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.
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?
Oh boy! Do the terrorists ever love your argument!
Boston Marathon attack. Tsarnev didn't use a gun. He used a bomb fashioned from a pressure cooker.
9-11. Men with box cutters hijacking a plane.
Tim McVeigh. He made a bomb and blew up a building, killing hundreds.
No guns used. Just hateful men who believed killing was the answer to everything.
Box cutters are no longer allowed on planes. In fact, a whole bunch of new regulations and TSA checks came out of what we learned when an airplane was used as a weapon on 9/11. Since, no plane has been used as a weapon in the US. Why can't we learn from this?
Why do we practically support selling guns to hateful men who believed killing was the answer to everything?
Box cutters are no longer allowed on planes. In fact, a whole bunch of new regulations and TSA checks came out of what we learned when an airplane was used as a weapon on 9/11. Since, no plane has been used as a weapon in the US. Why can't we learn from this?
Why do we practically support selling guns to hateful men who believed killing was the answer to everything?
But someone tried to smuggle a bomb on a plane in his underwear.
Liberal logic - Whenever there is a murder, just ban whatever instrument the person, or terrorist, used to commit the murder. Take away guns, pressure cookers, fertilizer, pipes, nails, knives, box cutters, automobiles, underwear, shoes, jumbo jet airlines and aviation fuel, etc... Problem solved.
How about if we start seriously regulating guns and you can use pressure cookers, fertilizer, pipes, nails, knives, box cutters, automobiles, underwear, and shoes to protect yourself.
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?
Common sense gun laws would eliminate some/many mass shootings. But republicans refuse to pass any gun control laws, even those that (solely) stop suspected terrorists from buying guns.
Republicans claim to be the party of gun owners, but being a responsible gun owner involves gun safety rules and gun safety regulations. But like my above sources show republicans refuse to pass any gun safety laws (even those that stop suspected terrorists from buying guns.)
How about if we start seriously regulating guns and you can use pressure cookers, fertilizer, pipes, nails, knives, box cutters, automobiles, underwear, and shoes to protect yourself.
Or things like alcohol and bottles. An explosive, in theory, can be made from a bottle and alcohol. It's done with gasoline. One can make explosives from chlorine, dry ice. You'd have to ban basically everything.
People with evil motives will do whatever it takes to commit murder.
How about if we start seriously regulating guns and you can use pressure cookers, fertilizer, pipes, nails, knives, box cutters, automobiles, underwear, and shoes to protect yourself.
Can you put a pressure cooker under your coat and bring it in a night club?
Can you kill 50 people with a box cutter?
Can you kill as many people with a pipe bomb as you can a AK-47 with 20 extra magazines?
Guns are the weapon of choice for mass murders and having common sense gun laws (is common sense.)
Last edited by chad3; 06-14-2016 at 11:21 AM..
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.
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.
