Social Question

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

Does anyone else think guns should be outlawed?

Asked by Self_Consuming_Cannibal (4246 points ) December 24th, 2012

Before jumping the gun (pun intended) and saying no, keep in mind that:

a) the Sandy Hook massacre probably wouldn’t have been commited if guns were outlawed. (The shooter stole the gun from his mom who owned them legally, therefore giving him easy access to it) and

b) you hardly ever (if ever) hear about a good Samaritan stopping a mass murder (use Sandy Hook for example). The murderer usually kills themselves (Columbine, V-Tech, Sandy Hook, all of which wouldn’t have had access to guns if they were illegal) or the police stops or kills the killer and

c) while owning a gun could make you feel more safe, it could also make you more of a target by a criminal who wants a gun.

While most peopl say, “If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns,” I like to think of it more like this; “If you oultaw guns, less outlaws will have guns.”

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

59 Answers

bookish1's avatar

Thank you for posing this question.
My instinctive answer is “Yes,” because I was brought up on that side of the culture wars in the U.S. (on this issue, at least).
I sympathize with your retort about fewer outlaws having guns, but we have no way of knowing how big the black market in guns would become, when there is still such a high demand in the U.S. Look at what happened during Prohibition, and the ongoing War on Drugs. Culture doesn’t change overnight, and I’m pretty sure if all guns were outlawed in the U.S. suddenly, there would be serious short term and long term repercussions.
I sure wish I didn’t live in such a gun-happy society.
I hate that I live in a mid-sized town and I’m afraid of people on the street at night having guns. When I was in Paris, I got harassed occasionally, but I never feared that someone would come up to me with a gun, which I certainly would fear in an American city of equivalent size. There was a nightclub shooting in France while I was there and it was national news. In the U.S., that kind of thing happens almost every day.

BBawlight's avatar

Another one of these questions? I really don’t like them, to be honest.
It’s like everyone is ignoring the fact that we have constitutional rights! Are you all really that blind of the US Constitution? Or do you just choose to ignore it?
Taking away guns is like taking away the right to free speech or right to freedom of religion (Which were BOTH stated in the 1st amendment).
It doesn’t matter if they’re used for killing or not! What I think matters is the fact that people like to stomp on the Constitution like it’s dirt. Which, by proxy, means that you’re stepping on our rights! Politics pisses me off!

jerv's avatar

/headpalm

The blind idealism and ignorance of reality is strong here.

I am am machinist who knows how to make propellants. Outlaw guns, and I will be a rich man, and many others will learn the skills I have trying to get rich too.

Outlawing guns will not solve a damn thing. To think otherwise is childish at best. Either fix the reasons that some people do heinous things, or you are just doing a half-assed, knee-jerk response. Hey, drunk drivers kill people too, so outlaw motor vehicles!

marinelife's avatar

Yes, I do think so.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

I’m sure the Framers of the Constitition thought of an AR-15 with a 30 round mag when they put that clause in the Bill Of Rights. Everyone should have the right to heavy firepower. Hey if we’re going to have a militia lets have one that kicks ass.

PhiNotPi's avatar

I think that certain weapons need to be outlawed. I don’t want people to own military-style weapons, such as assault weapons, or weapons with large magazines. In my opinion, people should own guns for one of two reasons: hunting, or self-defense (but mostly self-defense). You don’t need military-style weapons for either of these.

I also believe that the right to bear arms is limited to those two purposes. It may be currently legal to own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, but I don’t think that it is included as one of our rights.

CWOTUS's avatar

I’d be happier with some type of effective deterrent to those who already use weapons in illegal and malicious ways. Putting aside the high-profile horrors of Sandy Hook and Columbine for a moment, what can be done about stopping or “effectively punishing” those criminals who commit armed robbery, home invasions, carjacking and drive-by shooting, to name a few?

Those things are already illegal, no matter who does them. But the punishments don’t seem to deter the perpetrators.

I don’t think we need more and more onerous (and ineffective) regulation, law and hoops to jump through for those of us who not only ‘try’ but actually do live peacefully with others. You don’t need “more laws” to protect yourself from me and people like me. We’re far more likely to go out of our way to help you, protect you and assist you in ways that you can’t even imagine.

What do you propose to do about those who already, even in the society we have right now, today, threaten our collective homes, families and peace? Start to deal with the things that are already illegal and I’d be happy to discuss “where to go from there”. For now you’re just wasting your time, fooling yourself that your silly prohibitions can have any real effect and giving real power and real liberty away to politicians who mouth your silly ideas to make it look like “they care” and “they’re doing something”.

