No guns= no shootings?

[Devil King]

No guns= no shootings?


Obviously the thread title is simplistic.

[Less Than Liz]

Well, duh. If guns ceased to exist entirely there'd be no shootings the same way there were no shootings prior to the development of guns. What's your point?

[Priest4hire]

I was going to say that except it occurred to me that technically you can say a person was shot by a bow or a crossbow as well. Possibly even a ballista. Given human nature I suspect that should all firearms simultaneously disappear, and the creation of new ones be prevented, that we'd be busting out the alternatives pretty damn fast.

[Jarrid]

In a literal sense, yes. No shooting would occur if there were no such thing as a gun. However, if you mean by banning guns, that is a different tale. If guns were outlawed, it would become just like any other thing illegal in this nation as well as the world. Black market sellers and buyers would take control of it shipping and exporting out of the country. Crimes would either remain the same or increase depending on the location. There are tons and tons of gangs in our nation that would find no problem in getting any weapons the group needed, and thus, crime would continue. Banning something does not solve any problems. Look at the war on drugs. That right there is just a complete mess, and look how much worse it is getting. I find the same would happen with guns.

[Less Than Liz]

I was going to say that except it occurred to me that technically you can say a person was shot by a bow or a crossbow as well. Possibly even a ballista.
Duuuuude, Priest :p.

[Matron]

Exactly. All banning guns would do is take them out of the hands that need it most, police and people that need personal protection. Criminals would still have guns, just like they have all the stuff that's illegal now, like drugs. Crime would just be that much worse. If prohibition taught us anything, it's that making something illegal just makes people want it that much more, and more willing to go to extremes to get it. How would it do anyone any good if the police no longer had guns, but the drug dealers and murderers still did?

[Jarrid]

I will go Mongolian on your ass, son. Shiiiiit.

[Liam McDohl]

Exactly. All banning guns would do is take them out of the hands that need it most, police and people that need personal protection. Criminals would still have guns, just like they have all the stuff that's illegal now, like drugs. Crime would just be that much worse. If prohibition taught us anything, it's that making something illegal just makes people want it that much more, and more willing to go to extremes to get it. How would it do anyone any good if the police no longer had guns, but the drug dealers and murderers still did?

I dunno, the police don't always have guns on them over here and we're still running a society.

My opinion, though, is that the police should have access to guns, and that if the public also have such access it should require a more rigourous and taxing amount of training/testing than, say, it takes to get a driving license. I just think it's too easy if anyone can randomly buy a gun from a shop with nothing more than getting IDed for proof of age.

[Powerslave]

Exactly. All banning guns would do is take them out of the hands that need it most, police and people that need personal protection. Criminals would still have guns, just like they have all the stuff that's illegal now, like drugs. Crime would just be that much worse. If prohibition taught us anything, it's that making something illegal just makes people want it that much more, and more willing to go to extremes to get it. How would it do anyone any good if the police no longer had guns, but the drug dealers and murderers still did?

I don't think I've ever heard a proposal in favor of banning guns including banning guns from law enforcers. That wouldn't make any sense. The point is so that people, including criminals, can't buy guns like buying a candy or a loaf of bread. A gun is a dangerous thing, more dangerous than a gram of coke or a bag of weed. Yeah, sure, a black market emerges, but I fail to see how that's so much more brutal than any criminal being able to walk to their local mall and coming out with a pair of machine guns.

[Mary]

I fail to see how that's so much more brutal than any criminal being able to walk to their local mall and coming out with a pair of machine guns.

Because criminals will still have access to guns while other people(excluding police) will not have access to guns with which to defend themselves. Also criminals can commit crimes confident that the person they are committing the crime against will not have a concealed weapon to shoot them with.

[Baby]

An ordinary policeman doesn't carry a gun back home! It's quite scary :S

[Jarrid]

Are homicides and gang wars very common in London?

[moogle]

Exactly. All banning guns would do is take them out of the hands that need it most, police and people that need personal protection. Criminals would still have guns, just like they have all the stuff that's illegal now, like drugs. Crime would just be that much worse. If prohibition taught us anything, it's that making something illegal just makes people want it that much more, and more willing to go to extremes to get it. How would it do anyone any good if the police no longer had guns, but the drug dealers and murderers still did?
You can't say prohibition of guns would be the same as prohibition of drugs and alcohol, though. The purpose of guns is to kill or severely injure another living thing as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, those that own guns for protection often do not even know how to use them properly in the first place. I'm not saying all guns should be banned, but if there's anything that requires extreme regulation, this is it.

