#1 Posted by SavageBeast (552 posts) - - Show Bio

 I have an idea, we should go around and take people's guns from them. That will solve everything! Strict Gun Control ASAP. 
 
Mr. President, we need CHANGE NOW! 

#2 Posted by JonSmith (4159 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...
#3 Posted by Duke_Nasty (1021 posts) - - Show Bio

Just the way you phrased that made it sound like a terrible idea

#4 Posted by Joygirl (20827 posts) - - Show Bio

@Duke_Nasty said:

Just the way you phrased that made it sound like a terrible idea

Even if it wasn't already a terrible idea to begin with.

Have you considered the fact that the criminals, the people who will be using guns, will find ways to get them anyway? All banning them will do is make them more precious, and make the law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves.

Bring it, haters.

#5 Posted by Samimista (21760 posts) - - Show Bio

@JonSmith said:

Loading Video...

LOL!

#6 Edited by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl: I don't agree with banning guns but something like 95% of guns in this country were purchased legally and the other 5% isn't all criminals. Most crimes perpetrated are used with guns stolen from people who bought them legally or stolen them from the stores themselves.

EDIT: Crimes that involve guns I mean.

#7 Edited by VictorGrey (13505 posts) - - Show Bio

Already voiced my opinion on this, to sum it up:

Banning guns would make it much safer. It would drastically reduce crime levels, but it won't stop crime. Some criminals will get them illegally, but for the most part, not every robber is going to go to lengths to get their hands on a gun, some might give up, but not all. I live in Australia, and we don't have guns, (you can get a gun license for controlled gun shooting or hunting, but thats it) and nothing like this ever happens. We may have shootings, but no mass killings. But the problem with banning guns in countries where they are already popular is you can't take back the guns that everyone already has, this is what makes it seemingly impossible. You can't go knocking down peoples doors to take their guns.

#8 Posted by Joygirl (20827 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vortex13: The point was that banning guns won't stop gun crimes. It might -- MIGHT -- prevent a few cases of Chris Benoit Syndrome but overall it will be a hindrance, and will make firearms more precious and valuable, more coveted.

#9 Posted by The_Lunact_And_Manic (3296 posts) - - Show Bio

Guns are useless, let's back to shields, arrows, bows & swords!

#10 Posted by War Killer (20797 posts) - - Show Bio

How will banning guns "solve everything?"

#11 Posted by OmegaDynasty (10490 posts) - - Show Bio
 
 @SavageBeast said:
 I have an idea, we should go around and take people's guns from them. That will solve everything! Strict Gun Control ASAP.  Mr. President, we need CHANGE NOW! 


 
 
@The_Lunact_And_Manic said:

Guns are useless, let's back to shields, arrows, bows & swords!

I agree 
 
#12 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl: I disagree, making guns completely illegal would definitely reduce gun crime by a incredibly large degree. Like I said most criminals have guns that were purchased legally even if they didn't purchase the guns themselves. It is a simple fact that banning guns would greatly decrease the amount of gun related crimes. That being said, I have no problem with people owning guns though I do believe there need to be both more stringent laws around owning them and getting them.

#13 Posted by Joygirl (20827 posts) - - Show Bio

I have chitinous spikes on my face -- your argument is invalid.

#14 Posted by Joygirl (20827 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vortex13: It would reduce them a bit (though I don't think as much as everyone thinks), but the ensuing s***storm that would come from bastardizing our second amendment would literally tear the country apart, and the states would separate into warring tribes.

#15 Posted by SC (14614 posts) - - Show Bio

I think better education, educated people would be better alternative. News, media sells well when it sells danger and fear. Leads to a culture of people who have no idea whats actually a genuine threat to them. Thats going to cut down on gun numbers and allow for attention on actual dangers and concerns that could develop into danger. Also might get people to communicate and resolve disagreements faster to cut down on pointless repetitive agenda based straw man arguing.

Moderator
#16 Posted by Gambit1024 (10217 posts) - - Show Bio

@War Killer said:

How will banning guns "solve everything?"

This. In fact, I think it'd be chaotic.

What are police gonna use? Swords?

#17 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

@Vortex13: It would reduce them a bit (though I don't think as much as everyone thinks), but the ensuing s***storm that would come from bastardizing our second amendment would literally tear the country apart, and the states would separate into warring tribes.

I'm not saying it would reduce crimes in general, but it would reduce gun crimes and gun violence by a lot.

#18 Posted by Joygirl (20827 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vortex13: That doesn't address the fact that there are already a lot of petitions for states to secede. Banning guns would bring that boiling pot to bursting.

#19 Posted by OmegaDynasty (10490 posts) - - Show Bio
@Vortex13 said:

@Joygirl said:

@Vortex13: It would reduce them a bit (though I don't think as much as everyone thinks), but the ensuing s***storm that would come from bastardizing our second amendment would literally tear the country apart, and the states would separate into warring tribes.