They don’t, and they aren’t, and your silly ideas – and the stupid politicians you elect to take everything you’ll give them – are costing me my liberty.

oratio's avatar

In my personal view, I think it’s a problem to view bearing arms as a fundamental right as a citizen, or a human right. I think that should be seen as a hard won – easily lost privilege. It seems to me that the meaning of the 2nd amendment is used to justify civilian possession and use, in a way was not intended by the legislator, and taken out of context.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@bookish1 I certainly agree there would be a high demand on the black market for guns, but eventually just like the UK (I stayed there for a month two summers ago) things would get to the point to where the regular police wouldn’t need guns. Yes it would be a long and hard fought battle but guns were once legal in the UK and now look at Paris, it was the same way in London and in Scottland. It was nice being able to walk around at 3 in the morning and not worry about being shot.

@BBawlight Yes, Yes it’s another one of these questions. If you don’t like them perhaps not responding would be a better option (but hey feel free to, I don’t want to “stomp” on your rights). If everyone who didn’t like them didn’t respond maybe people would quit asking them. I’m not ignoring my constitutional rights, but I’m trying to remember that phrase that was posted on the Declaration of Independence: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

What about the 27 people who were murdered in Sandy Hook because a criminal was able to get his hands on a gun that he wouldn’t have been able to get if guns were illegal? I guess we should only think of the Constitution and not about the Declaration of Independence.

I’m not blind to, nor do I choose to ignore the Constitution, I just think an elementary school child’s life is maybe a bit more important than someone owning a piece of metal that can kill. The constitution doesn’t really get specific when it talks about people’s rights to bear arms. Why stop at letting people own guns, if they have the money, let them buy tanks and nuclear bombs.

When hundreds and thousands of lives are being lost each year because of our rights, it might be time to sit back and re-evaluate things. I’m sorry if you think your rights have the right to cause so much pain and loss to families, but I happen to disagree!

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@jerv I’m sorry that stating an opinion on fluther = ignorance to you. You want to uphold people’s right to bear arms, but if someone states their opinion (using their freedom of speech) you retort by accusations of ignorance? Nice.

While you are sitting in your basement issuing people propellants people will die because of this, but I guess as long as you get rich who care’s right? No doubt that there would be people willing to put their own riches above the lives of 20 elementary school children, 6 teachers and 1 mother, but at least guns wouldn’t be mass produced in legal factories, therefore there would be less guns on the streets which would mean there would be less Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Virginia Tech incidents. Plus as an added bonus when greedy individuals who value their own riches above people’s lives get caught selling guns they will go to jail.

If you go move to the UK walk around the streets of London at an ungodly hour and not have to worry about being blown away because everyone has access to guns then you might truly understand my “childish” logic.

You seem to have all the answers. How do you fix the reasons that people do heinous things? Maybe you should just teach everyone how to build propellants, we will sell them, put our money into a great big pot and then we will start a charity research and call it, “Fixing the Reasons That Some People Do Heinous Things Foundation.”

Yes drunk driving does kill people, so yes let’s outlaw cars. While we’re at it so can a fistfight, should we also cut off our hands as well? Your arguement comparing guns to cars is ridiculous.

There’s a big difference between a projectile weapon that can give someone control of an entire group of people and a metal/fiberglass device that we use to go from point a to point b.

You want to talk about half-assed knee-jerk responses at least I offer a hard fought solution. Outlaw guns, give people a chance to give up their guns, then arrest anyone who you catch with a gun or making or selling guns and/or other projectile weapons. How do you suggest stopping people from doing evil things? Cain killed Abel long before guns, but it would’ve made it a lot easier if he had one.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@PhiNotPi I agree with the fact that people should only own guns for hunting or self-defense. But unfortunately too many people abuse that right and thousands of lives are being lost every year because of that. So I think they should completely outlaw gun. Thanks for not being disrespectful in your answer, I appreciate it.

CWOTUS's avatar

Also regarding the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, this is not a joke or cartoon and involves actual history and actual thought. I beg your forgiveness for placing real and valid thoughts in front of you on what should be a festive evening.

majorrich's avatar

As @jerv mentioned, should firearms be made illegal there would be a ton of unintended consequences. The black market is quite active for firearms all over the country, making them illegal would exacerbate the practice. Getting a weapon under the table can already be accomplished with relative ease all over. The flow of illegal arms from Mexico (read reverse “fast and furious”) would kick in and millions of people would become criminals for not turning in their weapons. Then implementing such a law would be the typical Federal Cluster-Coupling as the NTSB. Imagine the rights of law abiding citizens being trampled on by jack booted thugs breaking down doors and keeping the nice firearms for themselves, fueling the black market. Not to mention the millions of firearms related jobs lost.
The United States has a very low gun-related crime rate as it compares with the rest of the world. In some of my deployments I have seen massacres of entire villages by neighboring warlords over Drugs (illegal) using Guns (illegal in that country) and with machete’s (normally used for harvesting of crops). I personally wept over a child who’s arm was amputated and her torso nearly split. As a professional it was unbecoming to completely lose it, but it was the first murder I had seen of this kind. Not one survivor could be found in the village we were assigned to.
While this kind of atrocity probably would never happen in the U.S. it does happen. Just not in countries with 12 news agencies covering every lead and story ad nauseum over weeks.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@CWOTUS Well obviously our punishments don’t work like you said. As far as what can we do to “effectively punishing” people, I really don’t know. That’s your idea. So you should figure that out.

