Do you reckon guns should be banned in the U.S.? (Please vote)

[Deleted member 114266]

Anyone remember what happened with the Pepsi Jet lawsuit?

It fizzled out, the court ruled that the commercial didn't constitute an offer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

 

[Digital_Cheese]

I argue guns shouldn’t be banned. It’s been allowed for 200+ years and no one will give them up except those who probably don’t already have them. This is especially true for the red states. Imagine trying to take away millions upon millions of guns. This would be literally impossible unless you somehow convinced them to do it which won’t happen.

Supposedly it would save lives, but I just wonder considering guns can also be for self defense against the same criminals. Some people may say we would be screwed either way, but I’d rather take the chance I live than take the blackpill and say it’s hopeless. You have a tiny bit of a higher chance of living with guns due to self defense than living without defense.

The people who kill innocent people are so deranged that I think they would do it anyways. Don’t take away one of the best methods of self defense against criminals unless you want the crime to go up in a country that is already deranged enough. Instead, go to the root of the problem and fix the mental health so that way we could get one less criminal. If that happens, we would be able to reduce the crime to a point where guns would simply be used for hunting animals and now we wouldn’t have to take them away only for the system to fail while making the country weaker.

The way I see it is that if I wanted to shoot up a place, I wouldn’t go to a place that allows guns because then people could actually defend themselves. Instead I would go to a place that doesn’t allow guns because now the people aren’t armed and a few people trying to defend a lot of people is much less effective than lots of people with the guns able to kill me. Due to guns, we are also one of the strongest military forces out there (along with the probably endless nukes too tho).

TLDR:
Impossible to make banning guns work, guns are for self defense, fix mental health, and if I wanted to shoot up a place I would do it in a gun free zone because it’s easier to kill people then.

 

[elpapadelospollitos]

If what you say it's true and a civilian being armed could really stop an active shooter, how come this rarely happens?

 

[tabzer]

If what you say it's true and a civilian being armed could really stop an active shooter, how come this rarely happens?

Because guns are banned in gun free zones? Also, when it does happen, it isn't paraded by the media in resounding victory.

 

[elpapadelospollitos]

Yeah I get that on school shootings, but not every major shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, nevertheless, confirmed civilian intervention is rare

 

[tabzer]

Yeah I get that on school shootings, but not every major shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, nevertheless, confirmed civilian intervention is rare

I imagine confirming it would be the hardest thing, if there isn't a major shooting as a result.

 

[Creamu]

Slippery slope is not a fallacy if it is true.

This is true... this is painfully true...

 

[Dr_Faustus]

Nah, control is whats needed. Control, restrictions and screenings to ensure that the ones owning these firearms are mentally sound. Not to mention better means of tracking ownership and tying owner to firearm ownership to prevent second hand sale/theft using bio-metric technologies that have existed with firearms for years not but have not been available for consumer markets due to a particular lobbying party of people preventing its push to mass market adoption and use.

Massacres will happen still, but the means doing so will be considerably less attainable via firearm. If you can't get a firearm because you are not mentally sound and/or have a history of mental instability, and you can't buy second hand firearms because of them being tracked by a system in which anytime you might have to buy ammo or parts you have to prove the weapon you are using it with is in fact yours and if not your weapon gets taken away/get called on by the police for owning an illegally owned weapon. Finally not being able to steal one if its got built in bio-metrics that would prevent you from using it if you're not the owner of the weapon.

Its simple logic honestly, its not like its hard to make these things standard in our system. We have means of technology that would make this process dead ass simple to the point where even walking into a gun shop the owner could easily ID you and the firearms you own using RFID chips either in a card or even in the firearm itself. There is NO REASON TO NOT want this unless you think that by doing this its going to somehow "limit your freedoms" because we want to make sure that tracking your firearms and the general mental stability of current or future owners so that the outcomes we keep seeing do not keep happening.

More guns is not going to solve the problem, its having more brains. Having the means to make sure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, and to keep them out of the wrong hands. Its not that hard to make happen, but sure as hell overly paranoid groups are a trigger hair shy of just militarizing against the government/populace because they are afraid of any kind of changes when it comes to gun ownership rules and control. If it was up to them they would probably give everyone an AR-15 and let god sort out the rest.

 

[Hanafuda]

Yeah I get that on school shootings, but not every major shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, nevertheless, confirmed civilian intervention is rare

Confirmed police intervention is rare, too. They may end up "stopping" the shooter after the damage is already done, but not usually before.

Tangent red herring as far as I'm concerned, as this consideration had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights.

 

[fatherjack]

You’re gonna get a skewed vote with so many non-American voters.
I don’t think it’s suitable to suggest how another country should conduct their society from the comfort of your own.
I voted no.

