in Orlando may have NEVER happened provided it was harder to get ahold of guns. Yes, Orlando is a gun-free zone, but even so it was probably easy for that criminal to obtain the gun, when practically the vast majority of other places in the US allow citizens to purchase guns with ease. If the rest of the US had banned guns, I'm sure it would have been MUCH harder for the culprit to get ahold of the weapon and so the chances are the attack may have never happened (I assume you're referring to the attack in the night club that happened a little while ago). In England, our gun control is much much stricter, so it's pretty rare for us to ever wake up and hear any news about people being shot or mass shootings occurring. When it does happen it's a shock to us. But it feels like when mass shootings occur in the US the vast majority of people don't even bat an eyelid and they get very protective over their weapons stating that they have the "right" to own a firearm because it's a "free country", or whatever other bs people may use to defend them.

 

[seliph]

Can I ask the people who are against at least stricter gun control what exactly your solution is to your country's mass shootings that don't seem to be slowing down?

 

[Stalfos]

Can I ask the people who are against at least stricter gun control what exactly your solution is to your country's mass shootings that don't seem to be slowing down?

Moor guns so we can shot teh badd gyus!!!111!!

 

[seliph]

Moor guns so we can shot teh badd gyus!!!111!!

It sure is working out well!! What do you mean 49 dead in Orlando? What do you mean 32 dead in Blacksburg? What do you mean 27 dead in Newtown? What do y

 

[Antonio]

THEY WILL NEVER TAKE MY GUNS

Spoiler

Who wants an anti-gun sticker! We'll think we're safe but in reality we are just more vulnerable. So get a sticker and support the anti-gun laws which will make are life span shorter and the population shorter....

 

[Gregriii]

Can I ask the people who are against at least stricter gun control what exactly your solution is to your country's mass shootings that don't seem to be slowing down?

dont ask that as if there was any solution to avoid shootings lmao, criminals will get guns if they want to

but I agree guns should be banned

I mean if you want something to protect yourself get a taser or something like that cause it wont kill (I mean it's self defense you just want to immobilize them??

 

[seliph]

dont ask that as if there was any solution to avoid shootings lmao, criminals will get guns if they want to

but I agree guns should be banned

I mean if you want something to protect yourself get a taser or something like that cause it wont kill (I mean it's self defense you just want to immobilize them??

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "There's absolutely no way to prevent this" says the only nation where this regularly happens

Sure there's no permanent solution but you can cut the numbers drastically.

 

[Draco]

I am forever confused as to how you can say banning guns is a bad thing. That argument is totally invalid. Yes, people will always find a way to get around laws but that doesn't mean we shouldn't implement them anyway. Some countries ban drugs yet people will still find ways to obtain them. But it just means it's HARDER to get ahold of them, and so reduces the amount of people who would consume drugs. If it was more readily and easily available then more people would take them. I know guns and drugs are not exactly the same (ie: drugs harm the person taking them directly, whereas guns have the ability to harm others), but my point still stands. If you ban guns = harder to get ahold of them = less chance of attacks happening such as in Orlando. The attack in Orlando may have NEVER happened provided it was harder to get ahold of guns. Yes, Orlando is a gun-free zone, but even so it was probably easy for that criminal to obtain the gun, when practically the vast majority of other places in the US allow citizens to purchase guns with ease. If the rest of the US had banned guns, I'm sure it would have been MUCH harder for the culprit to get ahold of the weapon and so the chances are the attack may have never happened (I assume you're referring to the attack in the night club that happened a little while ago). In England, our gun control is much much stricter, so it's pretty rare for us to ever wake up and hear any news about people being shot or mass shootings occurring. When it does happen it's a shock to us. But it feels like when mass shootings occur in the US the vast majority of people don't even bat an eyelid and they get very protective over their weapons stating that they have the "right" to own a firearm because it's a "free country", or whatever other bs people may use to defend them.

this turned into a lively debate and guns. As i have desided to remaining out of debate and over read or makenots about points tthat strike my notice i would say nice we can have this debate in a civil manner and not resort to name calling.

 

[oath2order]

THEY WILL NEVER TAKE MY GUNS

Spoiler

Who wants an anti-gun sticker! We'll think we're safe but in reality we are just more vulnerable. So get a sticker and support the anti-gun laws which will make are life span shorter and the population shorter....

If the misspellings here are intentional, then A+ job of acting like a paranoid gun-nut.

 

[Psydye]

No I don't think they should be banned. I do believe people have a right to protect themselves. It's not complicated.