Should guns be banned in the US?

katsucats said:
Do you really think it would benefit the situation if you give the protestors a bunch of guns so that they become armed protestors engaged in a shootout with the police? I bet there would be a lot more casualties on both sides and the police would crack down harder.

katsucats said:
Do you really think it would benefit the situation if you give the protestors a bunch of guns so that they become armed protestors engaged in a shootout with the police? I bet there would be a lot more casualties on both sides and the police would crack down harder.

RandomChampion said:
That's not really the point though. If a protester wants to protest, then he should be able to do so. The protester wouldnt be in the wrong if all he was doing is peaceful protest

If the police do crack down harder, it just goes to show that it's already an illegitimate authority anyways.

RandomChampion said:


That's not really the point though. If a protester wants to protest, then he should be able to do so. The protester wouldnt be in the wrong if all he was doing is peaceful protest

If the police do crack down harder, it just goes to show that it's already an illegitimate authority anyways.

RandomChampion said:


That's not really the point though. If a protester wants to protest, then he should be able to do so. The protester wouldnt be in the wrong if all he was doing is peaceful protest

If the police do crack down harder, it just goes to show that it's already an illegitimate authority anyways.

katsucats said:

]It is entirely the point, because humans aren't idealistic robots in some libertarian simulation. Give people guns, and watch the tension level go up. In the libertarian ideal, the police wouldn't be there in the first place, and no protestor would ever step out of line. In the real world the police are there, protestors do occasionally step out of line, and the presence of guns protects nobody -- neither physically nor ideally. Guns would not prevent the police from being there and opening fire; they would not prevent some protestors from acting out of line; they do nothing to protect any of the libertarian ideals of right to self. On the contrary, they hasten deterioration.

katsucats said:


It is entirely the point, because humans aren't idealistic robots in some libertarian simulation. Give people guns, and watch the tension level go up. In the libertarian ideal, the police wouldn't be there in the first place, and no protestor would ever step out of line. In the real world the police are there, protestors do occasionally step out of line, and the presence of guns protects nobody -- neither physically nor ideally. Guns would not prevent the police from being there and opening fire; they would not prevent some protestors from acting out of line; they do nothing to protect any of the libertarian ideals of right to self. On the contrary, they hasten deterioration.

dlonc said:

But here you talk about a extreme situation where people are terorised by the nations force aka police/army where in this case people should arm and go make a new country.Viva la revolution dude.BUT does this have anything to do with Europe or the US or probably every other country in the world who isn't in a crisis or political trouble or in a dictatorship?

dlonc said:
I'm not from the US so I might not understand it,but why would in a "civilized world" anyone need guns?I have no idea,also I have no ideawhat everyone on MAL believes here and if someone doesnt accept the theory of evolution lets say the human species is more than 2000 years old.So I believe we should act like it :D

DatDanimexican said:
As a Danish person I have never seen a reason for me personally to own a firearm, but that doesn't mean that I think the United States should ban guns.

Many people in the United States are living a fine life with firearms, and I don't see any purpose in removing those said firearms.

Personally I think there should be some restrictions, like people who are mentally ill or have a criminal background shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but the average American who happens to own a firearm serve no harm to the general public, and I can understand the need for some people to protect themselves and their family.

One fact many people tend to oversee is that 2/3 gun victims are the perpetrator, and the United States murder rate is at an all time low right now, and even then most murders are gang related.

And how in the world is the US government going to get all those guns brought in?

spyrocoot said:


I take it you haven't read about the many instances as of late of some nut-job massacring school kids? Mass murder using guns is an issue in the US right now.

"The only way to beat a bad guy with a gun, is to have a good guy with a gun".

Hitchens said:
I don't think blaming the guns is what's being said here. Rather the possession of a gun increasing the number of casualties is the issue.

dlonc said:
I'm not from the US so I might not understand it,but why would in a "civilized world" anyone need guns?I have no idea,also I have no ideawhat everyone on MAL believes here and if someone doesnt accept the theory of evolution lets say the human species is more than 2000 years old.So I believe we should act like it :D

cathage said:
Why does anyone NEED a gun these days anyway?

MoeGalacticHero said:
>London
Yeah, you don't need a gun. But we don't all live in London, thank the Lord.

cathage said:
Why does anyone NEED a gun these days anyway?

cathage said:
Why does anyone NEED a gun these days anyway?

Helder_Iron said:
Latin people should be forbidden to buy any guns in USA. That would be a good solution.

MoeGalacticHero said:
The religious stuff then this? Confirmed troll imo. Work on the subtlety.

Helder01 said:

I'm not a troll, I say this because most crimes in USA are committed for latins.

