Should guns get banned?

[wvrevy]

But....how can you support a gun ban and not a ban on abortion? Abortion is killing or ending life abruptly. It's a procedure that has the sole purpose of ending a life.

I don't "support abortion", I support a woman's right to choose. I would never want someone in my family to make that choice, and would do everything in my power to help them decide to have the baby, even if they couldn't keep it. But it is their choice, not the government's. Abortion isn't "ending a life", it's stopping a life from occurring. A first trimester fetus is not a living, breathing human being, just the potential for one.

Now...if you have any other questions about that kind of thing, please post them to a new thread (or find one of the old abortion threads floating around), since if we get too deeply into this it will likely hijack this one.

 

[wvrevy]

You people who think handguns should be banned are absolutely delusional.

*snip*

When is enough enough? I can't even believe you people have gotten me to rant like this on this topic. I can't understand how people can be so ignorant to the fact that crimes don't happen because people own guns...just as many crimes are foiled because people have guns - you just don't hear about them as much.

Speaking of delusional... ...Maybe you should do a little research on the subject before deciding to weigh in next time. That way, you won't look so "delusional" in light of the FACTS.

 

[Charade]

If you wanted to get a gun illegally - you could. There are ways. You just have to know where to go. So yes, I could get a gun faster illegally then I could legally. Which is my point - we could at least try and make it harder for them.

~Amanda

Being a law abiding citizen and legally able to purchase a gun, I would have no need to get one illegally but I guess I could. I can walk into any gun store, pay a $15 instacheck fee and walk out the door with a gun within a very short time. That's got to be easier than trying to find some criminal element that would sell me a gun. I wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

Now this is just for PA. Each state my have different requirements. So in your state, it might be quicker (easier?) to get one illegally.

I agree that guns shouldn't be easy to get *FOR CRIMINALS* but I don't know how to do that without law abiding citizens having their weapons confiscated and the manufacturing of guns ended. The criminals pretty much don't care about laws so why would they care if guns were outlawed? They would just get them from some other source.

 

[Charade]

No, as Chad stated and as I have many times, handguns primary purpose is to kill people. Yes, they can also be used to shoot other things (animals, targets), but that is not what they are designed for, and there are other guns more suited to that purpose.

All of the things you posted above have as their primary purpose some other use. Can they be used to kill ? Sure, but so can virtually anything else.


But go ahead with your absurd argument that "they" (meaning me and those that think like I do about guns) are going after baseball bats and cars next. It just makes any other point you may make look foolish in comparison.

Never said that once they take away guns they will just go after the next "deadly instrument du jour". But you laugh, call it absurd and call me a fool for making such a comparison. Don't be to confident that "they" won't try.

But if the end result is to reduce the killings (by guns), why isn't there the same effort to ban cars or those other things just as important because you and I know they kill more people than handguns do.

Cancer from cigarette smoking alone kills more people than guns do.

Who cares what the purpose of the device is if the goal is to end deaths by these devices. I don't see the difference between the personal freedom to slowly kill myself with a cigarette or the personal freedom to own a gun and blow my head off. Actually, there is a difference. I can own a gun all my life and never ever kill anyone or anything with it (on purpose) but I can smoke all my life and die 20 years shorter.

 

[DisDuck]

meand.. I know the Libertarian interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the looser one about private citizens owning rather than the stricter 'militia' point of view. However, in general know matter which way, banning is a 'no-no'. I on the otherhand being too logical (and a realist) think that certain types of guns just don't need to be in private hands. I, also, believe that reasonable 'gun-control' is not a government conspiracy. Make trigger-locks manditory. Use bio-metric technology so that only the 'owner' can use it. That is not banning just smart thinking.

I have been accused as being too 'logical'. It is the 'IT' background in me.

 

[Charade]

Cars have a regular, undeniable use.

Not completely true. Ask Jay Leno who owns dozens of classic collectors cars that are rarely driven if at all.

 

[DisneyVillain]

A car is made for transportation.
A gun has one use...To kill.

That's not entirely accurate. Some guns are made specifically for target shooting. Same concept as throwing darts. I don't hunt (not for moral reasons, but because I find it boring,) but I enjoy target shooting.

I would support a ban on handguns. It would have to be accompanied by much stricter laws and enforcement on illegal possession of firearms.

 

[Charade]

It will be interesting to see since the Clinton assault weapon (along with other restrictions) ban has been lifted if there will be a dramatic increase in crimes committed with this types of guns.

 

[carolfoy]

Very interesting thread, coming from a 'gun free' country I can say we are always shocked and upset by gun related crime and it ALWAYS makes the news, the way I see it is that people who want to do harm by guns will always find a way of getting guns, I can imagine that there are a great many americans who own guns just because of the 'what if' factor and I can honestly say I beleive more brits would own them too in these rising crime days if they were so easy for us to get hold of and keep illegally. Its one of those issues that will always raise its head Americans have had them too long to take away and Brits have never had them so easily so we can't really judge. I am a single mom and if I lived in a high crime/drug use area I would take whatever steps necessary to keep me and my child from harm

 

[DisDuck]

I doubt if there will be a dramatic increase in crimes with assault weapons but to me that doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned or controlled. An assault weapon has no value to any ordinary citizen except as a collective's item. For target shooting what's the fun?? A single shot 30.06 for target or a shotgun for skeet would be more interesting to my then using a ak-47 for target practice. If you want one to make your collection complete then it must be plugged or otherwise incapable of firing.

