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

^found the SJW in the thread. Why don't you go back to China you dirty commie DemonRat.

the attitude wrote:

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

+1000 Look at the proposals by climate activists for another example. Negligible impact, if any, on future climate.

there are somewhere in the ballpark of 150,000 (yes, THOUSAND) machine guns in private hands, which are fully re-saleable in the united states. ye, there is a VERY restrictive process by which you can purchase one of these, should the owner be so crazy as to part with it but...you still CAN buy a machine gun.so, tell me again about your theory about automatic weapons being used in crimes? I just proved we have around 150,000 of them in circulation, yet ZERO are used in crimes (since around 1930's, I believe)...Hey, here's an idea: enforce existing laws and get those who have and will commit firearm crimes OFF THE STREETS. I know, it's a novel concept.http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/ (there are ways to google US DOJ stats to confirm his numbers, feel free to do so)

Not a victim wrote:

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.

Washington DC was a peaceful utopia when guns were banned.

Psycho-logist wrote:

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.

How do you solve the number of Toddler related injuries and/or deaths then? Are they evil and deranged too?

Is there a reason that idiots like you think that there is a group of people calling for a gun ban?

Why even buy a gun when you can make your home pressure cooker into a bomb and a bottle of booze into a Molotov cocktail?

Seriously mate? wrote:

Why even buy a gun when you can make your home pressure cooker into a bomb and a bottle of booze into a Molotov cocktail?

They are so hard to aim at an intruder, tho... and it won't fit in my boot.

the letter why wrote:

Is there a reason that idiots like you think that there is a group of people calling for a gun ban?

I forgive you.

ban everything wrote:

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

My Daisy BB gun doesn't have a wooden stock. Guess we should ban it. It kills me when people want to ban stuff based on appearance. I personally would much rather get shot with a 223 AR than a high powered deer rifle with a wooden stock.

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.

Oh thejeff, I am so disappointed in you because I know you know better. You took the NRA approach of creating a paper tiger and then attacking that as if that is your opponents argument.

You know no one is advocating a gun ban but its easier to argue against that than the real measures the gun control people are promoting.

Shame thejeff, shame.

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.

While I feel this is true, and would also agree that most people are for increased measures for gun control (myself included), the logical end point of banning any weapon (in this case assault weapons) results in banning all weapons. Let me explain:

1) Let's assume the assault weapons ban is reinstated and that it is 100% effective. No more shootings occur by AR-15.

2) The next mass shooting happens. Because there WILL be more mass shootings. This time it is done with handguns. Our gun policy is criticized. Gun control proponents point to Canada and Australia and Germany where handguns are heavily regulated.

3) The next mass shooting happens.

4) And the next one.

5) Etc.

6) Eventually enough shootings happen that we ban handguns.

7) Rinse, repeat. Semi-autos. Shotguns. Etc, etc until it is all taken away.

This is the end point, and this is why there are so many NRA supporters (myself included), because the proposition of banning the weapon will do absolutely nothing to prevent the next shooting. It only shifts the focus of policy change away from where it should be.

oi oi oi wrote:

Australia

Switzerland.

See? I can make meaningless arguments too.

Conundrum 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.

Oh thejeff, I am so disappointed in you because I know you know better. You took the NRA approach of creating a paper tiger and then attacking that as if that is your opponents argument.

You know no one is advocating a gun ban but its easier to argue against that than the real measures the gun control people are promoting.

Shame thejeff, shame.

I was thinking more "slippery slope" than "outright ban". Plus, I had to fit it into the title box. That being said, there are certainly (minority) calls out there for complete gun bans. Anyone who says NOBODY is calling for an outright gun ban is kidding themselves, although, granted, I really didn't have that minority in mind when I posted the thread.

I find the NRA and the ACLU equally idiotic, fwiw.

knower of things. wrote:

there are somewhere in the ballpark of 150,000 (yes, THOUSAND) machine guns in private hands, which are fully re-saleable in the united states. ye, there is a VERY restrictive process by which you can purchase one of these, should the owner be so crazy as to part with it but...you still CAN buy a machine gun.

so, tell me again about your theory about automatic weapons being used in crimes? I just proved we have around 150,000 of them in circulation, yet ZERO are used in crimes (since around 1930's, I believe)...Hey, here's an idea: enforce existing laws and get those who have and will commit firearm crimes OFF THE STREETS. I know, it's a novel concept.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/

(there are ways to google US DOJ stats to confirm his numbers, feel free to do so)

You've actually helped to prove that strict control decreases the amount of gun related crimes.

Also, the statistic about full auto weapons not being used in crime since 1934 only counts registered guns. Obviously most criminals don't register their guns.

comparing apples to oranges OP.

There is one very very big diff. Drugs = self harm . Guns = harm other people.

I have a really really easy moral guide. If you are doing something that hurts someone else it should be banned or illegal. If it is something that may hurt yourself but not others then go nuts - you're an adult.

totaltruth wrote:

comparing apples to oranges OP.

There is one very very big diff. Drugs = self harm . Guns = harm other people.

I have a really really easy moral guide. If you are doing something that hurts someone else it should be banned or illegal. If it is something that may hurt yourself but not others then go nuts - you're an adult.

I agree 100%. Owning a gun does not hurt others.

Shooting someone with that gun is, thankfully, already banned (and illegal).

Sound good to you?

Thejeff wrote:

totaltruth wrote:

comparing apples to oranges OP.

There is one very very big diff. Drugs = self harm . Guns = harm other people.

I have a really really easy moral guide. If you are doing something that hurts someone else it should be banned or illegal. If it is something that may hurt yourself but not others then go nuts - you're an adult.

I agree 100%. Owning a gun does not hurt others.

Shooting someone with that gun is, thankfully, already banned (and illegal).

Sound good to you?

^This. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Gun free zones are dangerous. Concealed carry saves lives. Countries with less guns are less safe. What about Chicago? It's our GOD given right to bear arms.

totaltruth wrote:

comparing apples to oranges OP.

There is one very very big diff. Drugs = self harm . Guns = harm other people.

I have a really really easy moral guide. If you are doing something that hurts someone else it should be banned or illegal. If it is something that may hurt yourself but not others then go nuts - you're an adult.

Drunk drivers kill about as many people as are murdered by guns.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides.

So if your moral compass says alcohol is cool, guns must be cool as well. Or else you're a hypocrite.