Making guns illegal.

[chas007]

Too often, violent criminals are sentenced to long prison terms, and end up serving only a portion of their sentences. Perhaps we need to more strenuously enforce the punishments associated with crimes commited by violent criminals.

Exactly, we are a nation of "laws" lets start to enforce the existing laws to the fullest.

End the pardons and the time off for good behavior along with the plea bargains.

Get rid of the judges who constantly give out lenient sentences regarding violent crimes.

 

[Snickers52]

Again, invalid points.

The UK is far older than the USA we've had guns far longer than you prior to the '96 amendment... if we can cope, surely our younger brothers on the far side of the pond can cope too. No???

Frankly, no. It's a lot easier for you to cope. You don't have 300 million people to deal with. If the US had less than 70 million people there would be a lot of things we could do that we can't now.

 

[sissyboy]

Constitutional amendments aside, there's one huge reason why we have weak and ineffective gun laws in the US,and will continue to have them for the foreseeable future. It's called the National Rifle Association.The NRA is one of the most(if not the most)powerful, richest lobbying organizations around.They wield considerable power and I'm sure that more than a few of our legislators are card-carrying members. Every time any meaningful gun-control legislation is introduced, the NRA manages to have it neutered, if not openly defeated.

Somehow, I ended up on the NRA mailing list. Some of the propaganda that I've received is truly scary.

I live in Missouri,in one of the counties where you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.Do I feel safe?Not really.

 

[Yves]

I think there might've been a little mix up in the thread somewhere, this thread is about 'If' guns were banned completely, not wether or not they should be.

Handguns? All guns? I´m a bit confused by your scenario. I´m assuming you want to debate the effectiveness of a TOTAL ban to private gun ownership (?)

An absolute ban to private gun ownership is not practical in the US and gun control advocates are not even considering that alternative. Was prohibition an effective measure to decrease alcohol in the US??? It only served to create a parallel market.

Deaths and disability may decrease as a result of a total ban but it´s extremely expensive for governments to implement a total ban (How to enforce? Do we have effective strategies to enforce a total ban?). Illegal markets are around the corner. A different approach is what the UK and other countries have done by limiting access to certain arms. Another step is technology (safe guns design).

 

[tbonez]

It's called the National Rifle Association.The NRA is one of the most(if not the most)powerful, richest lobbying organizations around.

I hear you!

That said the same could be said of the tobacco lobby...I think even the US is making some real headway on the smoking issue.

No, I'm not comparing smoking to owning a gun! Just saying even the most powerful lobby groups can be reigned in if there is a public will.

 

[GL]

Wether it can happen or not, wasn't where I was trying to get at. My question came from a recent thread and what joeslifeyork said in it. Basically, if all guns did get banned, do you think crime and violence with guns would dwindle. Wether or not that can, or cannot happen, is not really what I was interested in, more-so if you thought it would make violence with guns 'go away'.

I appreciate all the input in the thread regardless,though.

Gun crime would dwindle, but it would be replaced by something else. Violent crime will happen in any society. Although I tend to think of the inherit good in man, violence is just something we do. In this case, guns will be replaced by whatever is handy. Knives, sticks, bats...

 

[Oden_grey]

Who says you need guns to kill people? Why not baseball bats, axes, bow and arrows etc. People aren't stupid... we'll all adapt to a world without guns... rather than gun deaths we'll see an equal number of deaths by other weapons.

Secondly, many who try to tater the 2nd Amendment, tend to rap themselves up in the 1st Amendment... no matter how repugnant the ideas or the circumstances.

Certainly giving individuals the right to bear arms is a necessity for some (hunters and those without readily available law enforcement services), but for the long run it adds and extra layer of national national against invading foreign enemies or even dire domestic circumstances. Our current world of peace is only a small hiccup in our long history of slaughter and oppression... so if you think we can be at peace domestically and internationally forever, you are naieve and ignorant of the volumes produces by our history of war.

This being said, I think the 2nd Amendment should be upheld, however there must be barriers in place to ensure that the most capable weapons are in the hands of law enforcement and the military.

 

[tbonez]

Gun crime would dwindle, but it would be replaced by something else. Violent crime will happen in any society. Although I tend to think of the inherit good in man, violence is just something we do. In this case, guns will be replaced by whatever is handy. Knives, sticks, bats...

Yes but, you stand a much better chance of surviving a drive-by beating or an attack with a stick. No one walks into a post office with a lead pipe and kills a dozen people or saunters into a high school with a bow and quiver and wipes out a bunch of classmates.

BTW, the majority of police I see in the streets in Glasgow don't carry guns, just batons. Glasgow is a big (fairly) working class city and the level of gun play compared to similar sized American cities is miniscule.

 

[MadeUpName27]

A few statistics for your discussion...

DEATHS IN THE U.S. INVOLVING FIREARMS - 2002
Source: National Safety Council

TOTAL FIREARMS DEATHS
ALL CAUSES........................30,242
UNINTENTIONAL.......................762
SUICIDE.............................17,108
HOMICIDE..........................11,829
LEGAL INTERVENTION...............300
UNDETERMINED.......................243

TOTAL FIREARMS DEATHS - BY AGE
ALL AGES..........30,242
UNDER 5.................71
5 - 14...................348
15 - 19..............2,474
20 - 24..............4,306
25 - 44.............11,586
45 - 64..............7,040
65 - 74..............1,993
OVER 75.............2,424​

 

[MadeUpName27]

...do you think if guns were completely illegal that any of the crime would dwindle down?

No.

Tougher gun laws and/or stricter enforcement of current laws MIGHT reduce the number of guns owned by law-abiding citizens, but criminals are NOT law-abiding citizens.

Extremely high prices and/or obscenely high taxes on guns and ammunition MIGHT decrease their popularity with rational members of society, but murder is NOT a rational act.

In the US, guns (and violent crime) are here to stay.

I would rather be a "Have", than be a "Have-not."

 

[tbonez]

Dont get me wrong, i dont think that all guns should be banned.

What i said was that HANDGUNS should be banned, Rifles, Shotguns etc can still be kept - but you also need to vastly tighten up on your legislation and issuance control.

You make a good point.

I have no issue with long guns (ie hunting rifles). I can see no valid reason why anyone would need an automatic rifle, 'machine gun' or side arm unless they are in law enforcement or work at an animal safari...or, they want to go postal and blow huge holes a bunch of people's heads.

I'd be happier to see the control on guns more closely resemble the restrictions on owning a car (for starters). You need to pass a test to show you can wield it safely, know the rules and face the possibility of losing the right to bear arms if you violate them.

 

[Swellegant]

Though I believe strongly in gun-control, I unfortunately don't think that gun-control will force gun-related crime to dwindle... at least not for a long time. As MadeUpName27 points out, gun control is only observed by the law-abiding, and ignored completely by the criminal classes. Outlawing anything doesn't stop it from happening... it just stops the law-abiding from doing it.

Further, in the plan I set forth earlier in this thread, to tax and license the manufacture of guns to make them less available, there still remains the problem of existent guns: I understand that a great deal of gun-related crime is committed with stolen firearms... guns stolen from law-abiding citizens who did go through all the trouble of licensing and waiting periods.

But this is in relation to premeditated crime, theft-related crime, gang-related crime, drug-related crime, etc. Professional crime, as it were. I do think that "crimes of passion," as well as accidental deaths, would dwindle considerably if it becomes more difficult to own a gun.

 

[gsdx]

Who says you need guns to kill people? Why not baseball bats, axes, bow and arrows etc. People aren't stupid... we'll all adapt to a world without guns... rather than gun deaths we'll see an equal number of deaths by other weapons.

Yes but, you stand a much better chance of surviving a drive-by beating or an attack with a stick. No one walks into a post office with a lead pipe and kills a dozen people or saunters into a high school with a bow and quiver and wipes out a bunch of classmates.

That was my thought as well, tbonez. I also agree with Oden_grey as well. People will find other weapons to use. However, except perhaps for the bows and arrows, you cannot commit those crimes with the anonymity that guns and rifles grant you.

People can defend themselves from baseball bats and axes and knives and such. There is no defense against bullets when you don't even know where they are coming from.

 

[Oden_grey]

^ Exactly!

You can run away from knives, baseball bats, and fists etc.. you cant outrun a bullet.

I am not sure if this is always true, especially when the asailent is bigger, stronger or faster than you. Guns ensure that most anyone with a proper set of fingers can be on equal footing in the dispatch of death, however, removing guns from the world because of that fact will not make us safer because we will only remove one (albeit highly effective) instrument of death from the vast human weapons cache.

 

[Negasta]

To those who say that making guns harder to come by would reduce gun related murders, think again. In South Africa the government has made it next to impossible for somebody to get a gun license. In the two years since the new gun laws have been in place, 90% of gun dealers have had to close down, putting almost 100 000 people out of work, hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners have had to give up their gun for destruction and guess what...

...gun crime has not dropped one stinking percent!

Oh by the way, whatch this and be enlightened

 

[Yves]

I'm an NRA member, (I know---a little redneck) so obviously I dont think removing guns from the street will solve anything. I'm not sure who, but someone once said, "If you take my gun I'll kill you with my shovel." People are very adaptive. If guns aren't here, killing/crime will continue by other means.

Yes and no, depending on the target of the preventative efforts. It´s almost impossible to prevent all crimes with just one measure. Violent behavior has many determinants and access to guns is just one of the factors involved.

I agree with student nurse and Negasta, violent behavior does not stop after a ban (partial or total), but a ban results in changes in the relative proportion of specific crimes (for example, "domestic violence" and "teen violence") Domestic violence data shows:

- Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder.
- In 2000, in homicides where the weapon was known, 50% of female homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Of those female firearm homicides, 75% of the victims were killed with a handgun.
- Having a gun in the home makes it 3 times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Other studies showed that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7 times more likely to be the victim of homicide)
- Same-sex couples are in a similar or even worse situation but information is limited.

The role of handguns in domestic violence has been recognized in recent years. Congress passed the Protective Order Gun Ban in 1994. The law prohibits gun possession by a person against whom there is a restraining or protective order for domestic violence. In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, which prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun. Are these measures effective enough? What else can we do to prevent domestic homicides?

Additional regulations in terms of access and safe handling should decrease domestic homicides rates but leave total crime rates unaffected. That decrease should be defined as a success if we think in terms of the victims of domestic homicides. Handguns are one of the key determinants of domestic homicides.

 

[gsdx]

I seem to recall an issue a few years ago when people tried to at least make guns safer by getting the gun manufacturers to put locks on the guns. That was 'shot down' (pardon the pun) by the NRA because it would make the guns too expensive and it would be too much of a bother to have to unlock them all the time. Meanwhile, dozens of children accidentally shoot themselves or someone else every day because they were merely playing with a gun they had found lying around the house.

Those deaths could be and should be prevented. To me, it appears that the NRA cares more for their 'rights' than they do for the lives of children.

By that reasoning, it would be the same as car manufacturers lobbying to have brakes removed from their cars. That way, the people could drive as fast as they want and not have to worry about stopping.

Ah, but owning a gun is a 'right'. Owning a car is a 'privilege'.

Hell, even Clackers (those glass balls on strings) and lawn darts have been outlawed because children were getting hurt. How many more children have to actually die before people say "Enough is enough"?