My idea is to get as many guns off of the streets so these people can’t access them and we can do that by banning them altogether. Take Sandy Hook for example. That probably wouldn’t have happened if guns were illegal, because the boys mother probably wouldn’t have owned them, therefore he couldn’t have stolen them from her and killed 27 innocent people.

I’m not talking about laws to protect me from people like you, I’m talking about laws that protect everyone. Take London for example, me and my wife spent a month there. Guns are illegal there. As a matter of fact they have the gun situation there under so much control that the regular police don’t carry guns, because they don’t need to, only the special forces there have guns. And why do you think the regular cops don’t need guns? It’s because they made guns illegal there and took most of them off of the streets. Of course you can’t enforce any law 100% (that’s why they do have special forces there, equivalent to America’s SWAT Team) effectively, but when gun control is so good there that the police don’t need guns, obviously it is an achievable goal.

You might think I’m trying to take away your liberty, but i think if you can walk around the streets at night and not worry about being shot, not feel the need to own a gun to protect you from criminals who do, or not worry that any children in your life might fall victim to a mass murderer like the Sandy Hook incident, to me that adds to your liberty.

Once again your asking me what to do to the people who commit the crimes with guns. I don’t know why you’re asking me. That’s your idea to deal with those, my idea is to take the guns out of their hands before they get their hands on them.

I think it’s ridiculous that I just want to prevent further tragedies but that makes my ideas silly. Yes life is silly! Good day.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@glacial I love your link to the second amenment! LOL

jerv's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal If you are going to make any changes, you must account for the consequences. The reason I used the word “ignorant” is that, as near as I can see, you neglected to do so. Maybe I should have used the term “shortsighted”, “idealistic”, or “overly optimistic” instead, but I generally give my opinions without bothering to send them to a professional editor and PR firm first, so I often lack tact and political correctness.

Also note that the right to free speech applies to me as much as it does to you; I am entitled to air my opinion as well. If you feel persecuted by the fact that I have an opinion that differs from yours and that I am rather blunt in stating it, then you are a hypocrite that seeks free speech only for yourself as opposed to considering it an actual right granted to all.

Now that I have that off my chest, are you aware of what is possible with diesel fuel and fertilizer? There is 168 dead right there, all using legal materials.

Also , you think that it is restricted access to guns that makes the UK streets safer. How many nations have you walked the streets of? For me, the answer is in the double-digits, and I can tell you that it isn’t the guns, it’s the culture. You ignore that and go right for your scapegoat, ignoring the fact that most other places are far more courteous, conscientious, etcetera than the US. Have you ever thought that the UK might be safer merely because people are less likely to wish each other bodily harm than because of access to guns? I think your grasp on cause-and-effect is shaky.

You say you offer a hard-fought solution, but I say that you offer a placebo rather than a panacea. You should also note the other ways people die in violent crimes; guns are not as big a problem as you might think. There is a solution, but it isn’t a simple one, and it deals more with people than with guns.

woodcutter's avatar

I think people who have tattoo’s should be in prison for life. Not fair either but think about it. How many convicts have tattoo free skin? Sure we would scoop up some innocent ink wearer’s but at least we would clean up the streets. Those innocent people should be willing to take one for the home team as long as the ends justify the means, right?

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@jerv I realize that the consequences of taking away guns could be bad…at first, but I think eventually once we get the streets so clean of guns that the cops don’t need them, we have made some major progress and I personally believe it can be done. I appreciate the fact that you don’t take the time to send your posts to an editor or a PR firm before posting them. To do that would be costly and time consuming. Just to make it fair, while we’re conversing, I’ll stop sending my posts to my PR firm.

I agree that free speech applies to both of us but I didn’t see the need in the use of the words, “ignorant, childish, half-assed, knee-jerk” or the general use of sarcasm in your response. Yes you have the right to say your opinion and you have the right to be a prick about it too. But I simply asked a question that didn’t warrant sarcasm or hateful remarks. I’m not a hypocrite, I just thought a civilized conversation would be more pleasant and productive.

The difference in diesel fuel and fertilizer and guns is Columbine, V-Tech, Sandy Hook or the Colorado Dark Knight shooting. Sure with enought smarts you can use anything to kill someone, but guns ARE being used all the time to kill people here in America. Not fertilizer and diesel fuel.

