• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Gun Control Doesn't Work In The USA

****************************

OK it seems the gun lovers have shifted their objections from a moral one to a practical one


It cannot be argued that removing guns would not reduce gun crime


The argument now seems to be that if guns were banned in the USA, it would not be possible for any US government to seize them


****************************
 
You're missing the point


The UK has so few guns because the British government has systematically banned them.



So ban guns in the USA and bring US gun ownership down to British levels.


Are you really not understanding this ?

are you willing to give your life to accomplish that goal? I mean I suspect there are people who aren't going to turn their guns in. Do you want the government to kill them if they resist? Do you plan on trying to seize all those guns or are you just hoping others will risk their lives to do that? But its all stupid and specious speculation because YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT GUN BANS CANNOT HAPPEN WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN PLACE

and you have ALSO CONCEDED THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE REMOVED

so why do you spend so much time engaged in mental masturbation over something you have already said cannot happen?
 
****************************

OK it seems the gun lovers have shifted their objections from a moral one to a practical one


It cannot be argued that removing guns would not reduce gun crime


The argument now seems to be that if guns were banned in the USA, it would not be possible for any US government to seize them


****************************

removing guns forcefully would cause massive death and destruction. Period
 
That's sure not how it turned out in the Battle of Lexington.

Now, tell me where its been proven in the USA.


You know that was a war right ?


It's called the Revolutionary WAR


I know a little about the history of the British army, and I'm not sure the 18th century British army had tanks, drones, aircraft, guided missiles, IFVs, machine guns...

There was another rebellion in the USA about 85 years later...the rebels lost.


New Orleans seized guns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
 
Still waiting to hear how you calculate a ban on guns will raise the firearm death rate in the USA by a factor of three BTW

It was speculative.
If Paddock was unable to buy semi-automatic guns (plus butt stocks) and a mountain of ammunition...you think that perhaps that might have presented a bit of a barrier to him committing the mass shooting ???

Sure, but the LV shooter was also a pilot. He could've inflict the same amount of carnage if not more if he flew the plane into the crowd. Plus, a gun ban now is logistically impossible. We have enough problem getting drugs off the streets. How much more difficult would it be to ban more firearms than Americans?
The guns Paddock used are illegal in the UK
Therefore you can't get them
Therefore there are no mass shootings in the UK (OK there has been ONE since 1996)

The guns used in the Paris Attack were also illegal. We are not the UK. We have an entirely different culture and far more firearms.



It won't reduce violent crime much (except mass shootings of course)
That's debatable.

...it would probably reduce suicides too
British cities like London are more violent than US cities but the death rate is much lower. Whilst British police still aren't routinely armed, they do kill a LOT less people. There is a correlation there.
Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do and they virtually ban guns.

How can you argue that a ban on firearms wouldn't affect the number of mass shootings ?

Because of the shear amount of firearms we currently have.

Countries without guns don't have mass shootings.

That's not true, first of all. Mexico bans lots of firearms. Second, what they lack in mass shootings they make for in bombings and terrorusts acts.


So what

I'm willing to bet that the home manufacture of ammunition is minuscule compared to the 12 BILLION rounds of ammo sold in one year to private citizens

If you take away factory made rounds, homemade rounds will dramatically rise. We ban drugs yet somehow people are still getting them, even in prison.
How many of Paddocks bullets were home made? None ?

As far as you know, has any mass shooter in the USA ever used home made ammunition ?

Because the demand is not there.

So yes, if guns were banned, the vast majority would be taken out of circulation fairly quickly. Some people would hide away their guns and make their own ammo and shoot them when no-one's looking.

You might even get a mass shooter - after all even the UK suffered a mass shooting since its last gun control legislation. That's one mass shooting in the UK in the last 22 years. Wouldn't that be a fine goal for the USA to achieve ?
We are already experiencing a decline in mass shootings.
 
Source ?

Or are you quoting Alex Jones?

(about 7:00 minutes in)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ror9v2LwHoY&t=140s


Your opinion and the opinions of right wing nut jobs don't count.

well I know for a fact that cities that banned certain types of firearms and required current owners to register them to come under the grandfather umbrella of protection saw compliance rates of less than 20%.

why do you continually engage in mental masturbation when you have already admitted what you pine for will never happen?
 
****************************

OK it seems the gun lovers have shifted their objections from a moral one to a practical one


It cannot be argued that removing guns would not reduce gun crime


The argument now seems to be that if guns were banned in the USA, it would not be possible for any US government to seize them


****************************

here is a good article for people like you to read

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018...ete-says-congressman-who-wants-to-nuke-omaha/

great read though the auto censor would get tired

To pull off confiscation now you’d have to be willing to kill millions of people. The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once. In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.
 
It was speculative...

LMAO


OK...it's just that you said it as a matter of fact. Just like TurtleDude just did when he said "removing guns forcefully would cause massive death and destruction. Period"
He sounds like he's convinced it's a fact.


Leaving the likes of Alex Jones behind ... whenever guns have been made illegal, citizens have (generally) surrendered them.