[Jarrid]

Yes, they are two completely different things and serve different purposes for a human (even though people kill themselves and other people with drugs all the time), but I personally believe if guns were outlawed and banned, there would be almost that same kind of black market way of going about things that is used to smuggle in (or out) drugs from country to country as well as many other things not pertaining to drugs. Though, I do agree with on your point talking about most gun owners do not know how to use one. However, I know in the South, the majority of people have used a firearm of some sort whether that be a rifle, shotgun, or pistol. There are firing ranges all over the place, people love to hunt for sport, and well, people love to shoot at random shit as well as animals for the hell of it. I drive by stop signs everyday with bullet holes in them.

[Matron]

Yes, in the South, many of us are taught to shoot very early in life. I can shoot. Not as good as I used to be able to, because I haven't practiced in years, but I know how to handle a gun.

[Jarrid]

I received a B- in my drive-by shooting class. I hit a few wrong targets.

[Powerslave]

Because criminals will still have access to guns while other people(excluding police) will not have access to guns with which to defend themselves. Also criminals can commit crimes confident that the person they are committing the crime against will not have a concealed weapon to shoot them with.

So, nowadays there is less crime, because there are legions of would-be criminals who don't commit crimes because they assume that people have guns? That's the logic that I don't understand from gun supporters. I mean, most people don't own guns. I don't know how many criminals go around surveying which peoplee have guns so that they only rob or murder people who don't have guns. I'm not sure what the statistics are, but that's the kind of argument that ends up leading to things like "Well, if every person on the planet had a gun, then we'd all be safer!" And... I just don't think that is a defensible position. It's almost like saying "Well, if everyone on the planet had their own pot plantation/coke plantation/meth lab/etc, then we'd all be safer from drugs, because then the criminals can't make money off them to do bad things with!"

[Atlas]

Yes, in the South, many of us are taught to shoot very early in life. I can shoot. Not as good as I used to be able to, because I haven't practiced in years, but I know how to handle a gun.

That is awesome(I think). I was taught to shoot at a young age. One of my mother's really old boyfriends showed me how with a huge shotgun when I was probably only 5 years old. It had an intense kickback and almost broke my nose.

[Matron]

Ouch! I do remember carrying a nice bruise on my shoulder the first time I shot one. They warned me of the kickback, but I wasn't expecting quite that much!

[Devil King]

Well, duh. If guns ceased to exist entirely there'd be no shootings the same way there were no shootings prior to the development of guns. What's your point?

I mean bans on firearms.

[Less Than Liz]

"I was totally gonna murder this guy but owning guns is against the law so there goes that one. Also, I could not possible think of any other way to kill this person."

[Devil King]

"I was totally gonna murder this guy but owning guns is against the law so there goes that one. Also, I could not possible think of any other way to kill this person."

You first said that gun bannings were retarded. Howcome? I mean they are meant to ensure that people won't get shot. Don't see how that's 'retarded'.

[Less Than Liz]

You first said that gun bannings were retarded. Howcome? I mean they are meant to ensure that people won't get shot. Don't see how that's 'retarded'.
They don't insure people don't get shot. There are still shootings in countries with gun bans for the population, and they are even easier to get because the black market does not have the background checks, etc that legislation in a legal market requires.

[Void]

I feel that some people are getting shot by a mean stare.

[Devil King]

They don't insure people don't get shot.

I agree with that, but surely you agree that shootings will be lessened.

Saying a law like that is retarded is like saying laws for murdering someone are retarded. It doesn't compute in my eyes.

[Matron]

Had to do this.

[Devil King]

Nice. ;)

[Priest4hire]

It's a funny thing. It wasn't that long ago, a number of decades, that a man who was sane and free of a criminal record could by a machine gun. In Canada if you can believe that. It's true of much of the US even now although there are mountains of regulations and the weapon can't be newer than '85. Now, do you suppose there was a massive slew of automatic weapon related crime back when a citizen could buy one without much difficulty? Not really. So then one has to wonder why the removal, or sever restriction, of such weapons from the public sphere hasn't brought about a reduction in crime.

[Atlas]

The only actual thing gun bans will ever do is restrict law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. Especially nowadays with so much gun traffic going on.

A gun search would literally need to be done. Then they'd have to physically destroy all weapons of the sort. It's an outrageous thought. The best we can hope for is the law being inforced without the people being combative.

[Blackdragon]

While this holds true, it wouldn't reduce violence though, just the way it is carried out. While it may force people to take up more risky ways to punk out of their problems, it won't really solve anything.

[Atlas]

Really, it's funny, because the more the government has tried to reduce gun violence by limiting people's availability to them, the more the gun violence actually goes up.


The people are quietly revolting. Someday, I fear, it'll be our demise. It'll probably be something bigger, something like a Nuke that really takes us out in one fell swoop.

That is of course if an asteroid doesn't meet our path first.