 

[elpapadelospollitos]

I argue guns shouldn’t be banned. It’s been allowed for 200+ years and no one will give them up except those who probably don’t already have them. This is especially true for the red states. Imagine trying to take away millions upon millions of guns. This would be literally impossible unless you somehow convinced them to do it which won’t happen.

Supposedly it would save lives, but I just wonder considering guns can also be for self defense against the same criminals. Some people may say we would be screwed either way, but I’d rather take the chance I live than take the blackpill and say it’s hopeless. You have a tiny bit of a higher chance of living with guns due to self defense than living without defense.

The people who kill innocent people are so deranged that I think they would do it anyways. Don’t take away one of the best methods of self defense against criminals unless you want the crime to go up in a country that is already deranged enough. Instead, go to the root of the problem and fix the mental health so that way we could get one less criminal. If that happens, we would be able to reduce the crime to a point where guns would simply be used for hunting animals and now we wouldn’t have to take them away only for the system to fail while making the country weaker.

The way I see it is that if I wanted to shoot up a place, I wouldn’t go to a place that allows guns because then people could actually defend themselves. Instead I would go to a place that doesn’t allow guns because now the people aren’t armed and a few people trying to defend a lot of people is much less effective than lots of people with the guns able to kill me. Due to guns, we are also one of the strongest military forces out there (along with the probably endless nukes too tho).

TLDR:
Impossible to make banning guns work, guns are for self defense, fix mental health, and if I wanted to shoot up a place I would do it in a gun free zone because it’s easier to kill people then.

Did you even read the thread?

Confirmed police intervention is rare, too. They may end up "stopping" the shooter after the damage is already done, but not usually before.

Tangent red herring as far as I'm concerned, as this consideration had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights.

And why bringing up police intervention if that's not what we are discussing? Red herring perhaps?

 

[RandomUser]

If what you say it's true and a civilian being armed could really stop an active shooter, how come this rarely happens?

I may have a couple of theory,

1. They may happen in states that does not have a stand your ground law. Which requires the person to try to flee first and foremost.
2. You may be liable if a stray bullet hits an unintended target, worst if was an unintended person.

I don't think you know much about gun sales. It takes like 2 weeks to purchase a gun because you have the legally able to purchase a gun, the dealer has to run your information, and the serial number has to be associated with your identity with the ATF. Some places even do ballistic fingerprinting making it so that if a bullet is found and intact enough the precise gun that fired it can be identified with some margin of error.

Also mental illness is already taken into account when you want to purchase a fire arm. There's really a lot to the whole gun purchasing process in the United States that people who have never even attempted to purchase a gun before like to complain about.

It also doesn't take a background check to buy a car. EVERY gun sale requires a background check from the NICS and has for an eternity.

And just to be clear, I don't own a gun myself, but I have friends who worked in a gun shop, who did offer me a handgun at a great discount, but the amount of effort it actually would take for me to purchase it was seriously not worth the time for me to do target shooting every once in a blue moon.

I think @Lacius is correct, I was able to purchase a .45 ACP firearm within minutes and it was shockingly easy. I didn't even need to give them a social security number. The purchase was from a dealer.

 

[Hanafuda]

I think @Lacius is correct, I was able to purchase a .45 ACP firearm within minutes and it was shockingly easy. I didn't even need to give them a social security number. The purchase was from a dealer.

Did you complete a Form 4473? You may have done so on paper, or on a computer screen. Either way, if you purchased legally through a dealer, then you completed a 4473. And you provided a social security number, as well as full name, address, birth date, as well as a sworn attestation that your purchase was in compliance with federal law (not a felon or convicted domestic abuser, not under a restraining order, not an alcoholic or drug user including marijuana, never adjudged mentally defective, never dishonorably discharged, not an illegal alien, etc). Then your ID was run through a NICS database for criminal background check. Then if you "passed" the background check, the transfer was allowed.

If all of that didn't happen, then it wasn't a legal purchase through an FFL dealer. If the dealer didn't require all of that from you, then he committed a felony. If you provided false information as to any questions (marijuana use, felony conviction, etc) then you committed a felony. Problem is, enforcement and prosecution of such offenses is just about non-existent. FFL's regularly report failed attempts to purchase firearms by persons with felony convictions, and the ATF does nothing. Big problem. What's the point of passing more laws when they don't prosecute illegal gun possession and illegal attempted purchases now?

 

[Hanafuda]

https://data.philadao.com/Case_Outcomes_Report.html

Go to the link, change the selection from "all offenses" to firearms, and then look at the Philadelphia DA's office statistics for the outcomes of illegal firearm possession/use arrests. It's pitiful. Over half are just dropped. Then change the category to "violent" offenses(probably a lot of overlap there). It's even worse! They're just letting violent criminals and convicted felons caught with guns walk out the door.

