EPTAnd as Leporello wrote. Banning guns is actually pretty simple, but that doesn't mean that its easy to "just do".
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10628 Posts
And as Leporello wrote. Banning guns is actually pretty simple, but that doesn't mean that its easy to "just do". | ||
|
pNRG
United States333 Posts
On October 05 2015 20:31 Leporello wrote: You ban them and confiscate them. Why do people think a gun-ban has to be an overnight process? It is an indefinite process, as it is with all illegal materials. Make guns illegal. Yes, there will still be LOTS of guns. But you'll immediately remove a lot from circulation, and it will allow a future with even less guns. It will make removing guns from the hands of criminals a lot easier, when owning a gun itself is a criminal act. A total ban, beyond any immediate removal process, will allow for two things to happen: 1) The country will no longer be an open-market for guns. Gun manufacturing and distribution will not be given free-reign. And, yes, this *does* have an immediate impact on the black-market. The criminals use the same guns everyone else does, they all come from "legitimate" manufacturers. The "black-market" for guns is just a middle-man between criminals and gun-stores. 2) For all the guns that remain, illegally, or are homemade, confiscating them will be a forever ongoing process. It's not anymore complicated that banning any number of other materials that have been banned in pretty much every society on Earth. Does heroin still exist? Yes. But at least we don't have people walking down the streets with bags of heroin hanging from their hip, thinking it's okay. We won't have to ask is that a "good guy" walking around with a weapon for some reason, or is this person violent? Things are complicated *now*. People thinking it's their "right" to walk into retail stores with guns draped over their shoulders -- now that's fucking complicated. Think of that poor cashier. Banning guns is simple. It won't be easy, and I'm certainly not saying it's ever going to happen. I'm just saying it'd be nice if people realized it actually is a fucking option. We are supposed to have elected-representation, where we can make our own rules. I thought the whole point of "patriotic gun ownership" was supposed to be about protecting a government-for-the-people? But when the people want to remove your gun, all of a sudden we're told, "that's not possible". The fucking irony. Wow, if you think that's a valid solution... Imagine the 'optics' of having armed police/military/guards rolling through neighbors (forcibly) removing peoples' weapons. That would surely work out okay! Kelsier below you gave just a couple reasons why that idea will not work, either. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On October 05 2015 21:56 pNRG wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 05 2015 20:31 Leporello wrote: You ban them and confiscate them. Why do people think a gun-ban has to be an overnight process? It is an indefinite process, as it is with all illegal materials. Make guns illegal. Yes, there will still be LOTS of guns. But you'll immediately remove a lot from circulation, and it will allow a future with even less guns. It will make removing guns from the hands of criminals a lot easier, when owning a gun itself is a criminal act. A total ban, beyond any immediate removal process, will allow for two things to happen: 1) The country will no longer be an open-market for guns. Gun manufacturing and distribution will not be given free-reign. And, yes, this *does* have an immediate impact on the black-market. The criminals use the same guns everyone else does, they all come from "legitimate" manufacturers. The "black-market" for guns is just a middle-man between criminals and gun-stores. 2) For all the guns that remain, illegally, or are homemade, confiscating them will be a forever ongoing process. It's not anymore complicated that banning any number of other materials that have been banned in pretty much every society on Earth. Does heroin still exist? Yes. But at least we don't have people walking down the streets with bags of heroin hanging from their hip, thinking it's okay. We won't have to ask is that a "good guy" walking around with a weapon for some reason, or is this person violent? Things are complicated *now*. People thinking it's their "right" to walk into retail stores with guns draped over their shoulders -- now that's fucking complicated. Think of that poor cashier. Banning guns is simple. It won't be easy, and I'm certainly not saying it's ever going to happen. I'm just saying it'd be nice if people realized it actually is a fucking option. We are supposed to have elected-representation, where we can make our own rules. I thought the whole point of "patriotic gun ownership" was supposed to be about protecting a government-for-the-people? But when the people want to remove your gun, all of a sudden we're told, "that's not possible". The fucking irony. Wow, if you think that's a valid solution... Imagine the 'optics' of having armed police/military/guards rolling through neighbors (forcibly) removing peoples' weapons. That would surely work out okay! Kelsier below you gave just a couple reasons why that idea will not work, either. It kind of feels like you're trying to not get my point. When we ban a drug, what happens? Do the police raid everyone's homes and take their drugs? No. They simple become banned. My entire point was is we've banned and prohibited numerous materials in the past that were once publicly prevalent. Yes, it is difficult. No, it is never completely efficient. But that's never been an excuse to declare