Banning Firearms: Personal Thoughts

[Pyrofox]

First off I just want to point out I'm mostly neutral on this topic. As I can see the way how the idea of banning all guns can sound all dandy and good. But it comes at a cost that has the potential of becoming the next "drug war" as I'd like to call it. Getting legal guns off the streets isn't getting guns out of the hands of those who should not have firearms rather. Just going to boost the "want" and the "need" to own one.

As well add to the pressure of those who are in the constant already line of fire. Such as cops, state troopers, K9 units. If anything goes wrong they are going to have to be able to legitimately be able to step it up and be able to prove they can protect the public even better than they already can. This would also mean the National Guard would have to be also constantly on stand by. And so far public safety still has controversial issues which is the main reason why the idea of adding more pressure to public safety is a very bad idea.

NYPD K9 dog unit. As famous as these dog units are.

They are costly quoting the Police magazine's article

"A single-purpose dog can cost $2,500-$4,000, without training, or very little." K-9s -- The cost of starting a K-9 unit Police Magazine, Jan 20, 2004 (Bare in mind this K-9 Picture above has 9 dogs which easily can net $22,500 to as much as $36,000 and thats without the cost of specialized training.)

Yes the article is old, but the dogs are now also getting more often specialized training in a single particular field this causes the price of training to increase. Which defies the normal idea of how economically one might think about K-9 teams. One might think with the increase of demand the price to train these dogs should decrease over time. But there is one catch. These dogs do not simply get trained simply for meeting the minimum requirements. Both handler and dog partner have to survive the training. Which is the main cost of the whole process and that is time. Which adds onto the price of the training. This is a small piece of the larger puzzle that would start to weigh down on public serurity. The demand for more K9 units would increase by the public which is going to be costly as the supply may not be able to keep up. Same goes with police and state troopers. The need for them will increase which may mean the quality of the training may pay the price to get more out there.

But back on topic.

The only way guns get off the streets and out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them would start by. Not shutting down legal gun sellers but tracking down those who sell guns that range from "semi" legal to definitely "illegal." They are the ones who are going to be selling the guns that are going to be used for rampages.

Also the vast majority of deaths by firearms are "accidental" and preventable. Yes its sad but at the end of the day any "tool" can be modified to be a weapon. What makes people afraid of guns is most of the time they dont know what a gun is. Beyond point and pull the trigger and a bang goes off. Basic general education about what guns are and how to check if a gun is loaded or not could save many lives.

Whether a gun is "bolt action, semi auto or even full auto" doesn't mean much more than the speed at which the gun fires and how fast one can kill the target(s). They all are still dangerous to the same level if you take them to their base levels. Well other than if you get into calibers but thats for a different subject. This is guns period. Banning guns in our current society is the complete opposite direction human society needs to go. The action of banning guns is only putting duck tape on the issue.

The real way to decrease gun homicide and accidental deaths isn't to bury it under dirt and treat it like it never existed. But rather educate and respect guns like any other tool and understand the limitations to what it can do. Fear has never helped humans other than to learn to be brave and gain something from it.

As someone who likes to discuss and banter I welcome discussion.

[Browneye57]

There is a lot of fluff here unrelated to your title. Punctuation errors as well.

Did you have a question? I happen to be quite well versed in firearms and the laws about them. Perhaps I could help.

[Pyrofox]

More to just bluntly explain why out right banning firearms would lead to worse results than better ones.

[Browneye57]

I agree.
The problem is that there is no capacity of any government agent to ban firearms. Our constitution provides that the right to defend yourself is a god-given right, and the second amendment is a command/law/rule to protect that right - the 'shall not be infringed' is what is pertinent.
Anti's actually think the government grants the right to possess a firearm - but if you actually read the constitution the amendment is about protecting that right, not granting it.

[JimRSmith]

I'm in the UK, and hand guns were banned here after a school massacre about 20 years ago.

We were in a different 'starting position' from the US, though. There were a lot fewer guns in circulation, both legally and illegally, and for the legal ones, licencing was enforced, so it was just a case of calling those in. The illegal ones obviously stayed in circulation, but seem to have been relatively uncommon.

I don't think it's worth re-opening this debate here, at least as far as I'm concerned. Somebody in the security services told me that we're apparently harder for terrorists to hit with guns because of the comparative difficulty of getting hold of them (it also helps being an island). So we're more likely to get attacked with car bombs, knives etc apparently.

I think very different arguments can be used vis a vis the US. Taking guns out of circulation would be very far from straightforward.

That's my opinion - be interested to see what others have to say.

[Righttobeararms83]

there's thousands of guns all over Northern Ireland. There are still finds of large caches of assault rifles.

[JimRSmith]

@Righttobeararms83 Yeah, that's true. I think it's been a few years since the last big find, but I'd agree with you, they're still out there.

