Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Try Russia.. guns flow like water..

A similar system to US would work..
A banning would not.
small steps

This nation created the AK47

 

Doesn't mean you can act responsibly (in your opinion) on the behalf of everyone. When someone shows that they can not act responsibly, you keep them from owning guns to keep them from hurting people. Simple.

Balbus, auto regulation in the US is a joke, in all sorts of ways. Probably not something you should be using as an example. But to follow how you used it: does anyone need guns? no, most people don't. And most people don't need fast food, or swimming pools, or clothes, or hot air balloons. But in a free country, you can't keep people from having things because you personally don't think they need it.

For that matter, you don't need a computer, and they electrocute people all the time, and they're used in the planning or commission of crimes all the time. And every single computer used in the planning or comission of a crime was, at one time, legitimately manufactured, and probably purchased, either by the criminal or by someone for the criminal, or the criminal might have stolen it from a legit source.

 

If guns are outlawed then criminals will still be able to get them just good people that want to use them for self-defense and to hunt wouldn't be able to.

 

That sums up this thread.

But there's one thing you missed: I don't need to hunt, or use it for self defense, to own a legitimate gun. I have a friend that just bought an AK47. He doesn't hunt, doesn't need it for self defense (he already has a mossberg and a colt, and the AK isn't as useful for that sort of thing) it's just for fun. He's not a criminal, and it's a legal gun, it's just to go shoot at the range and have a good time. Now unless you can prove he robs children for their lollypops with it, there's NO reason that he may not have it, this being a FREE country.

To go back to the tired car analogy, when you buy a car, it's more likely that you'll kill a person with your purchase than when you buy a gun. Why don't you have to PROVE a need for a car? why isn't there a waiting period for a car? Because it's your RIGHT to have that car, until you prove that you can't drive it safely, at which point you lose your license to drive it.

 

I live in AZ which has some of, if not the most liberal gun laws in the country. I totally believe that AZ should be a model for other states. In short I support having an armed citizenry and gun safety should be taught to children at a young age, so they won't grow up fearful of firearms. I agree it's not guns that kill, but rather people.

 

Where I live they are outlawed, and if I wanted to go on a homicidal rampage I honestly would not know how to obtain a gun. I'm not sure that would be the case in the US.

 

Yet I feel sure that if you wanted to make a plethora of pipe bombs, or molotov cocktails, or truck bombs, you would have no problem, and could do it in a matter of days or hours.

In fact, improvised artillery pieces are rather easy to make. Or an RPG (pack black powder or other incindiary in the nose of a model rocket) etc.

If you really want to kill people in a senseless way, I don't think you'd have to depend on guns. You could just get into an idling truck at a busy mall while they're unloading it, and run down a drove of shoppers in a matter of minutes, before they'd ever stop you....

Guns are much more useful in targeted fighting between mutual combatants, or self defense.

Also, in the US, you might know where to find a gun, but you'd have to be patient about your rampage, and have a while to chicken out and calm down, there's a 2 week waiting period most of the time. Yeah, every now and then someone waits out his 2 weeks, and goes and shoots some people..... and ya konw what? Maybe this does happen every few years, or even months, during which time the war on drugs and various other US assaults on it's own citizenry kill HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS, and just as many people (often wholly innocent) die in US prisons with the "throw em all in a cage and give the meanest power and the scent of blood" strategy that the US uses to make prison MUCH worse than simple honest incarceration should be.

 

Keep the Guns ,, lets just get rid of the people

{Confucious}

 

Yes, all that is true. Should those things be legal, in your opinion?

 

That problem is easy solved

Get rid of Trucks

 

Mostly that you like coffee more than tea, I try not to jump to conclusions.

 

All the accidents? Some facts and figures would nice to show how many "All the accidents" really amounts to.

 

I have nothing against stopping inebriated driving and I have nothing against taking guns away from those who have misused them.

But I don't think we should take away the right to drive from people who have shown no propensity for inebriated driving and likewise and I don't believe that guns should taken away from those who show no propensity to misuse them.

 

Like anything, if you Ban it - it will only go 'underground' (Remember Prohibition) - Here in the UK they are banned (barring particular clubs or special licence) however, shootings still go on

 

You've come to be saying this quite often now and to me it seems to be one of those valueless statistics.

Quite honestly how does one go about getting a gun that was not originally obtained legally.

For instance organized crime goes to, let's say China, and legally buys 1000 assault rifles and illegally imports them to the US and sells them on the black market. There just is not, at this time at least, a business called Illegal Arms Manufacture.

Or let's say that organized uses gun control measures to obtain guns, such as bribing an official to obtain a list of all registered guns in a certain area and just goes down the list stealing those guns. All those guns would have been originally obtained legally and legally registered but are now illegal.

 

I would have thought that the issue is not in taking away driving itself but inebriated driving, which is in itself harmless in the sense that it does no damage to anyone else (like guns). When it does do damage people say it is not harmless and does pose a risk and so must be made illegal, which is what we have done in our society. Now, extending that to guns, you could say that it is the person behind the wheel/gun which is important. If so then logically, drink driving should be legal for some people.

 

That's a good point, why isn't this thread called "Should cars be outlawed in the U.S.A."?

 

Are you saying we should make fertilizer, a major component in homemade bombs, illegal? I don't think the farmers will be happy about that.

 

That's kind of the bottom line.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying but if I misunderstood just let me know and I'll try again.

I would agree with you that it is "the person behind the wheel/gun which is important" but I'm not sure how that leads to the conclusion that "drunk driving should be legal for some people".