Should we ban guns?

AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
I say we shouldn't for multiple reasons:

1) It's our 2nd amendment. If you take away guns, you violate people's rights.

2) More protection. A rapist/murderer/psychopath wouldn't dare or wouldn't get far if he knew (or didn't know) people were armed with guns. Imagine if we banned guns and a school shooter walked into the school. All the people that follow the law would be in danger and would be at the mercy of the shooter because he has the gun.

3) If we ban guns, we may as well ban many other things. People die from car crashes all the time. People cut themselves from knives. People burn themselves from the stove. Alcohol and drugs kill people, yet alcohol and many drugs are still legal. Sugary and fatty foods cause heart disease which kills many many people. I wouldn't want to ban these things despite how harmful they are.
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
I do not own a gun.
I do not believe that we should ban guns; restrictions on ownership should be reasonable and should be equally enforced.
 
CapAquaPis

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Guns are one of America's best known freedoms, but it's one of our biggest problems as a country. Not only guns are widely everywhere, esp by criminals, illegal drugs and high social inequality, esp racial, class and regional lines - for a developed nation, are contributors to drug cartel or criminal gangs' high use of guns to commit illegal violence. Instead of debate on outlawing firearms for civilians, why not debate legalization of drugs and reduction of high social equality in America? If it happened, we have less guns and violence this way.
 
Whoam1

Whoam1

Well-known member
Well, my parents are criminals (were, they are no longer into the stuff), I can say that the drug dealers/gang members/ other shady people (ironcly including the government) aren't going to your local bass pro shop to buy guys to kill people. In fact they mostly steal them, or but them off of the black market (most of which are stolen anyway).

On top of that most people who want to kill, people especially with firearms, don't care about the laws put in place on guns (they clearly don't care about the laws against killing people either).

Then there is my favorite saying, the spoon doesn't make you fat, aka it's the persons choice not the tools, to complete whatever task. I think that people should be properly screened (espically for mental health warings that are in almost every single mass shooter or killer), I also note that buying a gun with an expired license is still illegal [which is what the kid in Florida did and the shop owners should have been charged against for mis-distributing the fire arms.)

Tried to use facts rather than opinion, not big on politics...
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Blaze said:
Rahu made a thread on it, I think. Bit of an echo chamber (what's new there?) but it exists.
Click to expand...

Phasers on stun. If guns are really for defensive purposes, we need a high-tech bullet that's as effective as a killer-bullet in terms of range and penetration, but delivers a low-injury knockout punch. Instant, low energy implosion on impact with living tissue for example. Guns don't kill people, bullets do!
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
AppLeo said:
I say we shouldn't for multiple reasons:

1) It's our 2nd amendment. If you take away guns, you violate people's rights.
Click to expand...

Hardly anybody in the US is seriously talking about banning guns. Why bring up a phony debate? The discussion centers more on sensible restrictions. Oh, on stuff like bump stocks and military assault weapons.

With rights come responsibilities. The founding fathers were talking about our equivalent of the National Guard in the 2nd amendment, not about the NRA gun crazies today.

Presumably all of the victims of gun violence had rights, too-- before they were too dead to enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Starting with being too dead to enjoy "life."

2) More protection. A rapist/murderer/psychopath wouldn't dare or wouldn't get far if he knew (or didn't know) people were armed with guns. Imagine if we banned guns and a school shooter walked into the school. All the people that follow the law would be in danger and would be at the mercy of the shooter because he has the gun.
Click to expand...

So what happened here? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/22/stoneman-douglas-shooting-armed-guard-did-not-go-in

Many mass shooters plan in advance to kill themselves at the crime scene, so fear of death isn't their deterrent. I don't think anyone in the US seriously argues against citizens being armed for self-defense. Most of the weapons used in mass murders aren't purchased for self defense.

3) If we ban guns, we may as well ban many other things. People die from car crashes all the time. People cut themselves from knives. People burn themselves from the stove. Alcohol and drugs kill people, yet alcohol and many drugs are still legal. Sugary and fatty foods cause heart disease which kills many many people. I wouldn't want to ban these things despite how harmful they are.
Click to expand...

A classic "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. Automobiles come with increasing numbers of safety features, yet the NRA lobbies against devices on guns that would unlock them only for the owner. https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/5683504/gun-control-the-nra-wants-to-take-smart-guns-away

Your argument seems to be that if we cannot save all lives, we should not attempt to save any lives.

If your argument held up to scrutiny, few improvements in health and longevity ever would have been made, on the grounds that if a drug or medical procedure cannot save all patients, it's just not good enough for it to save most patients, so let's ban it.
 
AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
waybread said:
Hardly anybody in the US is seriously talking about banning guns. Why bring up a phony debate? The discussion centers more on sensible restrictions. Oh, on stuff like bump stocks and military assault weapons.
Click to expand...

If you start restricting certain guns, then it turns into a debate of what makes a gun too powerful. Which then turns subjective. When things become subjective, there is no truth or correct answer; there is just feelings. Also, when you start banning certain guns, the left will try to ban all guns in the future.

This is the same thing that's happening to free speech.

The left is punishing people for "hate speech" but all their doing is trying to destroy free speech. Pretty soon, if you say anything that is anti-socialist you will be punished, jailed, or killed for it.

waybread said:
With rights come responsibilities. The founding fathers were talking about our equivalent of the National Guard in the 2nd amendment, not about the NRA gun crazies today.

Presumably all of the victims of gun violence had rights, too-- before they were too dead to enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Starting with being too dead to enjoy "life."
Click to expand...

The victims should've owned guns too to protect themselves.

The right to bear arms, and all forms, is so that the people can defend themselves from the government if they feel the government is becomming too powerful or doesn't serve them.

waybread said:
So what happened here? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/22/stoneman-douglas-shooting-armed-guard-did-not-go-in

Many mass shooters plan in advance to kill themselves at the crime scene, so fear of death isn't their deterrent. I don't think anyone in the US seriously argues against citizens being armed for self-defense. Most of the weapons used in mass murders aren't purchased for self defense.
Click to expand...

Waybread, mass shooters choose schools because they are the most vulnerable and create the most amount of damage and attention.

If kids at the school possessed guns of their own, and knew how to shoot guns, a mass shooter wouldn't try or wouldn't be able to do much harm.

waybread said:
A classic "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. Automobiles come with increasing numbers of safety features, yet the NRA lobbies against devices on guns that would unlock them only for the owner. https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/5683504/gun-control-the-nra-wants-to-take-smart-guns-away

Your argument seems to be that if we cannot save all lives, we should not attempt to save any lives.

If your argument held up to scrutiny, few improvements in health and longevity ever would have been made, on the grounds that if a drug or medical procedure cannot save all patients, it's just not good enough for it to save most patients, so let's ban it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that if we're going to ban guns because they are "too dangerous" because they kill people, then I don't understand why we don't focus on other things to ban because those other things kill people too.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
AppLeo said:
I'm saying that if we're going to ban guns because they are "too dangerous" because they kill people, then I don't understand why we don't focus on other things to ban because those other things kill people too.
Click to expand...

Presumably, the "other things" have a purpose OTHER than killing and/or wounding, which is all that guns are made for. Holding Death in one's hand is very satisfying to some.
 
AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
david starling said:
Presumably, the "other things" have a purpose OTHER than killing and/or wounding, which is all that guns are made for. Holding Death in one's hand is very satisfying to some.
Click to expand...

Killing or wounding is a good thing when used against bad people.

There are more good than bad people in the world.

So we want guns to be available to everyone.
 
Top