 

[RandomUser]

Did you complete a Form 4473? You may have done so on paper, or on a computer screen. Either way, if you purchased legally through a dealer, then you completed a 4473. And you provided a social security number, as well as full name, address, birth date, as well as a sworn attestation that your purchase was in compliance with federal law (not a felon or convicted domestic abuser, not under a restraining order, not an alcoholic or drug user including marijuana, never adjudged mentally defective, never dishonorably discharged, not an illegal alien, etc). Then your ID was run through a NICS database for criminal background check. Then if you "passed" the background check, the transfer was allowed.

If all of that didn't happen, then it wasn't a legal purchase through an FFL dealer. If the dealer didn't require all of that from you, then he committed a felony. If you provided false information as to any questions (marijuana use, felony conviction, etc) then you committed a felony. Problem is, enforcement and prosecution of such offenses is just about non-existent. FFL's regularly report failed attempts to purchase firearms by persons with felony convictions, and the ATF does nothing. Big problem. What's the point of passing more laws when they don't prosecute illegal gun possession and illegal attempted purchases now?

Yes, had to fill out that form. However an SSN number wasn't needed and left it blank. Sure enough the check goes through within minutes, not 2 weeks like the other poster claims. So you do not even need a social security number to fill out the form and even to this day it still isn't required. What is really shocking is that it is much easier to buy a firearm then it is to get a drivers license. I have imagined that it should have been much more difficult, at least as for the questions are concerned. Also there is a way to bypass the NICS check as well upon purchasing a firearm.
So in essence, you basically have proved Lacius point.

 

[XDel]

If they can't keep hard drives from coming across seas and the deep south into our boarders, then how are they going to prevent guns from getting in? That said, I've never heard of anyone registering a weapon to commit a crime.

 

[Hanafuda]

Yes, had to fill out that form. However an SSN number wasn't needed and left it blank. Sure enough the check goes through within minutes, not 2 weeks like the other poster claims. So you do not even need a social security number to fill out the form and even to this day it still isn't required. What is really shocking is that it is much easier to buy a firearm then it is to get a drivers license. I have imagined that it should have been much more difficult, at least as for the questions are concerned. Also there is a way to bypass the NICS check as well upon purchasing a firearm.
So in essence, you basically have proved Lacius point.

Wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. Not sure what you mean about bypassing the NICS check, but I know there are some states that have a law that lets you bypass that if you've already passed it before by obtaining a CCW permit. As for the two week thing someone else mentioned, that's probably a waiting period required in their state. No such thing in my state, and yours either I guess. Yes, I could go out to a shop tomorrow and purchase a firearm, total transaction time including the background check about 30 minutes. But I would still have to complete the 4473, and my ID would be run through NICS. Fortunately I have no 'prohibited person' problems that would prevent me making the purchase.

It isn't really a question of whether it's "easy" to buy a firearm, it's whether you haven't disqualified yourself by criminal action or mental instability. We do already have laws on the books, federal and state, to punish those who attempt to buy a gun when they're prohibited. But very few actual prosecutions happen, even though FFL's must report when it occurs. And even when a convicted felon is caught with a gun, as often as not the charges just get dropped.

 

[RandomUser]

Wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. Not sure what you mean about bypassing the NICS check, but I know there are some states that have a law that lets you bypass that if you've already passed it before by obtaining a CCW permit. As for the two week thing someone else mentioned, that's probably a waiting period required in their state. No such thing in my state, and yours either I guess. Yes, I could go out to a shop tomorrow and purchase a firearm, total transaction time including the background check about 30 minutes. But I would still have to complete the 4473, and my ID would be run through NICS. Fortunately I have no 'prohibited person' problems that would prevent me making the purchase.

It isn't really a question of whether it's "easy" to buy a firearm, it's whether you haven't disqualified yourself by criminal action or mental instability. We do already have laws on the books, federal and state, to punish those who attempt to buy a gun when they're prohibited. But very few actual prosecutions happen, even though FFL's must report when it occurs. And even when a convicted felon is caught with a gun, as often as not the charges just get dropped.

Perhaps I'm looking at it, at a wrong prospective. I must apoligize if my tone was sour. It is great that we can have a civilize discussion. Thank you for giving me another prospective, and yours makes better sense. The laws, I think are there to scare off the honest citizen? Yeah, don't know why the laws exist when it isn't enforced.

 

[XDel]

No because that would just leave them in the hands of the Government and the criminals.

 

[scroeffie1984]

i live in europe and we are fucked here ! for the people who live in the usa the moment you give up your guns thats the moment your are fucked BIG TIME !! keep your guns ,you wil be happy and own nothing
how naief can you be ? who is going to protect you if the government has gone crazy ??
or do people in the usa realy think the government is going to take care of us ??