Is anyone here against requiring trigger-locks and/or biometric senses on guns as a means to control usage?

 

[septbride2002]

Never said that once they take away guns they will just go after the next "deadly instrument du jour". But you laugh, call it absurd and call me a fool for making such a comparison. Don't be to confident that "they" won't try.

But if the end result is to reduce the killings (by guns), why isn't there the same effort to ban cars or those other things just as important because you and I know they kill more people than handguns do.

Cancer from cigarette smoking alone kills more people than guns do.

Who cares what the purpose of the device is if the goal is to end deaths by these devices. I don't see the difference between the personal freedom to slowly kill myself with a cigarette or the personal freedom to own a gun and blow my head off. Actually, there is a difference. I can own a gun all my life and never ever kill anyone or anything with it (on purpose) but I can smoke all my life and die 20 years shorter.

And in my county they are trying to ban cigarette smoking in resturants and bars so that those of us who don't smoke - do not have to worry about the effects of their 2nd hand smoking. Interesting enough though - we are allowed to carry concealed weapons.

~Amanda

 

[Puffy2]

I haven't read all this thread. (so if any of this gets repeated, sorry)

Guns should never be banned because if the only people that have the guns are the ones in power - corruption, abuse and dictatorships follow. That's just the nature of man.

Also, has the film "Bowling for Columbine" been mentioned? It is an interesting film. It is not anti-gun as I thought it would be. But it talks a lot about "why is America different when it comes to gun deaths"...you would be surprised at the answers put forth. It doesn't have to do with gun ownership. Or violent tv and video games...or any of the other things we normally think of or accuse.

 

[wvrevy]

I haven't read all this thread. (so if any of this gets repeated, sorry)

Guns should never be banned because if the only people that have the guns are the ones in power - corruption, abuse and dictatorships follow. That's just the nature of man.

Also, has the film "Bowling for Columbine" been mentioned? It is an interesting film. It is not anti-gun as I thought it would be. But it talks a lot about "why is America different when it comes to gun deaths"...you would be surprised at the answers put forth. It doesn't have to do with gun ownership. Or violent tv and video games...or any of the other things we normally think of or accuse.

As long as the government controls the 82nd Airborne, I think they'll have little to worry about from Bubba with his 12 guage.

 

[DisDuck]

Actually, WV.. that is probably the 'why' for the 2nd amendment. Protection against the 'kings' army. By law the regular military cannot be used within the country so 82nd airborne won't help. It is to the militia you should look.

 

[Charade]

As long as the government controls the 82nd Airborne, I think they'll have little to worry about from Bubba with his 12 guage.

Are you more worried about the government controlled military or Bubba?

 

[DisDuck]

Both. Think McViegh(sic).

 

[Charade]

Actually, WV.. that is probably the 'why' for the 2nd amendment. Protection against the 'kings' army.

That's part of it however, I disagree with your earlier post that essentially said the 2nd A. is a collective right. I think it's a personal right (regardless of what Kyle says).

An armed citizenry is a good thing.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I suppose you could ban guns, but how would you go about banning them from all the criminals who'd buy them on the black market the way many gang members, drug dealers, and killers do now?

Would you ban historial replica guns? I collect historical weaponry so I'd be pretty upset if you wanted to take those away from people who collect just because of the actions of a few idiots.

Where does it end? Do you want to ban knives, swords and martial arts weapons? MA has already banned certain types of blades.

I really do not think banning guns is going to change the crime rate all that much. People who want guns are still going to get them. People who get them for their jobs (cops, rangers, security) are always going to have a few bad seeds among them who do bad things. People will order guns online from other countries, the way people do with drugs now. Or they'll go through underground dealers.

Just taking away legal gun purchases is not going to change things. I've never heard a story of a gun forgetting to set it's own safety, or unlocking itself from a cabinet, or walking itself to the middle of a crowded square and shooting itself. People do those things and of those people, many didn't get the gun legally in the first place.

I understand your wanting to rid the world of tragic deaths, but just banning the legal purchase of the weapon of choice is not going to do it.

 

[Mickey's Monkey]

and mine matches my handbag!

Hey, mine too! I found a great Coach bag that it perfect for my handgun.

 

[Mickey's Monkey]

And in my county they are trying to ban cigarette smoking in resturants and bars so that those of us who don't smoke - do not have to worry about the effects of their 2nd hand smoking. Interesting enough though - we are allowed to carry concealed weapons.

~Amanda

While I'm not a smoker, I see this as yet another intrusion of govt into the personal lives of people. If restaurants want to allow smoking they should be able to. Let the public decide if they want to patronize restaurants that allow smokers. Money is a great motivator. The govt has no business decided what may or may not be healthy for me.

As for the gun issue, I don't see how banning them solves anything. When will cars be banned, then?