Should guns get banned?

[DisneyVillain]

An assault weapon has no value to any ordinary citizen except as a collective's item.

Actually, the Ruger Mini-14 was very popular among ranchers as a utility rifle before it fell under the ban. Much of the definition of "assault weapon" is cosmetic, so this rifle is now available in a very similar model under a different name.

 

[DisDuck]

Charade.. Read the Federalist Papers; there were some who took the Militia more as a collective right than as a personal right. Again my original response was to put the 2nd amendment in its historical perspective. In Europe and England, The Kings Army could be used domestically. The framers wanted to get away from that 'Federal' concept. That was one of the reasons for putting the 'declaration of war' in the hands of the legislature not the executive. They were not addressing the issue of 'hunting' as that was so common that owning a gun for that particular purpose was a given. It was what to do about the 'army' that triggered the 2nd amendment. I believe it has been hijacked by the NRA as a 'rights' issue to counter 'big brother'. Why was not the banning of guns in some towns in the west during the 1880's+ no big deal if it violated the 2nd amendment. I think because local folks saw it as a way to reduce street violence not as a take away from the average citizen.

Es.. For me no need to issue bans on gun collecting. Why not just require them to be plugged or fireing mechanism to be removed? If you are a legitimate collector what difference does it make. I asked before does anyone who owns an antigue gun (flintlock, etc) plan on firing it?

 

[AllyandJack]

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?

They banned smoking in all MA restaurants and bars and it showed that business IMPROVED. I was indifferent over the ban...as a non-smoker, I thought it was nice. I guess I figured people can come in and eat and leave and smoke and didn't see that an an infringement on their right to smoke.

But, I still think a person should be able to have a gun in their home to protect themselves from nutcases.

 

[jody]

This is a great quote on the increase in gun violence in this country:

"...it is not the accessibility of guns that has changed, it is the character of man" Babe Humphrey.

 

[wvrevy]

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.

But when the amendment was written, the government (the "king's army") didn't have much more than 12 guages themselves. And, as you've so articulately pointed out, the amendment was never intended to be applied to ordinary citizens, but rather to "well regulated militias" run by the states, as a means of protecting against governmental tyranny.

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

Bubba, without a doubt. Despite recent events, I don't believe that the American government can fall completely into the hands of any extremist element, to the point that armed revolution was the only option.

Bubba and his concealed .9 millimeter are a MUCH more clear and present danger to the lives of people in this country.

 

[wvrevy]

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.

Do you think that the guns just magically appear ? They were originally purchased legally, then either sold illegally or stolen. If the gun wasn't there to begin with, it would never reach the black market.

And again, I would simply point out that this has worked in other countries. Granted, we have the problem to a much greater degree, but that doesn't mean the solution will not work. It may not be as easy to implement, but there is no reason to believe that it would fail.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

As I've said before, I want to become a homeowner, but the only areas I can afford are in neighborhoods where there are multiple murders per year. I intend to buy a gun for self-defense. If there were a ban I would be in a tough situation

I could A) Rent for the rest of my life, and I want to be my family's first homeowner.
B) Being a law abiding citizen, risk living in one of America's most dangerous cities without a tool for security while those who kill will continue to do so with their illegal guns.

C (Most likely) I would break the law and keep my gun and become a criminal, risking prosecution, but possibly saving my life.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Do you think that the guns just magically appear ? They were originally purchased legally, then either sold illegally or stolen. If the gun wasn't there to begin with, it would never reach the black market.

And again, I would simply point out that this has worked in other countries. Granted, we have the problem to a much greater degree, but that doesn't mean the solution will not work. It may not be as easy to implement, but there is no reason to believe that it would fail.

So what? Police, rangers, soldiers and other people who legitamately carry weapons won't have them anymore either? Sorry. That's downright silly.

Guns will continue to be manfactured and there will always be bad people who'll do whatever they can to get ahold of them.

Let's the say the US just ceased all legal production and importation of guns. The criminals will have them imported illegally.

I'm sorry, but the only reason anyone has ever died from a gunshot wound is because a living, breathing human either did something incredibly stupid OR because a living breathing human person did something incredibly evil.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Es.. For me no need to issue bans on gun collecting. Why not just require them to be plugged or fireing mechanism to be removed? If you are a legitimate collector what difference does it make. I asked before does anyone who owns an antigue gun (flintlock, etc) plan on firing it?

Some do for re-enactments. I don't have any desire to. I just like history & collect historical items.

 

[Charade]

Do you think that the guns just magically appear ? They were originally purchased legally, then either sold illegally or stolen. If the gun wasn't there to begin with, it would never reach the black market.

That would only apply to guns made here. We can't control guns being made outside of the US and it's easy to sneek firearms into this country.

And again, I would simply point out that this has worked in other countries. Granted, we have the problem to a much greater degree, but that doesn't mean the solution will not work. It may not be as easy to implement, but there is no reason to believe that it would fail.

It worked perfectly in Germany in the 30's and look how that turned out.

 

[wvrevy]

So what? Police, rangers, soldiers and other people who legitamately carry weapons won't have them anymore either? Sorry. That's downright silly.