I'm not saying it would reduce crimes in general, but it would reduce gun crimes and gun violence by a lot.

That or perhaps one should have a psychological evaluation before being able to purchase a gun. 
#20 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

I think better education, educated people would be better alternative. News, media sells well when it sells danger and fear. Leads to a culture of people who have no idea whats actually a genuine threat to them. Thats going to cut down on gun numbers and allow for attention on actual dangers and concerns that could develop into danger. Also might get people to communicate and resolve disagreements faster to cut down on pointless repetitive agenda based straw man arguing.

Very very true. I read a statistic somewhere that said about 40% of Americans believe there will be a second civil war. And it's probably the people with the stockpile of weapons that believe that. Which is a little worrying to me lol.

#21 Edited by TheSwordsman (1972 posts) - - Show Bio

Canadians have just as many guns as we do and they don't even lock their doors and there are very few gun crimes even in the big cities. I thought gun bans was the solution until i watched Bowling for columbine. It isn't. It is our society and the hate, paranoia, divisiveness, and chemicals that affect our behavior via water, food, and psychiatric prescriptions that is making so many people killers. If it wasn't guns they would be stabbing people to death or bludgeoning them to death.

There does need to be a ban on military style magazines with multiple rounds though. Six round clips max on guns that way we can beat the sh@t out of the gunman as he reloads.

plus this please oh universal powers that be:

@The_Lunact_And_Manic said:

Guns are useless lame, let's back to shields, arrows, bows & swords!

fixed too.

#22 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmegaDynasty: Not every person with mental illness is dangerous though. Present and accounted for lol. But I completely agree, a simple background check wont necessarily reveal anything that could be worrying unless it was documented which lets face it, for every one person that's a documented danger there are probably 10 others that aren't.

#23 Edited by OmegaDynasty (10490 posts) - - Show Bio
@Vortex13 said:

@OmegaDynasty: Not every person with mental illness is dangerous though. Present and accounted for lol. But I completely agree, a simple background check wont necessarily reveal anything that could be worrying unless it was documented which lets face it, for every one person that's a documented danger there are probably 10 others that aren't.

True, and they do have medication. Although, I'm pretty sure gun shop owners wouldn't be selling to someone who's background check revealed they had suicidal or homicidal tendencies. 
#24 Posted by mikethekiller (8573 posts) - - Show Bio

Sarcasm...I get it.

#25 Posted by StarKiller809 (1727 posts) - - Show Bio

This is a topic that have very good points on both sides. I however, am on the side of leaving gun control where it stands. 
 
If we outlaw guns, criminals will continue to buy them through a secret market. The people who use them for protection, won''t be able to get them and then they will be helpless. 
 
If they want to put harsher control on guns, that is fine but if it reduces the crime rates, I would be surprised. 

#26 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl: The petitions to do that in Texas has gotten something like 70,000 signatures out of a population out of about 10,000,000. The news is over blowing this big time. 70,000 sounds like a big number but when you take into account the amount of people apposed it's nothing. There will not be a secession. It's ridiculous. Though, statistics also indicate that more people are against stricter gun laws then they have been within the last 25 years.

@OmegaDynasty: Nor should people who have had those tendencies in the past be allowed to have guns even if they are on medication.

#27 Posted by Joygirl (20827 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vortex13: If they got 70,000 votes without a gun ban, what do you think a gun ban would do?

I know Montana has a clause somewhere or other that allows them to instantly secede without a debate if the second amendment is tarnished.

#28 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@StarKiller809: Again most guns criminals get and use are legally purchased, just not by them. They can either have a friend buy the guns for them or steal them from people who do own them. Outlawing guns would reduce the amount of gun related crimes. Not crime all together but gun crime and gun violence yes. Keep in mind, it's a lot easier to run from someone with a knife, then someone with a gun.

#29 Posted by StarKiller809 (1727 posts) - - Show Bio
@Vortex13: This is another reason why I said that there are good points on both sides.  
 
However, is a criminal really wanted to kill someone, I'm sure he could find a gun illegally if they were to ban them. It's also brings up the point, if some guy were to come at me with a knife, If I had I gun I could protect myself.  
 
I get your point and I do see how restricting gun use is a good thing, but I think it has it's bad sides too. I mean, one can't really say there are no gun problems after what happened on Friday. 
#30 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl: They may have made a clause when the state was founded

in 1889, but I really doubt that it stands today, in fact can you show me a link to where you found that fact?

Though you do make a good point about how there would be more signatures if guns were banned. This kind of goes to my point that I made to SC about the amount of people who believe there will be a civil war. It's ridiculous, and honestly it's stories and statistics like that make me somewhat embarrassed that I live here at times. Still, I'm happy to live here.