I didn’t realize I was dealing with a world traveler. No I haven’t walked all over the world, so I only speak of what I know. I don’t use it as a scapegoat, I speak of my experiences. Either way if it’s the culture that’s so wrong with America, do you really think that you need to give such a culture of violence and hatred an easy means of killing each other? Yeah, that makes perfect sense! What perfect logic! (On second thought maybe you should send you posts to an editor before posting them.)

You’re right guns aren’t a big problem. It’s the people with the guns. But until we can figure out how to “cure” (for lack of a better term) those people, maybe we should take away an easy means of killing multiple people in mere minutes, so the people who need to be “cured” can’t steal them from the people who don’t need to be cured.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@woodcutter That’s a witty way to prove your point and I respect that. But I’m saying that we outlaw guns and give people time to turn them in, hell the government could even pay people the value of the guns. But not automatically just start arresting people with guns. Give them time and incentive to do so and inform them failure to comply is a criminal act and they will be punished accordingly.

CWOTUS's avatar

Take away matches, then. Traditionally more people have been killed in mass killings in the USA by arson than gunfire.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@CWOTUS Have you been watching the news lately? Have you seen how many people have went on public shooting sprees here lately? There is a big difference in matches and guns. Sure you can kill people with them, but when’s the last time you saw on the news that an armed gunman went into a school (elementary, high, or college) with a book of matches and started killing people.

If you can show me some statistics from a reliable, respectable and unbiased sorce that more people in recent times, let’s say within the last ten years, have died by arson than by gunfire (here in the US) I will stop laughing at that statement long enough to read your statistics.

CWOTUS's avatar

No you won’t, and I don’t care if you do.

livelaughlove21's avatar

Outlawing guns won’t stop people from having guns, just like outlawing abortion won’t stop people from getting abortions. Same with marijuana, or really anything else. I could buy a gun off the street and shoot someone before the night ends if I really wanted to. If they want it, they’ll get it.

This is about our constitutional and human rights. We have the right to own a gun, and that won’t ever change.

Shall we take guns away from police officers as well? Because we know they only deal with law abiding citizens. How about soldiers?

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@CWOTUS You are a person of many talents. Not only are you so wise you are also psychic. Nice!

@livelaughlove21 You’re right outlawing guns won’t stop people from owning them, but it will cut down on the amount of people that have guns because criminals won’t be able to steal them from law abiding citizens who do own them.

Speaking of taking guns from the police, in London they have their gun situation so in check that the regular police don’t have guns, because they don’t need them.

RandomGirl's avatar

No. Guns aren’t the problem. People are the problem.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@RandomGirl I appreciate your input, but I happen to think that people with guns is the problem.

BBawlight's avatar

Why do people think that guns are always the problem? Have you ever thought of the fact that anything can be used as a weapon? That means that everything should just be taken away from us because people can kill with it.
Have you ever thought that PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY? Death is not some new factor creeping up in our lives here. Weapons just speed up the process. You don’t hear about ”that inevitable heart attack that killed Jim today.”
We can’t get rid of death. It’s going to happen. Who it is doesn’t really matter to me because we are all the same after death. Y’know dead. (unless you are religious, but that’s a totally different topic that shouldn’t be brought up here regarding death).

Paradox25's avatar

Personally I’m not a big gun person, even though I grew up with them. My buddies are much more into guns than I am, I just don’t see the appeal with them personally, but I can assure you that if I wanted not just pistols but heavier weaponry I could easily obtain them with or without a ban. I doubt that most average people could say this though, and I do support reasonable gun control measures, but I’m a huge proponent of concealed weapon permits where I live. I don’t think that assualt rifles and other heavy weaponry should be available to the public. Obviously my stance here will put me at odds with both sides to the left and right of me, but those are my stances on gun control.

I guess I could answer a resounding no to your question on Constitutional grounds. However the Constitution has not stopped many from violating it in the past, with the war on drugs and religion pushing being good examples of this. Obviously the U.S Constitution over the years, with today being little exception, has pretty much been rendered to a meaningless piece of paper, but yet a document that most people openly praise, both on the left and right, to sound politically correct.
I’ve brought this point up before when I used to debate many NRA gun nuts that had little problem with obvious Fourth and First Amendment violations, that when you make an exception to any amendment of the U.S Constitution, then be prepared to have an exception made to the amendment you hold dear. Well right-wingers do you hear me now!? Liberals too need to tread lightly here.

bossob's avatar

I don’t think all weapons should be outlawed because it will create a new set of problems to deal with, as mentioned several times above. As I listened to the talking heads this past week pontificating about the horror of Sandy Hook and the need for action, I don’t believe I heard one concept that would have prevented the shooting there. Our country has issues that go way beyond gun ownership. There are wars being conducted around the world right now. There always have been wars going on somewhere, and there always will. And our government always has their hand in one somewhere, whether overtly or covertly, with the peoples’ permission via their silence about the matter. We like to think of ourselves as an advanced, peace-loving society, but we’re just kidding ourselves. Let’s face the reality that men have been killing each other since the first time a cave man hit another over the head with a rock. The weapons are more advanced now, but the behavior isn’t. There’s no way to outlaw all weapons, but we can make substantial progress towards influencing the behavior of those who choose to use them.

