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.
As we all know, gun laws and gun ownership are and have been a hot topic for as long as I can remember. There have always been those who are completely for the 2nd amendment and those who wish to see it totally repealed. And of course those who are in the middle of the debate, who simply want to see more restrictions but not a complete removal of our right to bear arms. But through all the debates on the subject that I have seen, I have yet to see anyone give any sort of real answer to this question, even though I have posed it several times over the years. So here it is, once again, for your consideration.
If all or most of the legally owned firearms in this country were banned and confiscated, what could be done about all the illegally owned weapons in the hands of criminals across our great nation? The call to disarm the civilian populace is so loud, yet no one seems to realize we will just be leaving ourselves at the mercy of those who don't bother with background checks or gun registration. Illegal firearms cross our borders constantly, and those weapons are not being bought by your average, everyday citizen. Those weapons go straight into the hands of criminals. And despite supposedly enormous efforts by our government, those gun shipments continue to cross our borders and arm the criminal elements of our country.
Personally, I believe in the 2nd amendment. I believe we have the right to own firearms just as we have the right to speak freely and assemble. And I believe that my 2nd amendment rights helps to keep me and my family safe from those who do not live by the laws of the land. So if you are one of those who wish to take away my guns, I would like you to tell us all how we should handle all those guns that the government can't locate and confiscate. What can we do to solve this part of the gun control problem?
PS. I do support legislation involving improved background checks, gun seizures for mental health issues, and the need for improved regulation of certain kinds of firearms. I do not think I should be able to go out and buy a rocket launcher tomorrow if I want one. Just wanted to clear that up ahead of time before the really crazy posts started to hit. Please stay on the topic.
If guns were banned it would take decades to get rid of most of them. Every day more will be gone. If it was decided that guns should be gone from our society, then start today and maybe in 30 years most will be out of the hands of criminals. In the mean time there will be fewer and fewer of them on the streets and fewer gun deaths every year. That's how to get them out of criminal hands.
I cannot speak for all progressives, but I care about illegal guns. And all sorts of other illegal stuff.
I have never met a progressive who simply did not care about illegal guns.
Well then why are all the Democrat run cities not doing much about them. The media doesn't talk about the thousands of inner city Blacks, many considered "children" for statistical purposes killing each other. I don't doubt your sincerity, nor do I doubt your good intentions.
If guns were banned it would take decades to get rid of most of them. Every day more will be gone. If it was decided that guns should be gone from our society, then start today and maybe in 30 years most will be out of the hands of criminals. In the mean time there will be fewer and fewer of them on the streets and fewer gun deaths every year. That's how to get them out of criminal hands.
This has worked just like that when they banned other things.
Oh wait. . . no it didn't. In fact, it usually creates a more robust market because there is more moeny to be made selling banned things.
prohibition? Nope worked in reverse.
Fireworks bans in various states? Nope at least in my state "illegal fireworks became more accessible to young kids who should not have them.
Prostitution? Nope failed.
Drugs? Nope created a stronger market.
Cuban Cigars? Sorry nope. Every fancy party I went to where they offered cigars to their guests offered name brand Cuban cigars (usually smuggled in from Mexico).
Underage drinking? Yeah, we sure put a stop to that. (Actually we have more youth drunks than countries where it is not banned).
Maybe there is some popular or believed necessary thing that was banned that actually resulted in a decrease in use. I cannot think of any.
Fully automatic weapons? Nope just made them worth more and thereby encouraged people to sneak them into the country for massive profits.
But sure, guns will be different, because some people really really want it to be different and that is how things work, if you want it enough, it just happens.
If you want fewer people to have guns, you need to make fewer people want guns. Make them feel safe without guns and fewer people will want them.
It amuses me when you follow the logic of most of the liberal thinking by people that I know on this subject.
Should no one have guns?
No only the police and army should have guns, they can be controlled in their use of guns.
Controlled by whom?
Well by politicians.
Which politicians?
Democratic politicians of course, republicans are crazy nazi bigots who should never be allowed near a gun.
Do you want local democratic politicians like Kwami Kilpatrick to control the use of guns?
Well, no, elite democrats like Nacy Pelosi and her ilk, or Bernie.
So what you are really saying is all guns or rather all ability to exert forceful control of other people's actions should be in the hands of your selected elite politicians?
A child at a school hits another child with a stick.
Should the stick be taken off the child doing the hitting?
Or should the child being hit also be given a stick?
Once you have solved that one, substitute the word 'stick' with 'gun'.
I'm unsure of your hypothetical because this presupposes a child under 18. Your State possession laws may vary. But, OK: A child at a school hits another child with a gun.
Should the gun be taken off the child doing the hitting?
Or should the child being hit also be given a gun?
Now in most jurisdictions and on school property, possession of a gun is illegal, so an adult giving a firearm to a child on school property has committed several crimes. Heck, kids chewing a PopTart into the shape of a gun ang going "Bang, Bang" have been suspended. Hitting a child with a stick would also result in a suspension. Grownups do not perpetuate violence for child on child activities. "Your point? (and I guess you must have had one?)"
Yeah, brilliant solution. The guy who fired the gun injuring these students was a reserve police officer and probably had the 'same training as you'.
Seaside High teacher accidentally fires gun in class, students injured
SEASIDE, Calif. —
A teacher who also serves as a reserve police officer accidentally fired a gun inside a Seaside High School classroom Tuesday, police said, and three students were injured.
Dennis Alexander was teaching a course about gun safety for his Administration of Justice class when his gun went off at 1:20 p.m.
Alexander was pointing his gun at the ceiling when it fired. Pieces of the ceiling fell to the ground.
A news release from the Seaside Police Department said no one suffered "serious injuries." One 17-year-old boy suffered moderate injuries when fragments from the bullet ricocheted off the ceiling and lodged into his neck, the student's father, Fermin Gonzales, told KSBW.
The teacher had just told the class that he wanted to make sure his gun wasn't loaded, when the gun fired, according to Gonzales.
maybe we can 3dprint a gun....would it be an illegal gun?
Maybe? 3d printing firearms is a reality, in high strength polymers, that are not detected by metal detectors.
No, it would not be an "illegal gun". The constitutions 2nd amendment, forbids any arms(not limited to small arms, or they would have put the word "small" in there) to be illegal for the public to keep & bear.
Because teachers are people and people, in the US in particular, shoot other people at an alarming rate. If you don't think arming teachers across the country increases the likely-hood of a teacher shooting students your head really is stuck in the sand. I'm not looking forward to telling you I told you so.
There is a huge point being ignored on purpose. One element being skipped over deliberately, I suggest, is the original thought was to allow teachers with a CCL to bring their sidearms with them into the school environment by doing away with Gun Free Zones. It is quite foolish to expect a non-shooter be trained and armed as part of some mythical safety effort.
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.