...the LV shooter was also a pilot. He could've inflict the same amount of carnage if not more if he flew the plane into the crowd

I'd say highly unlikely

The UK has pilots too you know.

Paddock could have rented a truck and driven into a crowd...but in Europe this has only been done by terrorists.

Or he could have done what Timothy McVeigh did in OK City and set off a bomb. Again unlikely

You don't get mass killings in the UK (terrorism aside) because they're generally done with guns and you can't get guns in the UK


...a gun ban now is logistically impossible. We have enough problem getting drugs off the streets. How much more difficult would it be to ban more firearms than Americans?

Drugs are not the same as guns. You need factories to make guns. Ban guns and impose heavy penalties for anyone caught owning an illegal firearm.
The majority of guns will be simply handed in
People will inform on those that don't
Cut of supply of guns and ammunition
Year by year you will reduce the number of guns in private ownership & they won't be replaced by a flood of guns coming from Mexico or Canada. You won't get "gun mules" or illegal "gun stills"

(when arguing with right wing Americans about the difficulty of imposing their political will in the middle East or places like Afghanistan, the response is usually "The USA is the most powerful country in history, we can do whatever we want". But when it comes to gun control the USA is so weak)


...the guns used in the Paris Attack were illegal. We are not the UK. We have an entirely different culture and far more firearms

Terrorists will get guns when they have political support overseas. (The IRA never had problems getting Armalites despite them being illegal in the UK)

We're talking disturbed individuals though...and they can get guns easily in the USA

British gun culture has indeed changed, so pass similar laws & make US gun culture resemble that of the UK

I don't get the idea that US society is beyond salvation.


...that's debatable

London UK is more violent that US cities but doesn't have mass shootings

The USA has such a huge gun problem, because it is saturated with guns.


...Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do and they virtually ban guns

Since we do not have any way of knowing what Japan's suicide rate would be if it had US levels of gun ownership, you can't make any point

...because of the shear amount of firearms we currently have....

Then take the guns away. Ban them
How can you argue that removing the guns won't reduce gun deaths ?
It seems you've surrendered the moral position (it's our right to have guns) to a practical one (you can't get the guns anyway)

So hypothetically, if all the guns in the USA were surrendered or seized, what effect would that have on gun deaths ?


...that's not true, first of all. Mexico bans lots of firearms....

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was referring to developed countries in the Western world. I'm not sure Mexico qualifies as it resembles anarchy at times.
Also with the USA on the Northern border, guns can be had very easily despite any ban
This would not work in reverse like it does for drugs


...if you take away factory made rounds, homemade rounds will dramatically rise....

Rise a little bit perhaps. Do you even know how many home made rounds of ammo are made per year in the USA? If not how can you make any claims?


...we ban drugs yet somehow people are still getting them, even in prison....

As stated, this is because there is a flood of drugs coming into the USA from Mexico and South America. Are you suggesting that Mexican and Colombian drug cartels would start making guns ? I don't think so


...because the demand is not there....

So the vast majority of people rely on factory made ammunition then ?

As I said the amount of home made ammo is MINUSCULE to the 12 billion rounds of factory sold ammo per year

...we are already experiencing a decline in mass shootings.

No, they're actually on the increase

The US Congress defines a mass shooting as an incident where 4 or more people are shot (not necessarily killed) apart from the shooter.
The figure I saw was 345 mass shootings in 2017 alone.
 
here is a good article for people like you to read

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018...ete-says-congressman-who-wants-to-nuke-omaha/

great read though the auto censor would get tired

To pull off confiscation now you’d have to be willing to kill millions of people. The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once. In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.

Why not just pass a law to ban guns and let gun owners peacefully hand them in as they did in other countries similar to the USA ?
 
Why not just pass a law to ban guns and let gun owners peacefully hand them in as they did in other countries similar to the USA ?

why not wish for the unicorn to go house to house and collecting all the guns on its horn?
 
well I know for a fact that cities that banned certain types of firearms and required current owners to register them to come under the grandfather umbrella of protection saw compliance rates of less than 20%.

why do you continually engage in mental masturbation when you have already admitted what you pine for will never happen?


That's because US gun control laws have always been half measures and halfheartedly enforced.

You can't have effective gun control in the USA without repealing the 2 amendment.
 
That's because US gun control laws have always been half measures and halfheartedly enforced.

You can't have effective gun control in the USA without repealing the 2 amendment.

and you keep saying that and then pretending it should happen. you keep spinning the same stupid circular argument over and over.
 
Because people will simply hand in their guns rather than go to prison.

556747373.jpg
 
In Japan there are about 0.3 guns per 100 people. Not much when you look at the USA which has 120 guns per 100 people.
And yet the U.S. has a low murder rate. Those 120 guns are not shooting anyone. Less than 1% of the guns in the United States are ever used in a crime.
 
Exactly what would've prevented the LV shooting?

Better hotel security, for one. MGM has a lot to answer for in their total lax of security to allow this to happen.