Let’s start with education. Why not make weapon training and safety a mandatory subject throughout K-12? The objective is not to make students sharpshooters, but to instill in them a lifelong respect for the implications of using a weapon. BB guns in grade school, .22 rifles in middle school, pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles in high school. We teach kids how to drive a car in school; we take the war on drugs into schools, as well as instruction about unbecoming sexual conduct. Why not weapon training?

Part of that weapons training would be to discuss that although we have the right to bear arms, we also have the responsibility to assure that our weapons aren’t used improperly by those who are untrained or who lack the mental capacity to use a weapon properly. It’s a responsibility that’s necessary for the common good. A few years ago, my state had a campaign to ensure that all weapons in the home were locked up in a safe, had trigger locks, or somehow rendered physically unable to fire. It was a start. If parents choose to have weapons in the home, they need to be held to account if their child uses their weapons irresponsibly.

It seems like most mass killings are conducted by people with serious mental health issues. Some how, some way, there needs to be a re-focus on the plight of the mentally ill. I don’t have the expertise to suggest a path forward, but gosh, we gotta do something about the problem.

I do think that weapons designed for combat in war, such as the AR15, need to be more strictly regulated. Most weapons designed for war are designated as Class lll, such as 50 cal machine guns, RPGs, flamethrowers, and tanks. They can be owned by a private citizen, but the procurement takes a lot of time, the cost is high, and the background checks are thorough. I would go so far as saying that if a weapon isn’t for sport, hunting, or defense, it should be designated Class lll.

I just can’t support the 2nd Amendment advocates who feel they need to be armed to the teeth to protect themselves from the government. It seems to me rather pointless when they can target your house with a missile from an un-manned drone. And if the government wants to take over my part of the country, they have all the bio-chemical weapons necessary to do so. That battle has to be won at the voting booth, not with weapons.

And last, but not least, what if we had to have liability insurance on every firearm that we owned? Would that let the free market have a positive impact on responsible gun ownership?

I dunno, just sayin’

;)

rooeytoo's avatar

The guy who shot the 2 firemen in NY was an excon who had killed his granny years ago. Served his time and was turned loose on the public once again. He was prohibited from owning a gun, but somehow he found one. He didn’t steal it from his mother either. So there is no way you are ever going to prevent people who want them from having guns.

The idea of more care for mentally ill is interesting but unless a person goes looking for help, how do you know who is mentally ill enough to commit a crime? And just because you are mentally ill it doesn’t mean you are going to be a mass murderer.

I just saw a cartoon that showed the irony of the whole situation, it showed Obama walking down the street I guess during the inaugural parade, he was saying no more guns, meanwhile he was surrounded by secret service guys all carrying guns to protect him from other dudes carrying guns.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@rooeytoo I agree with what you are saying to an extent. But if he was a violent offender he certainly didn’t have the gun that he had legally. Do you think it’s a possiblity that he either stole the gun from someone who legally had the right to own it or that he bought it from somebody who stole it from somebody who legally had the right to own it?

rooeytoo's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal – or a third option is that he bought it on the black market. And I am still not sure about gun shows. I keep reading that the paperwork to purchase a gun at a gun show is next to nothing, but someone here says that is not true?????

jerv's avatar

/hangs head

I find it pointless to deal with people more stubborn than myself, especially when they start to get snarky like me. So I am going to do what many people do when I get like that; walk away.

I have better ways to spend Christmas than arguing with an evil clone of myself.

livelaughlove21's avatar

My concern is that you asked a question on Fluther in which you requested opinions and, though you’ve gotten plenty of responses featuring very valid points, you’re simply responding to them by repeating the same argument over and over again.

It’s obvious that you feel strongly about this and are not going to budge on your idea of the solution to this supposed problem, so why did you even post it?

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@rooeytoo I think buying a gun from someone who stole it from someone else would be considered part of the black market wouldn’t it or am I misunderstanding the black market?

@jerv Well I’m sure we will have many more battles in the future. LOL Merry Christmas to you. :-)

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@livelaughlove21 I do feel strongly about it and I’ve heard most if not all these arguments before. I keep posting the same arguments because:
1) My opinion hasn’t changed.
2) I’m doing my best to try and answer each person who responds.

I posted this on fluther so I could engage in itelligent conversation, which so far (for the most part) has been accomplished (yourself included). I don’t really understand why this would “concern” you. I thought this was what fluther was for.

