Is there a reason why some people think a Gun Ban will be more successful than Banning Alcohol & Drugs?

Very few people - including "liberals" - are in favor of banning all guns. We understand that there is a constitutional right to bear arms. But somewhere between a single shot musket and a nuclear bomb, reasonable people agree that a line should be drawn.

People just want to do "something." Even if the something won't help in any way shape or form.

No one wants to ban guns.

I can appreciate that sentiment.

We don't want to ban guns just all semi automatic guns. Oh and may be guns that don't have wood stocks.

Where is the proposal to ban guns?

the attitude wrote:

People just want to do "something." Even if the something won't help in any way shape or form.

^^^This.

At its core, it's harder to acknowledge the fact that some people are just evil or deranged, and to do something about it.

Reasonable being wrote:

Very few people - including "liberals" - are in favor of banning all guns. We understand that there is a constitutional right to bear arms. But somewhere between a single shot musket and a nuclear bomb, reasonable people agree that a line should be drawn.

The line has already been drawn, redrawn, and drawn again. Time to finally enforce all the firearms laws already n the books, and eliminate plea bargains for those that use a firearm to commit a crime.

thejeff wrote:

Is there a reason why some people think a Gun Ban will be more successful than Banning Alcohol & Drugs?

It seems like banning guns would simply open opportunities for black market activities, much like Prohibition in the 1920s and most drugs today.

I think that you have to first recognize that most people don't want to ban guns. Some people want to ban certain types of guns, or prevent certain people from buying guns.

Obviously if "bad" people can't but guns legally they'll find a way to get them. However, I think most people will agree that buying a gun on the black market is a little more difficult than walking into a store and purchasing one. I think the idea is that we can at least make it harder for criminals to get guns.

Banning guns will do no good and I think it is ridiculous that the Democrats are pouting to try and get their way. Regardless of if guns are banned or not, they will still get into the hands of criminals. So why are we voting to take guns from innocent, hardworking people?

We already do ban certain types of guns, and it's been very successful. When's the last time you've seen anyone using an automatic weapon in the crime? The Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act essentially banned the new production of machine guns for civilian use. There's no reason to think laws banning the production of other types of firearms would not be equally effective.

Reasonable being wrote:

Very few people - including "liberals" - are in favor of banning all guns. We understand that there is a constitutional right to bear arms. But somewhere between a single shot musket and a nuclear bomb, reasonable people agree that a line should be drawn.

Agreed. There are very few people advocating for a total ban. A total ban is a fantasy equivalent to "banning all Muslims" or "banning all abortions". People who advocate for such extreme solutions--regardless of the question being asked--are ignoring reality and tend to see problems simplistically in black & white terms.

As a gun owner and an avid hunter, I am supportive of increased regulation. I have nothing to hide. The goal is not to eliminate all gun violence and all gun deaths in the US (that is not possible and people who use the "100% effective solution" strawman argument are truly dullards) but to decrease these things to levels similar to other developed western democracies.

In my mind reasonable proposals I would be willing to look at closely and possibly vote for include...

1) a more robust, well funded and enforced background check system that includes mental health evaluations of the buyer and anyone living with the buyer (clearly the current system is not working either due to lack of enforcement, lack of law enforcement resources, or lack of specific stipulations aimed at specific populations that seemed to be involved in these horrific incidences).

2) improved technology for gun locks and finger print ID technology such that a weapon can only be used by the registered buyer (this may come about by government funding for R&D for such technology)

3) a total ban for anyone on any and all terrorist watch lists as long as there is a well thought out and detailed appeals process (...for those who are misidentified as a threat).

4) limiting all future sales to private citizens to these specific gun types: revolvers, bolt action rifles (with concomitant magizines limited to 5 rounds), and shotguns (also limited to 5 shot).

5) A robust government buy back program for semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and other weapons not meeting the description in #4 above.

I think these limitations still allow for law abiding sportsman to enjoy their hobby and all of these guns can still be used for self defense. They, of course, can also be used to harm or kill others but, as I said previously, no one is suggesting ANY LAW will be 100% effective.

No Way wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Is there a reason why some people think a Gun Ban will be more successful than Banning Alcohol & Drugs?

It seems like banning guns would simply open opportunities for black market activities, much like Prohibition in the 1920s and most drugs today.

I think that you have to first recognize that most people don't want to ban guns. Some people want to ban certain types of guns, or prevent certain people from buying guns.

Obviously if "bad" people can't but guns legally they'll find a way to get them. However, I think most people will agree that buying a gun on the black market is a little more difficult than walking into a store and purchasing one. I think the idea is that we can at least make it harder for criminals to get guns.

If someone is extreme enough to commit a mass shooting, I would think they'd be willing to go through any amount of difficulty to get their hands on a gun.

youdontsay.... wrote:

No Way wrote:

I think that you have to first recognize that most people don't want to ban guns. Some people want to ban certain types of guns, or prevent certain people from buying guns.

Obviously if "bad" people can't but guns legally they'll find a way to get them. However, I think most people will agree that buying a gun on the black market is a little more difficult than walking into a store and purchasing one. I think the idea is that we can at least make it harder for criminals to get guns.

If someone is extreme enough to commit a mass shooting, I would think they'd be willing to go through any amount of difficulty to get their hands on a gun.

Mass shootings are an incredibly small portion of gun deaths in the US.

Yeah Jeff!

And what's with the ban on biological and chemical weapons?

youdontsay.... wrote:

No Way wrote:

I think that you have to first recognize that most people don't want to ban guns. Some people want to ban certain types of guns, or prevent certain people from buying guns.

Obviously if "bad" people can't but guns legally they'll find a way to get them. However, I think most people will agree that buying a gun on the black market is a little more difficult than walking into a store and purchasing one. I think the idea is that we can at least make it harder for criminals to get guns.

If someone is extreme enough to commit a mass shooting, I would think they'd be willing to go through any amount of difficulty to get their hands on a gun.

So, if I understand you, your arguement is basically since extreme people will always break laws there is no point in having laws? Since you're suggesting that we can't prevent these bad people from doing bad things should we just throw our hands up and give up? Why fight them if we can't stop them?

Duhs wrote:

Banning guns will do no good and I think it is ridiculous that the Democrats are pouting to try and get their way. Regardless of if guns are banned or not, they will still get into the hands of criminals. So why are we voting to take guns from innocent, hardworking people?

Banning nuclear weapons will do no good and I think it is ridiculous that the Democrats are pouting to try and get their way. Regardless of if nuclear weapons are banned or not, they will still get into the hands of criminals. So why are we voting to take neuclear weapons from innocent, hardworking people?

There. All fixed.

Brilliant LRC logic once again wrote:

youdontsay.... wrote:

If someone is extreme enough to commit a mass shooting, I would think they'd be willing to go through any amount of difficulty to get their hands on a gun.

So, if I understand you, your arguement is basically since extreme people will always break laws there is no point in having laws? Since you're suggesting that we can't prevent these bad people from doing bad things should we just throw our hands up and give up? Why fight them if we can't stop them?

There are other ways to stop evil people that don't involve on infringing on others constitutional rights.

youdontsay.... wrote:

Brilliant LRC logic once again wrote:

So, if I understand you, your arguement is basically since extreme people will always break laws there is no point in having laws? Since you're suggesting that we can't prevent these bad people from doing bad things should we just throw our hands up and give up? Why fight them if we can't stop them?

There are other ways to stop evil people that don't involve on infringing on others constitutional rights.

Such as?