Should America ban guns?

1. 88

   RJ Schwartzposted 5 years ago

   Do you think America should ban firearms ?  If so, tell us why ?  If not, tell us why?
   The gun debate has been raging for a long time - is it time to force everyone to turn in their weapons and be like England?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, it would be unconstitutional to ban all citizen ownership of firearms.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Correct.  As long as we leave them (unmodified) BB guns it meets the letter of the constitution, if not the intent.
         
         On the other hand we can make it so difficult to obtain a weapon that it becomes self defeating to even try.  We can, and do, ban those that we think look bad.  We can, and do, claim that citizen grade guns are actually military grade, used in assaulting fortified positions by our armed forces.  We can, and do, ban the purchase of ammunition for the guns we leave them.  We can, and do, a great deal to progress in the efforts to disarm the citizenry.

         replyreport
   2. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No! It is too late for that, even given that the 2nd Amendment were repealed. There is no way that all the guns would be turned in, leaving a very vulnerable population. People "under the gun" don't have time to dial 911 and wait 20 minutes to an hour for police to arrive (if they do) to save their lives. You could not force everyone to turn in his or her gun. Multi-gun households might turn in one or two, but keep the rest. Not everyone owns a registered gun. Some buy them on the street, and other people inherit guns from parents who bought them 50 or more years ago. It simply is not practical to imagine that this would take guns out of the hands of the criminal element. The criminal could just obtain more on the black market. Remember what happened in the days of Prohibition. Alcohol and drinking just went underground. I believe that is what would happen in this case.
      
      Requiring that all guns be turned over to the government and destroyed could even be a catalyst for a revolution.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         There is no doubt whatsoever that you are correct; ban all guns and only criminals will have guns.
         
         So why do we keep trying to do it?  That's the next question, coupled with the question of why do it at all when there is no evidence it saves any lives?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Who is trying to ban all guns?

            replyreport
            1. 88

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               There is an ultra liberal element that has been trying for years to get all guns banned. This then stirs up the NRA and even people with moderate viewpoints on the 2nd Amendment. In the 1970s and 80s these groups had names like "Handgun Control" and the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns." I could list sites for you, but there are too many. Just google "organized movement to ban all guns," and you will get a screen full.

               replyreport
            2. 96

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Pretty sure I've given you an answer to that question before.  But if not, MizBejabbers did so.

               replyreport
2. 0

   Onusonusposted 5 years ago

   

   replyreport
3. 92

   Jodahposted 5 years ago

   As an outsider and from a country that has gun laws (which are effective I add) I can’t preach what American should do. You have a much larger population and gun ownership is much more intrinsic. “Banning guns” is really the wrong terminology to use. I do think they need to be made harder to obtain. Here is a little about our situation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      John, I read through some of your cite. It really makes me wonder how two countries that sprang from the same basic mother country could be so different. Of course, some will argue with me that the U.S. is also of French, Spanish, and Germanic heritage, which is true. The first settlers to the U.S. came mainly for religious freedom, while Australia was established as or wth a big penal colony. Can't have criminals interfering with our religion, now can we so send them to Australia. That stumps me even more about the guns. Got any ideas?
      I think the one thing our two countries have in common is that the European settlers chased the natives off to their own corners. Guns became a way of life here, so why didn't Australia parallel our way of life? The only difference I see is that Britain retained control of it, while the U.S. shook off her rule.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I remember the gun confiscation in Australia - I looked into the effects it produced a few years ago for a hub on gun controls.
      
      Nothing happened for several years beyond a continuation in the slow decline in homicide rates (although there may or may not have been as many bodies with bullet holes, there were just as many bodies) that had been going on for years.  The mass murder rate  (a "massacre" to you Aussies) ticked up just a tiny bit, although it was not statistically significant; again, there was no reduction in the body count, although the weapon of choice went from guns to matches.
      
      This is what gun controls do all over the world; nothing.  There isn't a shred of evidence anywhere that low gun ownership rates result in a low homicide rate.  There isn't even a shred of evidence that log gun ownership rates correspond (as opposed to cause) to low homicide rates.

      replyreport