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal Of course it is. And I never expected your opinion to change, but the conversation is just going to continue going in circles if you’ve only got one argument. Just an observation?

woodcutter's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal Gun buy back programs are not a new idea. It hs been tried before and they were a dismal failure. All the govt will get for their stupidly spent money are old unservicable relics and junk that people will part with. Criminals will never jump on this offer unless they have some of those crap guns they don’t want, but everyone will hang on to those they like. So the plan for this applies to honest people exclusively right? It seems like a self defeating idea. Fewer guns in the hands of good people only increases the ratio of guns in the hands of the known bad ones. And lets be realistic, it isn’t just honest gun owners losing their personal guns to theft that supplies the b.g.‘s ,it is that they can and will surface from foreign importers. Drive the gun market completely underground where there will be no oversight and you have a really deadly mix. Laws don’t stop crime they never have. Sorry I just don’t see the value of admitting an effort was a disappointment and soothing ourselves by saying, oh well at least we tried.

You really think the govt has the money to offer fair market value for every firearm? It would probably be more than the budget deficit by itself. Guns are worth more than just a money value to those who have them if you can believe that.

Same old points going back and forth between constitutionals and idealists over and over in these kinds of questions it’s a wonder why they keep being asked, really. There has to be something else to do.

rooeytoo's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal – to me black market connotes illegal importation, but I guess it has multiple meanings.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@livelaughlove21 I have multiple arguments. Because there are multiple reasons why I think guns should be banned in perhaps the most violent nation on Earth. If you look at my posts you will see I have more than one reason as to why I think people should not own guns.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@woodcutter I can see your point of view on this but are you saying the US govt, tried a buy back program or was this elsewhere?

As far as getting unservicable relics and junk, if that’s what people bring you then pay them a “junk” price. Some criminals won’t want to part with their guns because they see it as a way of making more money, but some druggies will. All they care about is their next fix and so if they can get cash for a gun and they’re out of money and drugs, I think they would sell it in a heartbeat. It’s better for them to sell it before they get drugs as oppossed to going on a shooting spree after they get high, shooting someone for drug money or trading it to a violent drug dealer for drugs.

While this plan will work on a huge percentage of honest people, there will be some individuals who will sell their gun simply out of fear of getting caught with them. And yes at first this will put the ratio of guns in the hands of the criminals which is a problem that I don’t see any way around. But give everyone a month to bring their guns in, no questions asked and tell everyone that after that if you get caught with one you will serve life in prison. Some criminals that aren’t afraid to pull a gun on somebody with no intent to use it to rob someone might just decide that life in prison isn’t worth the risk. That could be why they haven’t shot anyone, because they don’t want to spend their life in prison. I’m sure foreign smuggling and the black market sales will surge but as these smugglers and criminals are rotting in jail for life that’s one less person out there that we have to worry about.

Plus I think it would be harder (certainly not impossible) to smuggle guns into the country than drugs. If you do it in bulk on a big rig, a truck full of metal guns are going to weigh a lot more than a truck full of drugs. So if they don’t do it already they should weigh any trucks coming into America and if it weighs too much, they need to search it.

Your right, laws don’t stop crime as a matter of fact, they create it. If there was no laws there would be no criminals. But do you think that we shouldn’t have laws? I feel when children can’t go to school and fireman can’t put out fires without the possibility of being shot then something has to be done.

As you said a lot of people won’t be turning their guns in and the guns that will be turned in will be crappy ones that don’t work or no one wants. So maybe the government could afford to buy the guns people are willing to sell. If not they could offer tax vouchers or something to that extent. I don’t have every detail worked out on how this could work, but I know it could work. Maybe not the buyback plan, but just getting guns off the streets in general. It worked in the UK, so it can work here.

I do know that guns to some are worth more than fair market value, but it’s kind of like when the government wants to build a highway and your house is in the middle. They offer you a fair price and if you take it you take it, if you fight it then you get nothing.

There is no perfect solution, but there has to be a way to stop all of this killing. Just this month alone there has Sandy Hook, a guy going to a mall and opening fire, a guy got arrested with I believe 47 guns and plans on shooting up another school and the old guy who set a fire just to kill a firefighter (it seems like I’m forgetting something). Everybody acts like this is all the more reasons we need guns, but citizens with guns didn’t stop these people. It was either the cops or the shooters killing themselves.

Citizens don’t stop things like this, but guns stolen from citizens certainly can cause this.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@rooeytoo You could just be right. I always assumed the black market pertained to all illegal sales, but that’s just merely an uneducated guess. I like your dog.

majorrich's avatar

Problem would be getting the people of South Africa to turn in all their weapons. Or Columbia, or Nicaragua, Venezuela, Mexico Afghanistan, Iraq et all might resist as well in turning their weapons in too. @Self_Consuming_Cannibal you might consider a stint in the peace corps to see the rest of the world before even thinking the U.S. is even in the top 50 most violent countries on earth.

woodcutter's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal You talk like having the criminal element filling the power vacuum and having complete power over us for a few generations till all the guns atrit from wear out….as a good thing, as long as it all works out in the end? Am I reading you correctly?

