The main problem with banning guns is that we created them in the first place. It's like Frankenstein, we can call our creation a monster, but since we made it this destructive force, we are the true ones at fault. Overall it would have been better if we had never made guns, then we wouldn't need these laws. The same thing applies for De-weaponization. No country is willing to do it because they are afraid of what the other countries (and citizens) will do if they become unprotected. I'm all of the control however, if guns were to be banned, then yes, the criminals would be the only ones left with guns. But lets face it, they would probably get those guns either way. But having those laws prevents regular people from becoming criminals so easily. It would take many years, but eventually the number of killings would drop quite substantially...though knowing us we would probably find some knew way to murder our fellow man...
Well, there's also a bad economic side effect of banning guns. Gun manufacturing is a multi-million dollar industries in the U.S. and employes tens of thousands of people, people who if they lost their jobs, would never be able to really work anywhere else because gunsmith ain't exactly a versatile profession to work with. So, if we somehow WERE to ban guns, something that would more than likely be highly unpopular among the populace, espically down in the South, it shouldn't be in any kind of economic downturn or recovery as that would A): Put tons of more people out of work, B): Destroy an industry that has, for a very long time, been a very stable part of America, and C): Majorly pissing off states that seceded one time over state rights(and slavery)+one of those states still being extremely proud of it's time as an independent nation, banning gun outright probably would have some very MAJOR side effects and might lead to a Second Civil War
I think we're going that way anyway. Ironically my grandpa got me a .177 caliber hunting pistol for Christmas.
The message I get from all of these conversations is that guns are Jesus, and if you touch the way they are sold, the limit you can own, how much proof of how sane you are you need, or what kind you can by, then you are the anti-Christ. Small handguns, as I've said, I have no problem with, but machine guns which can be bought very easily and cheaply, bear in mind the Dark Knight Rises shooter had an arsenal AND an apartment rigged with dozens of explosives, the Columbine shooters got automatic rifles with ease despite being still in school/just out of it, and the guy involved in the recent one in Connecticut seemed to get one pretty sharpish too, is just plain wrong. Americans have a right to carry a gun, I get it, it's in the constitution which represents the human rights, but it doesn't say you HAVE to be able to purchase these great big rifles, designed to kill several people at a time. No matter what the price automatic rifles are, they shouldn't be available, because tell me now, what other purpose on a normal day would you find for one other than killing a crowd of people? Clearly, they're available, and clearly, they're affordable, but, apparently this is totally acceptable. You don't have a gun, you can't shoot someone. It's as simple as that. You ever wonder why America has the highest gun crime rate? So almost everyone is mentally disturbed in the States from what people are telling me, because it's totally not the fault of guns being available? Hell, I could buy a gun in America, what stops me from shooting someone with it? The police? By then it would be too late for them to do anything. You don't have a gun that can fire several of rounds a minute, you'll kill less people. You have a fully automatic rifle, or a house rigged to blow, or a shotgun, and you've got an arsenal purely designed to kill and not be used to defend yourself, it's way too much fire-power. I was open-minded, I was willing to see past all the bad things I've heard about opinions of guns in the States, but I am disappointed. Sorry for the rant, but this is deeply worrying.
I've no problems with assault rifles being banned. Why they were allowed in the first place is beyond my comprehension. Handguns or bust. But either way, banning guns will just result in people using knives or blunt force objects, or any other killing objects. And it's easy to purchase parts to weapons or just buy them illegally. Then the whole 'guns are bad' thing is entirely out the window. The shooter in Norway personally customized his weapons to be killing machines. However, the only legal guns in Norway are smaller handguns used for sport. So where do the people get to defend themselves from people WITH guns if they have none? It is illegal in all states to have a fully-automatic weapon. To modify it to fire fully automatic is highly illegal in any state whatsoever. Most of your worries are valid, but extremely highly unlikely.
Now I believe that every american 20 and older can own a gun if they please. Do I believe they need military-grade assault rifles and grenades and all of that? No. non automatic handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles should be okay. I also believe that when someone needs a gun, in addition to a background check, a visit to a psychologist.
Machineguns can be bought easily and cheaply, but not legally. Machinefuns are literally illegal in every state; semi-automatics are the -only- legal weapons.
I kind of agree. Alarm bells ringing. Unless you're in a state where you'll clearly be under attack from like, wild animals or something, that kind of fire-power is not needed to take a man down. Me personally? If I had my house robbed, I'd rather have my insured property stolen than kill a man with a rifle as he is running away with it, or blast him with a shotgun which without protection from the shot has a very good chance of killing them too.
but if they were illegal, then no one would be able to hunt, or shoot competively in events like sket shooting. Weapons are more than just for killing, they are good ways to pass the day at the range and what's a better stress relief than shooting a flying clay disk with a shotgun? Or having some friendly competition with accuracy with a rifle?
We still get skeet shooting in the UK and stuff, but the guns are provided by a range and you have to loan them usually. So you can still have your competitions if they're that important. I've been on many a camp where I've got to use non-lethal rifles to do so. Bullets don't always have to be used as ammunition, take paint-balling for example. As for hunting, most of that's banned here, but that's honestly another story altogether really when talking about gun control. The question is, what's more important to you? Is a little bit of stress relief (which can be done in many other ways anyway) more important to you than people who die at the hands of commercially available weaponry?
It's not as simple as you think it would be, as I've stated before, there are economic consequences for banning guns(devastating a 4 billion dollar(at least the last time I checked, could be wrong) industry, and putting tens of thousands of people out of work), and also massive social consequences (such as probable mass rioting in many places like the South), and the fact that there are already 320 million guns currently in circulation in America.