#31 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@StarKiller809: Very true, and that guy bought his guns legally. The gun policies in this country definitely need reform. I will say again though, if guns were illegal in general it would also be a lot lot harder for criminals to get guns.

#32 Posted by Joygirl (20827 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vortex13: Word of mouth sadly so I can't prove it.

Point is that, valid or not, if it exists and Montana decides they are sick of this crap the US will be hard pressed to stop them from becoming their own country.

#33 Posted by MasterJohn (2664 posts) - - Show Bio

Alright, guns are banned, let's see statistics.

Chicago has strict control measures and there been 485 murders this year, 19% increase from 2011

Reported today a knife wielding man in China injured 22 children

UK has tightly controlled firearm laws and UK has 14000 knife victims a year. If people want to cause harm or kill they will find a way whether guns are legal or not

Mexico bans guns and thousands are killed by guns annually

Research has been on gun control measures and see what the research found:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/o...?_s=PM:OPINION

Quote:

Chicago has strict control measures and there been 485 murders this year, 19% increase from 2011

Reported today a knife wielding man in China injured 22 children

UK has tightly controlled firearm laws and UK has 14000 knife victims a year. If people want to cause harm or kill they will find a way whether guns are legal or not

Mexico bans guns and thousands are killed by guns annually

Research has been on gun control measures and see what the research found:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/o...?_s=PM:OPINION

Quote:
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control reported on ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. CDC's conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that the laws reduced gun violence
It needs to be repeated over and over again that there is no evidence gun control measures reduce violent crime, suicide or accidents

There are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians from 2010 statistics and 100 million handguns

Homicide rate has declined by nearly 1/2 in the last 20 years and the decline in violent crime has declined 41% in that time

It needs to be repeated over and over again that there is no evidence gun control measures reduce violent crime, suicide or accidents

There are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians from 2010 statistics and 100 million handguns

Homicide rate has declined by nearly 1/2 in the last 20 years and the decline in violent crime has declined 41% in that time

Suprising, MEXICO has banned guns, and it is one of the most dangerous place in the world.

#34 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl: I don't even think it's true. and honestly if states want to leave for such stupid reasons, let them. They'll be U.S territories and will be there own nations like Puerto Rico. Also if we do let them lets see how well those states do without U.S. federal help, they'll ask to be let back in after they go bankrupt.

#35 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

@MasterJohn And of course the fact that Mexico is dangerous has nothing to do with it's corrupt government and police? It only has to do with no guns?

#36 Posted by cameron83 (7774 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joygirl said:

@Duke_Nasty said:

Just the way you phrased that made it sound like a terrible idea

Even if it wasn't already a terrible idea to begin with.

Have you considered the fact that the criminals, the people who will be using guns, will find ways to get them anyway? All banning them will do is make them more precious, and make the law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves.

Bring it, haters.

pretty much this

#37 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2501 posts) - - Show Bio

You want to ban all guns? Well, go ahead. Then while your at it, ban all drugs. Ban all alcohol. Ban all vehicles. Ban all utensils. All these lead to death anyways.

We'd be a more perfect society if we got rid of everything. But oh wait, we can't. Only the things that are protected under the Constitution are worth being freaking banned. Heaven forbid you burn every single leaf of pot out there. You'd get the LA Riots all over again.

#38 Posted by MasterJohn (2664 posts) - - Show Bio

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

You want to ban all guns? Well, go ahead. Then while your at it, ban all drugs. Ban all alcohol. Ban all vehicles. Ban all utensils. All these lead to death anyways.

We'd be a more perfect society if we got rid of everything. But oh wait, we can't. Only the things that are protected under the Constitution are worth being freaking banned. Heaven forbid you burn every single leaf of pot out there. You'd get the LA Riots all over again.

I love this post.

#39 Posted by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

Reasoned discussion seems to be leaving this thread. So I will two.

#40 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2501 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vortex13:

You underestimate individual state's rights. So far in the western states, they've defied direct orders from Washington simply by enacting rights granted to the state's individual government system.

An example being oil drilling. A state can choose to drill or not. The Dakotas are doing and experiencing a boost in the economy that isn't seen in the other more heavily populated ones. Of course the government witches and moans, saying its wrong, unconstitutional (etc.)

The only bankrupting states are the ones who need direct government bailouts like an IV bag to a vein. California, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Nevada etc. The ones who do not, are cutting the bullcrap and booting out the leeches governing their own laws, and thus actually setting a higher outcome for themselves. Freaking California is driving out taxpayers; in a few years, it'll be Greece.

#41 Edited by queenfrost_ (2611 posts) - - Show Bio

Europe really does not understand why America has legal gun laws...SO weird. As an english person I find it completely taboo. But to each its own.

I think USA needs stricter gun laws AND free mental health care. Sticking people in asylums are not the answer.

