The debate "The banning of guns is illegal" was started by
September 17, 2019, 4:31 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Delta_Force01 posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Allirix posted 2 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Delta_Force01, Nemiroff, lolopopo, Shrivali_16, MightyJackalope, mtbtheboss and 20 visitors agree.
Allirix, TheExistentialist, everyonehasanopinion, eli and 16 visitors disagree.
I don't know how people can believe the USA doesn't have a gun problem. In Australia guns don't even cross our minds, except when we hear about yet another school shooting in the USA. Why? Because we don't sell them to random people who walk in off the street.
thats exactly what you meant.
bad guys wont follow the rules, so why bother making rules.
i believe that the defeatist attitude is unamerican.
furthermore, your assumption that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns is so simplified its useless.
1. a good guy with a gun might be a great idea, but hundreds of average guys with guns sounds terrible. a crowded mall full of average joe gun carriers hear a shot in the distance, and instantly take their guns out and get tense. no idea whats going on. no cooperation. tons of confusion with hundreds of guns.
2. what if 2 good guys have an argument? someone loses their job? road rage? jealous fit? sometimes you dont need a bad guy for a tragedy.
By that logic, then every criminal should be armed with automatic weapons. I mean there are laws against that, but since they don't listen to them they should all have them, right?
But they don't. Crimes committed with automatic weapons are fairly rare because they are controlled. Criminals have trouble getting them. Having to go through a black market to get a controlled weapon is quite expensive, so even if it is possible for criminals to get them, it is usually only organized crime organizations with lots of money to throw around.
Gun control does work. The evidence is that nowhere else in the world has the same kind of gun problems you do. No one is claiming it will be easy or that you can get guns out of the hands of every single criminal. But there will be alot less dead people and alot less gun crime.
Not what I meant. Bad guys aren't going to respond to the law. People will, making them more susceptible to attacks and death. instead of having a lop-sided field, in should be at least even to protect the people.
why bother making murder illegal? bad guys wont listen!
thats a stupid argument. because bad guys dont listen is why you *enforce* the law, not why you dont bother to make laws!
Do you really believe that a bad guy is going to listen to laws when they saw to can't own a firearm. The Australia mass shooting near at the Arthur historical site involved a man killing his mother and taking her arsonel with him to carry out the acts he did.
Large magazines aren't just for one person, if multiple guys are on me and I use my five rounds, I have nothing to protect me. With 15 in a pistol mag, I have enough.
As to self defense, why do you think there isn't any gun violence involving self defense? 3,000,000 people carry guns on their person daily. Bad guys learn.
If you and your family or relatives were in a mall and a guy (who doesn't obey the law and has illegal sized magazines) walks in and starts shooting, and you fire off your rounds of 5 unsuccessfully, what do you do when he starts shooting your family!
Good guys carry around a gun to stop violence and defend, not cause it. I've never heard of a food guy with a label attached " causer of violence."
The good guy with a gun argument is a talking point that's not supported by any actual data.
Harvard University's study shows that for ALL crimes from 2007-2011, only 0.9% involved self defense using a firearm. Keep in mind, this is for the US which has 120 guns per 100 people.
This means that even the concept of personal self defense, guns making you safer is a statistical myth.
An international study by UNICRI researchers examined the link between household gun ownership and overall homicide, overall suicide, as well as gun homicide and gun suicide rates amongst 21 countries. Significant correlations between household gun ownership and rates of gun suicides for both genders, and gun homicide rates involving female victims were found.
The same study data also showed that if middle-income countries are excluded from the analysis, a strong relationship emerges between gun ownership and homicide (especially in the US).
As for Mass shootings:
Joe Hendry, director of risk assessments and a national trainer at the ALICE Training Institute, which focuses on response strategies to shootings.
“Carrying a concealed weapon is basically for the defense of yourself. It’s a whole different level of training and expertise to defend others,”
FBI data also shows the "good guy with a gun" argument is a myth.
Unfortunately the US has barred federal money from being used for gun research and federal research groups from conducting gun violence research and so more specific numbers are not available.
However, the data we do have clearly shows that the claim you're making is not accurate.
That is where you are wrong. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is to stop him getting a gun in the 1st place. If the bad guy can't get a gun, then you wouldn't need one either.
And if no one get a magazine with more than 5 rounds, then the bad guy can't hurt more than a few people before he has to stop to reload which would give good guys a much better chance at stopping him before he hurts more people. If he has a 30 round mag, then he is extremely likely to be able to kill a significant number of people before a "good guy with a gun" can stop him.
In dayton ohio the gunman was killed about 30 seconds after his 1st shot. He was still able to kill 9 people. There were highly trained "good guys" standing in close proximity to the guy and it still didn't prevent the deaths of 9 people. This was the absolute best case scenario of having a "good guy" nearby and it wasn't enough. If he couldn't have gotten a gun, or if he could only have fired 5 rounds before reloading then a lot less people would be dead.
Have you not heard of "proactive" before? Or do you honestly think more gun violence is a solution to gun violence?
The only way to take down a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. 15 rounds is enough to take down or neutralize a good number of assailants. If I miss and I only have 5 rounds, I have a less likely chance against multiple men.
Large mags are better.
Of course the 3 things you listed could be banned. Lots of weapons are already banned, we are only talking about changing where the cutoff line is. You aren't allowed to own a cannon, a rocket launcher, a cruise missile, belt fed automatic weapons etc.
As a society, we don't think there is any good reason why someone should own those things, it is therefore illegal to own them. Changing that definition to include high capacity magazine would be no different. FYI i think 15 rounds is still too big of a magazine size. In Canada the limit is 5.
Well; we live in a democracy, so if the populous says that we should ban certain guns, certain ammo, certain gun mods, certain magazines, etc... then we should be able to do so. That is the basis behind a democracy; the will of the people should dictate how society is structured.
Semi Automatic rifles
Magazines with more than 15 rounds
Large amounts of ammo in possession
Does this topic mean every single gun, certain kinds of guns, putting limits on gun ownership etc? The topic is a little bit vague.
Can you literally ban all guns? obviously not. Can you put limits on what kinds of guns people can buy, how much ammunition people can own and things like that? certainly.