the material shouldn't be banned. The simplicity of a total gun-ban comes in the fact that you won't have to wonder about which guns are illegal and legal, which person is a criminal or isn't, background checks, etc. Just make them illegal for the public, as it is with so many things. The cost-benefit analysis of having an entire public armed with guns has been done: it's fucking terrible. There is also this thing called the gun-registry. Ask that registered-guns be accounted for. Maybe you could create incentives for doing/not-doing so. And from then on, carry it on in the same manner as all banned materials. Not all guns will be accounted for. So, by this logic, we shouldn't do it? And we should continue to let gun-manufacturing flood the market? Sadly, that does seem to be the majority opinion. At best, it's cowardly. Really, I just think it's nonsense at this point. We can either do something or not do it. We can either continue to let our country be the World's Greatest Marketplace for Weaponry, or we can change as others have. As for the person saying it's naive that such a thing could happen, well, yeah. I mean, our schoolchildren have been killing classmates with guns on a regular basis for years now, this problem couldn't be any clearer, and nothing is being done. I'm not exactly holding my breath here. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 05 2015 19:26 KelsierSC wrote: it's too late to actually do anything about the gun culture in the USA. Something like a total of 300m guns being owned, I'm not sure if that statistic includes un registered guns either. So even if you decided to go and confiscate and burn half of the guns that is still 150m in circulation, some kid who wants to go shoot up a school can easily get his hands on one. Basically Obama and all the politicians are full of empty words, there is nothing they can actually do to stop the problem. The "freedom and liberty" that Americans are so proud of will never be overturned to have a ban on firearms and banning certain types of gun like an assault rifle has not been proved to reduce gun violence statistics. It may sound cold but every country has problems, this problem is of the countries own making and there is nothing they can do to stop it at this point. gun registries are really unpopular here in the states and the VAST majority of guns are unregistered, the government has no clue who owns what. Barely anything is tracked. | ||
|
Dizmaul
United States831 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jzimhNW.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Usi9OhK.jpg) So yeah people really enjoy guns here. | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11446 Posts
| ||
|
yookstah
Australia655 Posts
I mean, sure; there have been some cases where people have carried a gun and have been able to stop 'something which could have potentially escalated further if someone didn't legally carry a gun' (lots of words, no punctuation)! But I feel this is just being plain naive, and it's scary to see how integrated guns are in people's lives in the states re: Dizmaul's post. People say "you can't ban them - they're already far too integrated into society" is just a piece of crap. Limit/completely restrict access to them, then go from there. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9125 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2015 01:32 Sent. wrote: How is this possible that those mass shootings keep happening in places that are supposed to be safe? I mean cinemas, malls, schools and colleges. If Americans don't want to give up their right to bear arms then maybe they'll be fine with security gates and armed guards everywhere? All most Americans want better gun control and updated laws. The problem is the political will to do it is zero right now. And we don't like armed guards or police everywhere. The problem is that the discussion always boils down to BAN GUNS vs EVERYONE* GETS GUNS! The discussion never really gets to regulating the guns we have and dealing with flaws in the current system. *(maybe not minorities, that seems to be a sticking point) | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9125 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1870 Posts
I will never understand how people can feel safer by owning a gun because my country has already banned them and the chances of me having to defend myself from lethal harm is therefore near 0. I am sure there are areas in our countries that are so dangerous that people that live there sometimes fear for their lives. However i've thought about situations in which that gun would actually help you and the scenarios i could come up with are just a tiny fraction of all possible scenarios. In most cases i would just increase the chances for someone getting seriuosly hurt or killed by having that gun. But then again, what do i know, i never cared about the statistics because i never had to. Maybe because my country has no people walking the streets with concealed guns. So i can only put an opinion out. Gun control does not stop detemined people from commiting horrible crimes. Laws never will. Gun control changes your whole country, because you won't always have to fear being shot by someone just snapping, you won't accidentally shoot someone, you won't kill someone for trying to break into your house. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2015 01:56 Sent. wrote: I'm mostly curious why it's so easy to bring a gun to public places if everyone knows that's a possiblity. Like, why gun free zones can't be kept gun free? Why not just improve security systems? Because there are people in the US that don't want guns around and control over private property is still a thing. Just like places that don't let people bring their pets, there are places where they can't bring their guns. Its just the way it works when everyone does agree on everything. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5390 Posts
