Should Guns be Banned in the US?

I didn't say it's too precious to change, I said changing it would require valid reason to do so.

As another poster has pointed out, it has been changed many times.

 

Because it's a plain silly position.

 

Yes, and to be clear on that... that is NOT possible... because one can always be built, even if there is no automated machinery to do it (the phrase someone wanted earlier)...

Sorry... did I read that right? Was that.... if a cop decides to shoot you, you are going to just stand there and let him because if you shoot him first, you may go to jail?

Really?

 

I have tried to answer all your posts honestly, if it's not to your liking that isn't my fault. What I meant by shorten the list is take guns off of it, thus having at least less (largely useless) things to kill another with.

As for you manufacturing weapons that you keep bringing up. If one decides to do that fine, but the rate at which someone would do that would be a lot less than the rate at which people buy guns and kill others with them.

 

Could you please tell me why?

To clarify that position, I don't think it's right or acceptable to outlaw common items easily fashionable from common matter or those common matter starting points because then only the OUTLAWS have them, which is bad for EVERYBODY. Not to mention because I consider it our inherent right to possess these things, unless we have shown prior reason that we are unfit. Lunarverse tried to throw a stick in my spokes by bringing up nuclear weapons, which is a whole different ballgame, for obvious reasons.

 

And as I said to another poster who brought that up, is the general well being of the public not a good enough reason to do so?

Being against guns because so many of them are useless and kill others is a silly position?

 

The manufacturing is to make a point about trying to control substance in the way that you keep suggesting. The majority of gun crimes happen with the type of guns that even you don't suggest we outlaw, and lots of the classic "gun control nao!" type of gun crime happens with very old guns, there's just too many and have been for far too long for a ban to hurt anyone but the law abiding citizen. Or this crime happens with modified guns, like the famous fiasco with the tec-9. It was possible to modify it to shoot full auto, which was promptly changed. Then colombine happend with a semi auto only one, but that photograph is still famous in gun control circles, showing a kid waving what looks like a scary submachine gun. Not ONLY is it possible to easily modify guns to show the charicteristics you're suggesting we outlaw, but it's practically as easy, if not easier (because auto is NOT a useful, or particularly deadly, tactical feature, it just looks dangerous on brady campaign propaganda) to commit these violent crimes with the stock guns.

As for hunting rifles... I don't profess to be a gun person, but ok, how about a 30/06 remington 700? famous hunting/sport rifle, famous mankilling sniper rifle. (If I'm wrong about this example, gun people, feel free to call me out... that's just what I've gleaned from speaking with gun people, including a police officer who personally bought it for police work AND sport)

 

qft!

Don't you realize banning guns will only lead to a bigger black market for them which leads to more crime? How is that a good thing?

 

No, but if I were in a situation where a cop was going to shoot at me, the odds that I'd have a gun on me are pretty damn slim.

 

I believe he was refering to lunaverse postion, not yours.

 

Fun map:


Now you can track the expansion of concealed carry laws. Now from this map we can either infer that given the dramatic decline in violent crime in the 90's and early 00's combined with the vast expansion of carry rights in the country that the more people you have armed the more positive it's result on crime. Or we can take it for the fact that crime is caused and effects by societal problems, mainly the drug war and the money involved with it as well vast income disparities vs gun legislation.

 

So why not ban the rest and keep the ones meant for hunting?

 

It's 100% guarenteed you WONT have one if you had your way...

 

Isn't he saying the ones meant for hunting are the ones usually used in murders?

 

There's those 'outlaws' people keep mentioning. We don't have many of those in Canada...

 

Because that would criminalize millions and millions of guns held from everything from various shooting sports to self defense, when there is no reason to restrict the rights of the owners and no benefit from doing so... especially in light of syds map, above your post.

As I said, hunting rifles are often used in crimes of passion or premeditated murder. Handguns are sold, and training provided, almost exclusively for self defense, other than in LEO and military circles.

 

Yes he is, but at least in doing so with all the other guns being banned there'd still be less gun violence.

 

Yeah, because you don't many people in canada, period. And you already have the laws you're lobbying for, in canada... I don't honestly know, is there a lot of gun crime of any sort there?

 

Banning guns, besides hunting rifles, would have no benefit?

 

That's what I said. See my post which you quoted, which I added another line to, and look at syds map and the statement he made when presenting it.