If so, then where are the law abiding people supposed to hide till this genesis in over? Again you expect too much of us all to wait this out.
Like most idealists, you havent thought all of this out realistically. For your utopia to happen we would have to do away with any kind of democracy and go full blown dictatorship to force it on all at the same time. I don’t think you would like that as folks of your ilk seem to suffer the most in those situations but if you are will ing to put your skin into the game you are showing great passion.

CWOTUS's avatar

I don’t know, @woodcutter. It’s such a good idea that maybe we could apply it to drugs, alcohol and prostitution as well. Let’s ban them while we’re at it, and they’ll be sure to go away.

rooeytoo's avatar

And when it becomes too problematic to acquire guns legally as in Australia, this happens and customs officers make a few extra bucks!

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@woodcutter I’m not talking about having the criminal element taking over anything. We will still have law enforcement officials with firearms until we get this problem taken care of. We won’t need to hide anywhere. If you look at this it shows that since 1982 we have had 61 mass shootings and of those most of those (49 according to this) were done by people who obtained their guns legally. Now maybe to you that means we need more guns, but to me it says the opposite. I don’t see any indications that during those 61 shooting sprees citizens with guns stopped the killer. But because the shooters were citizens they had no trouble getting those guns.

You are greatly exagerrating the loss of gun rights. You say in order to make guns illegal we would have to have a full blown dictatorship? Except for that statement you have put up an intelligent arguement. But saying that the cost of losing one right (one that could save thousands, perhaps even millions of lives) would mean going to a “full blown dictatorship is ridiculous.” When in the history of the US has outlawing one thing, turned us to a full blown dictatorship? Since 1776 we have outlawed various things and none of them so far has turned us into a full blown dictatorship.

Why do you think that people of my “ilk” seems to suffer the most in these situations? And since you know about me and my “ilk” so well describe me and my “ilk’?

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@CWOTUS I don’t know why you are being so passive-aggressive with me if you have something to say to me, man up. “I don’t know, @woodcutter. It’s such a good idea that maybe we could apply it to drugs, alcohol and prostitution as well. Let’s ban them while we’re at it, and they’ll be sure to go away.”

I’m not saying anything will go away, I’m just saying that if you get most of the guns off the streets I believe it will save lives. You’re taking me out of context and you’re using sarcasm in your weak arguement.

No law is 100% effective, but even if it can at least save one life, isn’t it worth the effort? If you think not, imagine if someone you love getting shot by someone who legally obtained a gun.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@rooeytoo There will always be corruption and people willing to take a payoff, but if you make guns illegal it will make them harder (not impossible) to obtain and considering that since 1982 there have been 61 mass shootings in the US and that 49 of them were done by people that legally obtained the guns I think if we stepped back and did the math we would realize that we could actually save lives by taking as many guns off the streets as possible.

Think about it. 61 shooting sprees minus 49 done by people who legally obtained their guns means that only 12 were done by people who illegally obtained their firearms. So of the 61 shootings 80.3% were done by people who legally had the right to own a gun. They didn’t get it from some customs official who helped to smuggle it in or as a result of it.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@ucme That video link you posted was sick, disgusting and offensive! I loved every minute of it. Keep up the good work.

I wish I could’ve given you ten lurve for that link, but unfortunately I could only give you one

rooeytoo's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal – I reckon if you are crazy enough to want to commit mass murder, you would find a way to procure a gun or a bomb or some means to complete your act. If I want something that is illegal in my country, I just get onto the internet and start hunting. Probably I can find it somewhere in my country or if not, I can pick it up somewhere.

woodcutter's avatar

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal Yup it would take an iron handed dictatorship to punish those found to be in possession of arms…with the death penalty. Then you might see most of them surrendered. Make the populace fear the “party” over the presence of outlaws doing bad shit to them. When a new law says turn them in comes along, that is really code for…I ain’t gonna. Now multiply that by several million non conformists and you have not solved a thing. You can’t put all of us in prison concurrently and the manpower needed to do house arrest monitoring would be impossible.
My question to you is…would you want to be one of those poor bastards who lost his life because he gave his guns to the govt? It’s easy to just think stuff like this hardly happens to other people or not often enough to worry about but when that same bad shit is happening to you in real time it’s gonna feel like it’s happening 100%

The evil gun genie is out of the bottle forever and there’s no putting it back. You should hook up with actual people who have saved themselves from harm by using their guns, most of the time without a shot fired. Ban guns and you will create a new, unnecessary class of criminal numbering in the millions, or, if these people do comply, and they won’t but ,then, only the truly ugly armed variant of career criminal will go virtually unopposed to terrorize us and the police will be there to stop them all, right? I think you are too smart to believe that, so your defense of a ban still is…so what- if a few thousand innocent people are taken out by those currently armed criminals. We are still taking steps in the right direction? How can you be sure you or family would not be part of that sacrificial throw away group? Dude, that’s harsh and again, you expect too much of people you don’t even know. A better solution would be that you choose to be unarmed and take one for the team if it happens like that. You have protection anyway because hell….you seem confident that would never happen to you but that is your choice to be out there. It seems untoward to expect us all to take the same chances you are willing to take. We all die it’s something we all go through but, to me at least,there’s a huge difference between dying and being killed.

