Should Guns be Banned in the US?

No, as I said, people can lose the right to own a gun... By misusing them and such...

Beyond that... if ONE person has the right to own a gun, all people who haven't shown reason they shouldn't, should have the same right.

 

The general safety of society as a whole.

To answer all this^^^ All of those things you mentioned serve other purposes. Guns (not icluding those meant/used for hunting) serve no other purpose other than to shoot.

 

there are already preemptive measures like background checks across the board, and classes in some localities.

 

....

Do you know anything about hunting, or are you just saying there is no need for hunting pistols and hunting shotguns because it fits into your world view?
They serve different purposes.

Well you stated that guns have no intended purpose other than to kill as evidence that they should be banned. I was asking you if you felt the same as any other weaponry, considering that they also fall under your criteria for banning guns.

So someone can buy a sword, an instrument designed only to kill, but someone cannot buy a gun by the same standard?

The biggest question is why should we not be allowed to have them.
As it stands right now it is our right to have them. That's the precedent. The psychological question of "Why do you need guns?" simply isn't enough to overturn the 2nd Amendment.

 

There are lots of preemtive laws in place, which prevent felons, (often nonviolent drug users, simple pot dealers.... those convicted of graffiti on the basis of police misconduct, in my case, if I can't get evidence suppressed) those with (suspected) mental issues, and others from getting guns. there are heavy restrictions on who can carry what gun where. It's very hard to legally own an automatic weapon or suppressor, or a host of other things. And not a single one of them works, other than creating red tape for those who do try to follow the law. Nearly every gun has a part that can be filed or altered or replaced to prevent burst or automatic fire, you can put an apple or potato or soda bottle over the muzzle to suppress sound and flash, you can enlarge or fabricate custom larger clips or magazines, you can buy a gun on a street corner. Again, a war on matter won't work.

*edit* so you think that swords should also be illegal... again, better outlaw my anvil, hammer, fire, water, and earth pretty quick, because I can (with my VERY minimal skill) make anything from a lot of gun parts to swords.... Better start registering plumbers to you can keep tabs on their cutoff pipe waste to make sure it's not being subverted into making pipe guns.

Control freaks are destined to fail, I'm just worried about what the world is going to look like when they're done with that failure.

 

I think I agree with that.

If guns were registered it would be a bit harder for people who maybe shouldn't have them to get one. On top of that if the only guns available were hunting rifles, there'd be less gun violence. Less guns with stricter governing=less gun violence. Am I wrong?

All people who haven't shown reason they shouldn't, should be able to own a hunting rifle.

People who (perhaps due to background checks, record checks, etc.) have shown reason as to why they shouldn't own a gun shouldn't.

 

Will there be less gun violence? Probably... will there be less violence and killing? Absolutely NOT.

Get rid of the references to the type of weapon and I will agree...

Banning automatic fire weapons? Sure, but the same criteria I already said... Ban them completely or not at all...

Step back and answer a different question for me would you?

Do you trust all cops implicitly with your life?

 

You are dead wrong.

Most gun crimes are comitted among people who know each other, often with no prior record, and if I'm not mistaken, the gun of choice is a .22 long. These are often committed in the home. No matter what fox news tells you, the probability of being shot by a loved one with a hunting or target tool is much greater than being shot by a gangbanger you've never met with an automatic weapon. And in these crimes of passion, a meat cleaver, or chair, or computer, or anything else capable of killing, will suffice.

And the .22 long rifle I mentioned does have a different purpose, it's used mostly for target shooting/plinking, and sometimes shooting rats and the like.

 

Therein lies the biggest problem. A psychological tie to something that is considered too precious to change despite the rest of society changing.

 

did you know?: the constitution has been amended 27 times.

 

What makes it okay to outlaw nuclear weapons? Surely you can agree they should be done away with?

 

The second amendment protects the rest of the bill of rights. It was meant that way, and has always been that way, if you read the writings of the framers.

 

I have my fingers crossed for #28


No I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know (I'm not being sarcastic).

 

What no one has pointed out is the fact even in the US, the crime rate from the cities heavily skew the overall number, and cities generally have stricter gun laws, while crime rates in rural areas and the suburbs, where legal gun ownership is the highest, is generally quite low.

 

Who cares though? Laws change, times change, society changes. Why shouldn't that?

Society has been so conditioned to think that these things are god given rights. They're not.

 

did you know?:

one of the amendments imposes the prohibition of alcohol. another subsequent amendment lifts the prohibition of alcohol.

another interesting factoid :2thumbsup:

 

Right, so why not try and shorten the list a little bit?

 

It takes years of planning, hundreds of scientists, millions of dollars, hundreds if not thousands of tons of hard to get material (from reactors to nuclear ore material) to make an atomic bomb. The logistics put it quite out of this. I can forge a knife in my backyard. I could spend my life, many times over, and never get a marble sized chunk of uranium.

While I follow toms view on outlawing matter, with nukes, in that no one should have them, obviously if anyone does, due to their nature, they must be controlled by a government that is some form of consensus rule.

But that is wholely unrelated to this, due to matters of practicality.

 

So you feel that if guns are to be banned, that it must be all guns?

No I don't, but if one were to decide to use a gun against me, I'm fucked either way. I either get shot and likely go to jail for whatever I was in the altercation for, or die, or I shoot the cop and go to jail anyways.

 

This is a plain silly post.

Why not try and answer my point with a satisfactory rebuttal a little bit?

The reason I didn't shorten that list is to drive home the variety of deadly objects. The body is quite dangerous as well, there are dozens of simple ways to kill a human in under ten seconds, using no weapon, masterable by any average adult... better start outlawing adult humans too, because they sometimes kill each other.