Other casinos with more sense in their management don't allow one to carry high numbers of large boxes into their rooms or to leave the 'Do Not Disturb' sign on the door for more than 1-2 days.

They don't have any idea if you are preparing a mass shooting, or are disabled and can't answer the door, or whatever. They WILL check the room.

MGM security is still pretty lax, though it has improved a bit since that shooting.


This particular shooting was unusual in many respects. The shooter was not being treated for a mental disorder before the shooting.
 
If Paddock was unable to buy semi-automatic guns (plus butt stocks) and a mountain of ammunition...you think that perhaps that might have presented a bit of a barrier to him committing the mass shooting ???
Mass shooting yes, mass killing no. Julio González didn't have guns and he killed more people than Paddock.

The guns Paddock used are illegal in the UK
Therefore you can't get them
Therefore there are no mass shootings in the UK (OK there has been ONE since 1996)
But there are mass killings in the UK.

it would probably reduce suicides too
Nope, it would just change the method. You don't need a gun to kill yourself all you need is some rope.

British cities like London are more violent than US cities but the death rate is much lower.
Nope, London has a higher murder rate than NYC.
 
OK it seems the gun lovers have shifted their objections from a moral one to a practical one
Morals are based on opinion, practicality is not.

It cannot be argued that removing guns would not reduce gun crime
It might reduce it a bit at first, but since hopefully we all know that criminals don't obey laws before long we would be just back where we were in terms of gun crime, except now good people would be disarmed.
 
You know that was a war right ?


It's called the Revolutionary WAR
It was the start of the war. The war was nowhere near full swing when the Battle of Lexington happened.


I know a little about the history of the British army, and I'm not sure the 18th century British army had tanks, drones, aircraft, guided missiles, IFVs, machine guns....
Much of that stuff the US Army would not use on its own soil.

There was another rebellion in the USA about 85 years later...the rebels lost.
Ultimately yes although both sides suffered heavy losses.

New Orleans seized guns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
So Hurricane Katrina was an anomaly. I've never heard of any other case of massive amounts of people willingly turning over their guns. And not everybody did turn over their guns after hurricane Katrina BTW.
 
Here is why the kind of gun control that you find in much of the rest of the developed world doesn't work in the USA. The USA is isolated in its gun culture. Just how some people like to say how Japan is isolated in its suicide culture and that's why its got such a higher rate of suicide than the USA despite having such strict gun control, and as a matter of fact there are other countries that have much higher suicide rates than the USA, developed ones too, but that is a different discussion, the USA is isolated in its number of guns and in its gun culture.

Really strict gun control works in Japan because there are hardly any guns in Japan. It works in most of Europe for much the same reason, there are hardly any guns in Europe. Any other developed country that has strict gun control you can say the same thing, no country, developed or not with perhaps the exception of western Pakistan has a gun culture and the number of privately owned guns that the USA has. In the USA there are roughly 300 million privately owned guns or roughly one gun per person if they were all equally distributed and the number is only going up. In the USA you've got the NRA which aside from the ARP is the strongest grassroots organization there is. I can think of no country that has such a strong gun rights organization and aside from the NRA there is also the GOA, NAGR, and JPFO, other very strong gun rights organizations. So people who want the kind of gun control in the USA that they've got in Japan, Australia, or Cyprus are living in a pipe dream.

You have to start somewhere. I agree the culture change can be slow. But small changes can be made over time. She’s 16
 
The UK has pilots too you know.
And considering how vehicular assaults seem to be the trend in Europe, I would say its only a matter of time before one of them imitates the terrorists of 9/11.

Paddock could have rented a truck and driven into a crowd...but in Europe this has only been done by terrorists.
Exactly, and it kills just as many people as mass shootings.

Or he could have done what Timothy McVeigh did in OK City and set off a bomb. Again unlikely
Its not unlikely.

Drugs are not the same as guns. You need factories to make guns.
No you don't. All you need to make guns is a workshop. In western Pakistan you will find workshops where they make imitations of modern firearms, and they do a really good job too.

Ban guns and impose heavy penalties for anyone caught owning an illegal firearm.
The majority of guns will be simply handed in
People will inform on those that don't
Maybe in your make believe world.

Since we do not have any way of knowing what Japan's suicide rate would be if it had US levels of gun ownership, you can't make any point
It probably wouldn't be any different. Japan's suicide rate is so high I don't see how it can get any higher regardless of the methods used.

The US Congress defines a mass shooting as an incident where 4 or more people are shot (not necessarily killed) apart from the shooter.
The figure I saw was 345 mass shootings in 2017 alone.
Nope, a mass shooting is where 4 or more people are shot and killed. If they are shot and survive than they are not counted.
 
Why not just pass a law to ban guns and let gun owners peacefully hand them in as they did in other countries similar to the USA ?

Because that would never happen in the real world. It might happen in your make believe world but not in this world.
 
Because people will simply hand in their guns rather than go to prison.

You do realize that lots of people will hand in their guns over their dead bodies, don't you?
 
Back
Top Bottom