Get a gun and ammo and go out and shoot the hell out of it and get some basic training with it and I promise you will lose those eebie -jeebies about the dangers of guns and you will be better for it. You will be safer and a more confident in other areas in your life. Then the only thing you will worry about is what your commie friends will think of you having this important skillset. If they kick you to the curb after, then they were never your friends to start with.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@rooeytoo You are right if someone wants to kill a bunch of people badly enough, they may be able to find a way. But if it takes too much effort maybe they will just get frustrated and say, “The hell with it.”

Either way I just think that our relaxed gun laws are making it too easy for them.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@woodcutter I have never owned a gun in my life. Except as a child I did own a BB gun. I loved A Christmas Story. You may say that the “evil gun genie is out the bottle forever and there’s no putting it back” but they did in the UK, so why do you think it would be so impossible to do here? I just think if law abiding citizens gave up their guns, the police (maybe even the SWAT Team and National Guard) could step it up a notch while people with guns are being arrested and facing harsh punishment, while their guns are being destroyed.

Maybe a few thousand people could lose their life over a gun ban. You may think that’s harsh, but I don’t think that’s anymore harsh than people saying, “So what if shooting sprees occur with legally bought firearms, as long as I am allowed to keep my gun, who cares?” Because like I showed you, 80% of the shooting sprees here in America since 1982 have been commited by people who legally obtained their guns.

I can’t be sure that me and my family wouldn’t die as a result of a gun ban, but we don’t have a firearm now, nor have we ever and we still are alive and kicking. This arguement can go either way. You can say I’m asking too much of people I don’t even know, but I could say the same to you, by stating you’re willing to risk more people’s lives by still being in favor of gun laws that is responsible for 80% of the American shooting sprees since 1982.

Do you even own a gun? I’m not trying to judge you but you seem really paranoid that if you lost it you would die, no questions asked. I’m not scared of guns, nor do I have anything against people who own them. Hell I’ve even been to a shooting range with friends and I had a blast (no pun intended) and I actually placed second place in a local BB gun contest years ago. I know how to shoot, I even used a muzzle loader. I just won’t own a gun because:
A) I don’t feel it’s necessary for my survival.
B) I feel it could make me a target for a break-in when I’m not at home
C) I don’t want to take the chance that someone will steal it and go out and hurt others with it.

I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t feel safe and confident in other areas of my life. I’m not the one who feels like I need to own a metal death machine in order to survive in this world and my friend aren’t “commies” they actually disagree with me on this.

woodcutter's avatar

I don’t “need” my weapons, except for when when I do. Until that time they are exactly where I left them. Be smart about where you keep them and lock all your doors and windows and you should be ok. If you really want a sidearm you will make adjustments to your life. I think each person should have the right to make that decision because the cops won’t help you in time if something bad happens. You seem to put a lot of faith in their ability to do that. For the cops to even be close enough to be effective for just half of us they would need to be so many all over the place that it would turn into a police state here. All those cops standing around with nothing to do most the time…. They are gonna find shit to do and what that could be is you. All that coppage trying to justify their existence would mean big time abuses. I for one don’t want to see tons of cops, soldiers patrolling around. All those random stops checking our shit? This would be bad. And let’s think about all the money this would cost. It won’t be possible for that reason by itself. Lets not give the power brokers any ideas.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@woodcutter I do agree that it would cost way too much money to safely implement my version of the idea. It’s just that being in the UK for a month, me and my wife never felt safer, we were just advised that if you go out at night don’t do it alone (you could get mugged by someone with a knife), but the same goes for here in America as well; going out a night by yourself is a bad idea. I guess I just feel more confident about fighting someone with a knife as oppossed to a gun. I just know that guns were once legal in the UK and now they’re not and now they have guns under such control the regular cops don’t even carry them. I just wonder how they accomplished that.

I could go out and buy a gun, but I personally believe that would be hypocritical and I’m just adding to what I feel, is a problem.

I’ve enjoyed debating with you and you raise a lot of valid points, but I sincerely don’t think that either one of us could change the other one’s mind. But then again that’s not really the point of debating anyways (at least not in my opinion) it’s just a way of exchanging information and sharing ideas that one may not have thought of before.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther