there should be permits required to own all guns ill give you that, but i was talking about how his was modified illegally
Should weapons/guns be banned?
- Thread starter Mr Uncle Leroy
- Start date
there should be permits required to own all guns ill give you that, but i was talking about how his was modified illegally
exactly, cause these a$$holes will find them someway or another
kinda like anti drug laws kept america drug free?
Guns will get smuggeld in through south America and criminals will be the ones with guns. Not only that, its not really that hard to create a gun. There is enough information for anyone with some dedication to make one from scrap. Its the culture, not the weapon.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Yeah sounds highly likely
the outlawed swords in Japan breh
Shame. These clowns really cant see its the culture. Poverty rates. Lack of agriculture available to average citizens. Most crimes committed with guns in America are because of poverty and a very small handful are dedicated to crimes of passion and insanity. Countries with the most gun related violence probably have a high amount of poverty and culture that breeds insanity. Banning guns should come before mental health and poverty fighting initiatives.
Haiti has some of the lowest gun ownership stats on the planet, yet their crime stats are through the roof. WHy? Poverty.
There's two sides to this coin.
1. Ban all guns? It would make it harder for a whack job to go on a shooting spree. If he did want to get a gun, he would have to find someone who is illegally selling it and that would be expensive. Let's be real, there are hundreds of pounds of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and meth being transported into the United States every month. Through those same channels, guns from America have been sent across the border into Mexico to arm those in the drug trade. If the US banned guns, nothing would stop traffickers from bringing guns into the US and selling them to criminals. So by banning guns, you've decreased the possibility of a crazy man shooting spree from happening. Nothing would stop him from using a bow and arrows or a knife to do the same thing.
2. How many crazy dude shooting sprees have occurred in the last twenty years inthe US. There was the Columbine incident, VT shooting, among some of the more notorious ones. If you look at the numbers of victims who died or were injured in those shooting, there are exponentially a higher number of people getting killed and injured by DWI drivers but no one is pushing for prohibition. And to pare it down even more, the number of people who get killed or injured by DWI drivers in one year in only Pennsylvania is greater than the number of 'crazy dude shooting spree' victims in the last 20 years. That's not including the other 49 states. All the anti-gun people huffing and puffing about bringing about gun banning legislation haven't batted an eye at alcohol prohibition. Why? Not everyone who drinks drives. You can't ban vehicles. People need to get around. So, this is all to say, not everyone who owns a gun is out to go on a shooting spree or commit a crime.
3. Would banning guns end it all. England has banned guns. Only people who are rich enough to hunt pheasant and compete in pistol shooting can have a gun. Gun-related violence down? Yes. Existence of gun crime gone? No. In Northern Ireland, where there are problems with the IRA, gun violence is not unheard of. So much, that police in Northern Ireland carried MP5 sub-machine guns as they went on normal patrol. In the US, only SWAT team members and DEA agents carry those on special missions.
4. States with stricter gun ownership still have criminals committing crimes with guns. So, Washington DC, New York City, Chicago and all of California have stricter gun laws. But even after those laws were put into effect, those areas are still known to have a high level of crime by those using guns. What's the other side of that coin? Law-abiding citizens don't have guns and criminals know they don't have guns.
5. Someone mentioned even if someone had a pistol, they would not have been able to stop the shooter. He had an AR-15 and two pistols and was wearing a bullet proof vest. Well, it would have been 'difficult' to hit the shooter because it was a dark environment and he had lit off a smoke bomb and people were going crazy trying to escape. If someone was able to hit the dude, it would have made a difference. A shot to the head would have stopped it all. A shot to the body would have brought him down too. Bullet proof vests only stop bullets from penetrating the body. It doesn't stop the impact. So, imagine someone taking a hammer and swinging it at your chest. The hammer is not going to pierce through your body but it's going to break a bone and cause internal damage. Also, if someone was shooting a pistol with .45 ACP and the bulletproof vest the shooter was wearing was rated to stop up to a 9mm or 40 S&W, a .45 round would be able to go through the vest.
1. Ban all guns? It would make it harder for a whack job to go on a shooting spree. If he did want to get a gun, he would have to find someone who is illegally selling it and that would be expensive. Let's be real, there are hundreds of pounds of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and meth being transported into the United States every month. Through those same channels, guns from America have been sent across the border into Mexico to arm those in the drug trade. If the US banned guns, nothing would stop traffickers from bringing guns into the US and selling them to criminals. So by banning guns, you've decreased the possibility of a crazy man shooting spree from happening. Nothing would stop him from using a bow and arrows or a knife to do the same thing.
2. How many crazy dude shooting sprees have occurred in the last twenty years inthe US. There was the Columbine incident, VT shooting, among some of the more notorious ones. If you look at the numbers of victims who died or were injured in those shooting, there are exponentially a higher number of people getting killed and injured by DWI drivers but no one is pushing for prohibition. And to pare it down even more, the number of people who get killed or injured by DWI drivers in one year in only Pennsylvania is greater than the number of 'crazy dude shooting spree' victims in the last 20 years. That's not including the other 49 states. All the anti-gun people huffing and puffing about bringing about gun banning legislation haven't batted an eye at alcohol prohibition. Why? Not everyone who drinks drives. You can't ban vehicles. People need to get around. So, this is all to say, not everyone who owns a gun is out to go on a shooting spree or commit a crime.
3. Would banning guns end it all. England has banned guns. Only people who are rich enough to hunt pheasant and compete in pistol shooting can have a gun. Gun-related violence down? Yes. Existence of gun crime gone? No. In Northern Ireland, where there are problems with the IRA, gun violence is not unheard of. So much, that police in Northern Ireland carried MP5 sub-machine guns as they went on normal patrol. In the US, only SWAT team members and DEA agents carry those on special missions.
4. States with stricter gun ownership still have criminals committing crimes with guns. So, Washington DC, New York City, Chicago and all of California have stricter gun laws. But even after those laws were put into effect, those areas are still known to have a high level of crime by those using guns. What's the other side of that coin? Law-abiding citizens don't have guns and criminals know they don't have guns.
5. Someone mentioned even if someone had a pistol, they would not have been able to stop the shooter. He had an AR-15 and two pistols and was wearing a bullet proof vest. Well, it would have been 'difficult' to hit the shooter because it was a dark environment and he had lit off a smoke bomb and people were going crazy trying to escape. If someone was able to hit the dude, it would have made a difference. A shot to the head would have stopped it all. A shot to the body would have brought him down too. Bullet proof vests only stop bullets from penetrating the body. It doesn't stop the impact. So, imagine someone taking a hammer and swinging it at your chest. The hammer is not going to pierce through your body but it's going to break a bone and cause internal damage. Also, if someone was shooting a pistol with .45 ACP and the bulletproof vest the shooter was wearing was rated to stop up to a 9mm or 40 S&W, a .45 round would be able to go through the vest.
Young_and_Reckless
Is better than you...
Does banning illegal drugs deter the general public from abusing them? Nope.
All illegal guns were once legal guns. One of the most common ways illegal guns make it into criminals hands is by being purchased legaly and then sold on the black market. If guns were banned, people would still be able to get their hands on them but eventually they would be so scarce and expensive that the average criminal couldn't afford them.
For dudes sayin they need guns for protection thats BS. You are not John Wayne, you will not be able to disarm and shoot an assailant before he shoots you. Guns are very legal now why don't we here a bunch of stores of people stopping would be tragedies with their guns?
With all that said I don't think they should ban guns. They should tighten regulations on a federal level. But our right to bear arms is in the constitution so that should not be changed.
Currently each state has their own gun laws. In some states you have to wait weeks, even months before you can purchase a gun. Some states all you need is an ID and some money and the firearm is yours. In some states it's more difficult and expensive to get driving privileges than it is to purchase a gun.
The federal government should step in and regulate the sale of guns in all states. There should be extensive training beyond gun safety and use. Maybe some training on human nature and how to handle tragic events. There should be some type of stress test. There should be multiple mental health screenings before the person is allowed to purchase a firearm. There should be a better way to track the guns after purchase. All of this could be done and would help reduce gun violence. But politicians will never fight for these changes because the NRA and it's members won't let them. Guns are big business and the beneficiaries don't give a damn about people being hurt, they just want people to keep buying guns.
For dudes sayin they need guns for protection thats BS. You are not John Wayne, you will not be able to disarm and shoot an assailant before he shoots you. Guns are very legal now why don't we here a bunch of stores of people stopping would be tragedies with their guns?
With all that said I don't think they should ban guns. They should tighten regulations on a federal level. But our right to bear arms is in the constitution so that should not be changed.
Currently each state has their own gun laws. In some states you have to wait weeks, even months before you can purchase a gun. Some states all you need is an ID and some money and the firearm is yours. In some states it's more difficult and expensive to get driving privileges than it is to purchase a gun.
The federal government should step in and regulate the sale of guns in all states. There should be extensive training beyond gun safety and use. Maybe some training on human nature and how to handle tragic events. There should be some type of stress test. There should be multiple mental health screenings before the person is allowed to purchase a firearm. There should be a better way to track the guns after purchase. All of this could be done and would help reduce gun violence. But politicians will never fight for these changes because the NRA and it's members won't let them. Guns are big business and the beneficiaries don't give a damn about people being hurt, they just want people to keep buying guns.
Real Talk of NY
Rookie
Ban Automatic weapons which are only for offensive purposes. Handguns should be restricted for home use only.
this is exactly what needs to happen
Json
Superstar
This is actually kinda genius.