Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-14-2016, 05:21 AM
 
4,861 posts, read 9,314,380 times
Reputation: 7762

Advertisements

I know this is a well known and very basic argument, but it seems that a lot of people just don't get it.

Banning the legal sale of any or all guns in the U.S. will do nothing to stop mass shootings or terrorism here. Nothing. People who want to kill, especially people filled with as much rage and blind hatred as the Orlando shooter, will still have guns. You don't have to go to a gun store to buy a gun, they are sold illegally everyday in every state on the street. If it becomes illegal to buy and own guns, the only people who will stop buying and owning guns will be people who actually care about abiding by the law.

Heroin is illegal in every state in the U.S., yet deaths by heroin overdoses are skyrocketing everywhere and it can be found in every state and probably every city and town in the country. People don't go to heroin stores and buy it, they buy it from dealers on the street. Why does anyone think that it would be any different with guns?

The only thing that would change if guns were outlawed for once and for all is that law abiding citizens who own them for recreation or self protection would cease to have them and become more vulnerable to attacks by thugs and criminals, and thugs and criminals would keep on doing what they have been doing, unabated.

I know this is a very basic argument, but can anyone really dispute it? Why can't people like Hillary and Obama see this and then begin discussions on the fundamental reasons for why people want to kill in the first place so that that can be addressed, since these people will always be able to get weapons of mass destruction, legal or not? It seems like digging at the root of the problem would make a lot more sense. I don't personally know anyone who, if they suddenly came into possession of a roomful of weapons, would ever remotely use them on another human being, so it seems that the problem is not so much the weapons themselves as the people who are using them. How is this not obvious?

America has lost the war on illegal drugs, why would the war on illegal guns be any different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2016, 06:25 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
37,223 posts, read 19,225,735 times
Reputation: 14919
Banning certain classes of arms or reclassifying them like machine guns will certainly slow them down a bit, however. And prosecution for all involved in an illegal arms sale.

Six shot maximum capacity and no carry concealed or open would put a serious dent in the ability of someone to shoot a hundred people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 06:31 AM
 
7,272 posts, read 4,216,976 times
Reputation: 5466
Quote:
Banning certain classes of arms or reclassifying them like machine guns will certainly slow them down a bit, however. And prosecution for all involved in an illegal arms sale.

Six shot maximum capacity and no carry concealed or open would put a serious dent in the ability of someone to shoot a hundred people.
The govt. will just give them the guns directly. It does no good to have a peaceful and productive society - it lessens the need for govt. Follow the money...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,759 posts, read 8,220,852 times
Reputation: 8537
The GOP failed to extend the assault weapons ban in 2004 and we get to see the results in real time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 06:40 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094
Of course it would. It worked so well in Paris, how could it not work here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 06:41 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss View Post
The GOP failed to extend the assault weapons ban in 2004 and we get to see the results in real time.
But the government openly admits that the AWB had done jack squat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,759 posts, read 8,220,852 times
Reputation: 8537
Only in the eyes of the GOP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
39,079 posts, read 51,252,674 times
Reputation: 28327
Banning all guns and removing them certainly would reduce gun violence of all sorts. That is axiomatic. It is also not going to happen, so it is pointless to have a discussion about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 07:01 AM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
16,352 posts, read 8,101,791 times
Reputation: 9726
Banning all guns. Would that include police and military? And if not that would mean the continued manufacturing and distribution of thousands of firearms. So criminals and terrorists (and agents of the police state) would still be able to obtain firearms while law abiding citizens would be completely disarmed. This idea is a non-starter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2016, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
18,773 posts, read 18,154,352 times
Reputation: 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss View Post
Only in the eyes of the GOP
How are we going to keep armed guards and our police from purchasing these weapons? If you notice, every time there is an incident at the White House, almost all of the security forces have assault weapons. Why don't you tell them you only want them to use only hand guns?

Any law that we could make would not have prevented this shooting. The only thing that could have prevented the shooting is if his ex-wife filed abuse charges and he was labeled by our criminal justice system - thus making it illegal for him to purchase the weapons (if that would really help). However many Muslim women would be too afraid to press charges against their own husbands.

Last edited by fisheye; 06-14-2016 at 07:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top