On October 05 2015 22:03 Leporello wrote: It kind of feels like you're trying to not get my point. When we ban a drug, what happens? Do the police raid everyone's homes and take their drugs? No. They simple become banned. My entire point was is we've banned and prohibited numerous materials in the past that were once publicly prevalent. Yes, it is difficult. No, it is never completely efficient. But that's never been an excuse to declare the material shouldn't be banned. The simplicity of a total gun-ban comes in the fact that you won't have to wonder about which guns are illegal and legal, which person is a criminal or isn't, background checks, etc. Just make them illegal for the public, as it is with so many things. The cost-benefit analysis of having an entire public armed with guns has been done: it's fucking terrible. This is an interesting comparison to make, because I think politically - this is going to be a broad statement - people who favor gun control tend to align with the side that opposes the war on drugs. | ||
micronesia
United States24613 Posts
As a purely hypothetical discussion about the logistics of implementing a total gun ban in response to a nay-sayer, I can't really say anything though I suppose, so n/m. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
Gun control advocates are literally their own worst enemies. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 05 2015 20:31 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler + You ban them and confiscate them. Why do people think a gun-ban has to be an overnight process? It is an indefinite process, as it is with all illegal materials. Make guns illegal. Yes, there will still be LOTS of guns. But you'll immediately remove a lot from circulation, and it will allow a future with even less guns. It will make removing guns from the hands of criminals a lot easier, when owning a gun itself is a criminal act. A total ban, beyond any immediate removal process, will allow for two things to happen: 1) The country will no longer be an open-market for guns. Gun manufacturing and distribution will not be given free-reign. And, yes, this *does* have an immediate impact on the black-market. The criminals use the same guns everyone else does, they all come from "legitimate" manufacturers. The "black-market" for guns is just a middle-man between criminals and gun-stores. 2) For all the guns that remain, illegally, or are homemade, confiscating them will be a forever ongoing process. It's not anymore complicated that banning any number of other materials that have been banned in pretty much every society on Earth. Does heroin still exist? Yes. But at least we don't have people walking down the streets with bags of heroin hanging from their hip, thinking it's okay. We won't have to ask is that a "good guy" walking around with a weapon for some reason, or is this person violent? Things are complicated *now*. People thinking it's their "right" to walk into retail stores with guns draped over their shoulders -- now that's fucking complicated. Think of that poor cashier. Banning guns is simple. It won't be easy, and I'm certainly not saying it's ever going to happen. I'm just saying it'd be nice if people realized it actually is a fucking option. We are supposed to have elected-representation, where we can make our own rules. I thought the whole point of "patriotic gun ownership" was supposed to be about protecting a government-for-the-people? But when the people want to remove your gun, all of a sudden we're told, "that's not possible". The fucking irony. You're an incredibly short-sighted person, thinking that an extremist solution such as this one would do the USA any good. This is what I would see as an intelligent point of view: The problem is that the discussion always boils down to BAN GUNS vs EVERYONE* GETS GUNS! The discussion never really gets to regulating the guns we have and dealing with flaws in the current system. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 06 2015 14:27 Incognoto wrote: This is what I would see as an intelligent point of view: This is also a case study of why gun control advocates have such a hard time passing legislation. Note that there the quote mentions regulating guns within the current system, but says nothing about deregulating guns within the current system. There's definitely room for both. But there's literally no room for compromise, as one side will get half of what they want and the other side will get nothing at all. For example, a bill that includes both universal background checks and national concealed carry license reciprocity might pass. Just one or the other will not. ...well, national concealed carry license reciprocity might pass on its own anyways., given that it failed by three votes last year and the Republicans picked up nine more seats in the Senate since then. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8613 Posts
a 11 yr old literally just took a shotgun out of somewhere and shot his sister. what possible argument could gun advocates have for the prevention of this? "the gun should have been locked away"? i really dont see why its so hard for so many americans to realise that no amount of 'gun control' will solve anything. they need to be removed just like the majority of most advanced countries | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5587 Posts
| ||
| ||