You're right, it is. So, please show me where I said any such thing.

Guns will continue to be manfactured and there will always be bad people who'll do whatever they can to get ahold of them.

Again, I would simply point out that it has worked in many other countries, so why not here ?

Let's the say the US just ceased all legal production and importation of guns. The criminals will have them imported illegally.

And you're basing this assumption on....what, exactly ? You think that if we manage to stop domestic production, suddenly there will be an influx of "international arms dealers" working in warehouses down by the docks ? You've been watching too many action movies...lol

I'm sorry, but the only reason anyone has ever died from a gunshot wound is because a living, breathing human either did something incredibly stupid OR because a living breathing human person did something incredibly evil.

Yes, and if they did not have that gun, that person would likely still be alive. But I'm sure all the kids that have died of gunshot wounds were just "incredibly stupid" or "incredibly evil", right ?

 

[wvrevy]

It worked perfectly in Germany in the 30's and look how that turned out.

So, you're comparing Canada and the UK to the nazi's ?

 

[Charade]

So, you're comparing Canada and the UK to the nazi's ?

Nope. Not at all. All I'm saying is that it *didn't* work in Germany so it's not a given that it'll work everywhere it's tried.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Yes, and if they did not have that gun, that person would likely still be alive. But I'm sure all the kids that have died of gunshot wounds were just "incredibly stupid" or "incredibly evil", right ?

No. But their parents were for obviously not locking up the guns where the small children couldn't get to them and accidentally set them off.

You are not going to change my mind. Like I said before, no gun has ever walked itself to a crowd and started firing on it's own. The people are the problem. Not the guns. Most gun owners are reasonable, responsible people. Why should everyone get punished for the actions of a few?

 

[DisDuck]

Es.. I know about the reactments issue. I didn't bring it up because those involved probable are the ones handling guns with the utmost safety in mind. Plus all reactments that I have read about go from Revolution up to Civil War. Except towards end of CW firearms were musket type or single shot requiring a reload so use as a 'weapon' is useless.

Again, 2 or 3 times I have asked the question why not impose mandatory safety devices such as trigger-locks and biometric sensors on guns. In this way you protect from inadvertant/accident/misuse of said gun. The NRA is against these controls. WHY????

Some here mentioned needing a gun at home for protection. Question, do you plan on keeping it loaded and 'under your pillow'? If not, then what kind of protection does it serve if by the time you get it, load it and 'use' it the need for protection has been eliminated since 'you' have know been shoot.

Also, if banning is such a bad idea how come in the 'wild' west some towns demanded guns be left at home or turned in when entering so as to reduce street violence. Even then, of course, the criminals (outlaws) kept them to use in their crime attempt but no one screamed about 'criminals can always get them so we need to carry them'.

Look at history..violence has always been here. The weapon of choice just changed with the technology. That doesn't mean that everyone needs to be armed.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I have no idea why anyone would be against putting safety devices on guns.

 

[DisDuck]

Charade.. Maybe you can point out to me what Germany did in the 1930's regarding 'gun-control'. My studying of History must of missed that as I know that the Versailles Treaty had clauses limiting the size and armament of the German Armed Forces but not private citizens. And from my German in-laws they never mentioned anything about restrictions on guns to private citizens and its consequences. Having a gun(s) would not have prevented their being rounded up in 1939. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising proved that. So enlighten me.

Es.. you make good points on the people kill people with the gun as the tool but at the same time your argument can be turned around to say 'why have one for protection at home when if kept safely it would take too long to grab, load and shoot'.

 

[DisDuck]

Es.. I have no idea either yet the NRA is against them spouting it as 'liberals taking away gun rights' and the manufacturers screaming about costs. Well, a gun is a luxury item not a necessity so if putting appropriate safety devices on them drives it the cost so be it. If you want it then pay for it.

 

[Ted and Holly]

Food for thought:

UZI - Developed in Isreal, estimated 100 million made Worldwide each year
Glock - Austria
AK-47 - USSR (many copies and off-shoots made Worldwide)
SKS - USSR (what the "hunter" used to shoot the 5 other hunters last year.

Shut down US gun makers and these will still find their way here.

Ted

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Es.. you make good points on the people kill people with the gun as the tool but at the same time your argument can be turned around to say 'why have one for protection at home when if kept safely it would take too long to grab, load and shoot'.

Honestly, I don't really see guns as a partiularly good form of protection at all.

I just don't want to see them all get banned from law abiding citizens who are using them for things like deer hunting etc. (and no, I don't hunt deer, I could not bring myself to shoot an animal). But it just rubs me the wrong way. I don't need the government to be my nanny and it seems like that's just too close to a next step where they start banning other things (swords, martial arts weapons etc.) and so on.

I also think it skirts over the issues as to why there is so much violence in this country at all? Why are there so many gangs? Why are there so many employees who snap and go on a killing spree at the office? Why do people do these things?

IMO, we have to get to the root of the problems that cause people to go killing other people in the first place. I truly think if we somehow magically got rid of all the guns, people would still kill. They'd just find something else to do it with.