#42 Posted by SC (14614 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vortex13:

That would not surprise me, our species is funny when it comes to risk assessment, its a bit of a pass over from when it was safer to run from the tiger hiding in the grass, even if we weren't sure it actually was a tiger. That and of course modern day living has radio and TV with a regular flow of people explaining how the sky is falling. Consist research has proved over and over most people overestimate deaths caused from lightening strikes and underestimate deaths by drowning, which is a worry as far as how caution is applied to either. Americans really don't need that many guns, but there is also a bit of an escalation war that happens when the topic is brought up because of the defensiveness that leads people to address strawmen or fail to understand or apply statistics and studies. Still society is getting smarter and eventually SCIENCE! ^_^

Moderator
#43 Posted by Inner_Demon (1960 posts) - - Show Bio

I find it interesting that everyone is embroiled in debate over the role that guns, inanimate, non-sentient objects, had in this, but I'm not hearing anyone talk about how a thinking being came to be in a state where he would do something like this. Were there no red flags? Did no one reach out to him? Maybe we should also be talking about how we deal with the disturbed and mentally unwell that dwell on the fringes of our society.

Loading Video...
#44 Posted by YoungJustice (7241 posts) - - Show Bio

I said this before, and I'll say it again. "Criminals don't buy guns legally, it's impossible to get guns off the market, especially since the suppliers aren't likely to get there guns from the U.S. The government can't stop people from using guns, they can only decrease the amount of bloodshed."

#45 Posted by charlieboy (7150 posts) - - Show Bio

I personally don't like guns but I don't think a ban is the answer. Especially in the current political climate. If you actually legislate a ban I think it would just create more violence because some people would rather fight than give their guns up. I think stricter gun laws might help. But I don't know the answer and I don't pretend to.

#46 Posted by BumpyBoo (11971 posts) - - Show Bio

@Inner_Demon said:

I find it interesting that everyone is embroiled in debate over the role that guns, inanimate, non-sentient objects, had in this, but I'm not hearing anyone talk about how a thinking being came to be in a state where he would do something like this. Were there no red flags? Did no one reach out to him? Maybe we should also be talking about how we deal with the disturbed and mentally unwell that dwell on the fringes of our society.

Loading Video...

Exactly. On the one hand, I come from the UK, and people very very rarely get shot here - but they get stabbed, burned, beaten, bludgeoned, strangled...There is certainly a deeper issue here, and it will take a lot more than gun control alone to fix it. Maybe if we didn't cast mentally ill people aside like broken toys, maybe if there were not quite so many cracks in our society for people to fall through, things would be different.

Moderator
#47 Posted by Kratesis (4279 posts) - - Show Bio

This is a rather irrelevant thread. There will be no gun ban. The SCOTUS has recently ruled several gun bans unconstitutional, and those were partial bans.

The Constitution acts as a check on the power of the government, AND the majority. There will be no gun ban regardless of how bent out of shape people become. There CANNOT be a gun ban because the Constitution exists to prevent such knee jerk reactions by a majority.

Just as there will be no succession, and there CANNOT be one without the consent of the other states.

#48 Posted by cuddles666 (313 posts) - - Show Bio

At least wait for the bodies to grow cold before you mount that soapbox.

#49 Posted by AmonSet (160 posts) - - Show Bio

Second Amendment:

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is why there is so much debate about it. The language isn't even clear. It can be interpreted to mean individual gun rights. It can be interpreted as the right of a state's population to have a standing militia. It clearly says there should be regulation of the arms bearers (militia) and then clearly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or is gun ownership only if you are part of the militia. But then what about the hunters...It is very unclear and lawyers and the Supreme Court can twist it either way. I think that is the main problem with constitutional law. It becomes like interpreting the Bible. One sentence can be made to mean a lot of things.

#50 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19257 posts) - - Show Bio

@BumpyBoo said:

@Inner_Demon said:

I find it interesting that everyone is embroiled in debate over the role that guns, inanimate, non-sentient objects, had in this, but I'm not hearing anyone talk about how a thinking being came to be in a state where he would do something like this. Were there no red flags? Did no one reach out to him? Maybe we should also be talking about how we deal with the disturbed and mentally unwell that dwell on the fringes of our society.

Loading Video...

Exactly. On the one hand, I come from the UK, and people very very rarely get shot here - but they get stabbed, burned, beaten, bludgeoned, strangled...There is certainly a deeper issue here, and it will take a lot more than gun control alone to fix it. Maybe if we didn't cast mentally ill people aside like broken toys, maybe if there were not quite so many cracks in our society for people to fall through, things would be different.

I agree it is a deeper issue,and it has something to do with the way society is.Though the politicians wont admit this or are simply to ignorant to see it and seem too concerned with point scoring.And I am glad guns aren't available over here and that the police dont carry them.I think countries like America do have a gun problem though as well,I mean when guns are bought in things seem to escalate.