StrictlyStupid said:
Gee, I dunno.
For protection, maybe?

InfiniteRufus said:

But but but but, guns are designed to kill people, not protect them!

katsucats said:
I vote for a gun that shoots battery acid. It's non-fatal if he gets immediate care, but it burns like fuck and is permanently scarring.

MoeGalacticHero said:
Shit, I once took a wrong turn and ended up in a bad part of south phoenix. Got a gun pointed at me. If people like that (no racial) are gonna have guns then I kind of need them to defend myself. There are too many guns in America to even think about banning them anyway.

Helder01 said:

I'm not a troll, I say this because most crimes in USA are committed for latins.

MoeGalacticHero said:
Shit, I once took a wrong turn and ended up in a bad part of south phoenix. Got a gun pointed at me. If people like that (no racial) are gonna have guns then I kind of need them to defend myself. There are too many guns in America to even think about banning them anyway.

StrictlyStupid said:
Criminals don't register weapons. They're going to get their hands on them regardless of whether they're banned or not. The only thing doing this will accomplish is leave law abiding citizens with absolutely no way to protect themselves.

jal90 said:

Why should we ban drug dealing, criminals are going to sell them anyway. Why should we ban tax fraud, it's not that it will avoid offenders from doing so. Why should we ban sexual abuse, rapists still do their stuff.

Secondviennese said:
At some point they should yes, the US certainly has an unhealthy relationship with them and I'm not sure an outright ban is just going to solve the issue, legal or not they're a dime a dozen in the US. It's a problem that's going to take years to solve and not by some silver bullet legislation, it would best be done through stages of stricter control. For a start unless you're going to be attacked in your home by an elephant you don't need a 50. caliber pistol, they're not toys or fashion accessories and if you want people to treat them seriously you'll need to stop selling them as such.

spyrocoot said:
Personally, I don't know why people don't take up a self defense class. Shooting a gun only takes one pull of the trigger, and it is likely to take someone's life. It's far more satisfying to disarm a guy and break his wrist in the process.

Deserada said:

I don't really understand your comment on their relevance as fashion accessories, unless you're talking about pop culture's influence on gun culture, but "guns as status symbol" and "guns as fashion statement" is exclusively a mindset cultivated by idiots (at least in the US) which would simply not cease to exist as a result of tighter gun control.

Secondviennese said:


Oh I'm sure their love for guns would still be there, but it would be interesting to see the effects taking away their flashy guns and leaving them with boring practical ones for home defense would have on their culture. We have plenty enough guns here in Ireland, people just don't find hunting rifles and shotguns at all that interesting.

Deserada said:
You've got some scary tunnel vision going on here.

jal90 said:

Come on, there has to be more than a nice one-liner.

Anyway I'll take the bait and explain my post. Saying that criminals will break the rule anyway invalidates, following this logic, the effect of any law (specially taking into account how one is defined as a criminal because they break a law). It is implied that if you ban guns, drugs, sexual abuse or tax fraud you are going to implement security measures that follow the right application of those laws.

StrictlyStupid's comment is making the solution look futile on the basis that it will fail by default, for no further reason than the fact people who want to commit a crime will try to act against such law. Which is the same case in every single scenario, not just guns, and doesn't consider that it will bring a package of measures specifically designed to prevent and surveil those effects.

jal90 said:

Come on, there has to be more than a nice one-liner.

Anyway I'll take the bait and explain my post. Saying that criminals will break the rule anyway invalidates, following this logic, the effect of any law (specially taking into account how one is defined as a criminal because they break a law). It is implied that if you ban guns, drugs, sexual abuse or tax fraud you are going to implement security measures that follow the right application of those laws.

StrictlyStupid's comment is making the solution look futile on the basis that it will fail by default, for no further reason than the fact people who want to commit a crime will try to act against such law. Which is the same case in every single judicial scenario, not just guns, and doesn't consider that it will bring a package of measures specifically designed to prevent and surveil those effects.

Just to make things clear, I believe that a very strict regulation would make more effect than a plain ban, but I just think this argument, thrown as a mean of default reason and regardless of how the law is effectively brought, is a very poor way to discredit the idea.

Deserada said:
We're brewing an increasingly cyclic argument here.

The assumption is that laws exist to encourage order, not that they are made to be broken. You understand this, I take, from your last sentences.

If that is the case, then you agree with both me and StrictlyStupid in saying "it will bring a package of measures specifically designed to prevent and surveil those effects." StrictlyStupid is aware of this, and is implying that aforementioned "measures" will be ineffective at doing anything but leaving "law abiding citizens with absolutely no way to protect themselves."