On the mainland, it does seem to be much more isolated, though. This guy has been done for explosives, for example - www.BBC.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37408234

[Righttobeararms83]

hadn't seen that, waa he linked to a terror group uvf or white supremacists? Still plenty of guns on the mainland as well remember the guy moat who killed the two wpc's. Criminals in Britain rarely have used firearms even when the were widely available but if they wanted they could have them shipped in. Or they could make them the UVF used to make ww2 style sten guns in machine shops.

[JimRSmith]

@Righttobeararms83 I don't think it's confirmed, but I think the suspicion at the time was that he was an infiltrator connected to the Real IRA. I guess this is going to come out at the trial, but that's my recollection.

[Righttobeararms83]

www.google.co.uk/.../royal-marine-held-on-terror-charges-is-from-highly-respected-family
You were right. These fuckers won't let it alone.

[Pyrofox]

The issue with guns in the US is there are so many the government would need to engage Marshal law just to take them away.

[Righttobeararms83]

Its the illegal ones that are the problem

[Pyrofox]

@Righttobeararms83 Well illegal ones are barely more dangerous than any other gun.

[Righttobeararms83]

Its the owner of a gun that makes it dangerous.

[madhatters4]

i believe in our constitution but i also believe that the constitution is amended for a reason. so i can see both points. i would like to live in a country where people can responsibly own guns but until that is the case i lean towards strict gun control and am not opposed to an all out ban in theory

[oddwaffle]

If you want to do a thought experiment then just take one to the extreme and see if you like the results.

On one hand, everyone can arm themselves to the teeth with high powered rifles, hand guns, a couple grenades, a rocket launcher and maybe a few mini nukes. You get some thing like Fallout 4 (the game). Sort of like the modern wild west.

On the other hand, you take it to the other end and you get something like Japan. Seems peaceful on the surface but gangs owns the streets with blades and intimation. Police has little experience and not that intimidating to organized crime. Most crimes go unnoticed and you get the unspoken rule of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

I prefer somewhere in the middle. Weapons should be regulated tightly and people using them need to have a certain degree of training. However, the public needs to be able to obtain the weapons if they want to. You need a license to cook meals for other people. You also need a degree for cutting up people (surgeon). I think you should have some sort of certification telling that you can put the bullet into someone else but you are trained to be very careful about it and won't break anything.

[rjroy3]

When I was a kid my family lived in Japan. Drove past a cop beating the shit out of 3 guys using Karate like a action movie lol. It was impressive, but certainly would never happen here lol

[Anonymous]

If firearms are outlawed, then only outlaws will have firearms. The second amendment is very critical to protecting this nation from falling under the complete full control of a tyrannical and completely corrupt government.

For those that disagree, look at the pattern of history and various governments and leaders in the world, once all firearms are banned and private ownership of them are compeltely prohibited, guess what comes next? They can fuck with all of your rights and control you in anyway that they see fit:

beforeitsnews.com/.../...b6f5c1f87bd36d096a1ab.jpg

[chrisbigman]

In theory, an all out ban would be great. However, theory is (obviously) not reality. There's people that want to control and/or threaten others for selfish reasons and they use WEAPONS to do it - not just guns. Notice I said WEAPONS, not guns. At the moment, I'd have to say guns must be made available to all responsible adults. There should be no bans on guns. Parents must responsibly teach their children the use and ramifications of firearms, just like any other weapons. If they can't or won't, then they shouldn't have any firearms or weapons. They should be liable for their children's actions. If they can't be parents, then they shouldn't have children.

[rjroy3]

What we need to get away from is separating murder/killing/crime from gun murder/killing/crime. The issue is crime in general. When guns are banned every violent crime category increases statistically. From simple assault to rape and armed robbery.

People who know better and actually give a damn look at stopping crime and not focusing on the political issue of banning guns.

[Browneye57]

Impressive. This is absolutely correct.
The problem isn't the guns per-se, it's society and how we train responsible gun owners. Guns don't shoot people, bad people with guns shoot people.

[RedThread]

But.. but.. but.. How would I drool over sexy European handguns?

I have a constitutional right to drool over firearms that I own and operate.

It's freedom baby yeah!
https://i.imgur.com/W8Tqhqh.gif

[FakeName123]

In a time where people can even 3d print guns - banning them is probably the most ridiculous way of solving the initial issue.

[madhatters4]

well if you banned guns then it would also mean a ban on the parts of guns that still have to be bought in store to produce a 3-d gun.

[Jager66]

@madhatters4 that wouldn't matter, even a 10 year old would be able to find, download and print it within a few minutes of deciding to do it. Once something is on the net, especially something like gun print files, there is no stopping it.

[zagor]

@madhatters4 People in Afghanistan were manufacturing AK-47 clones in simple backyard metalshops.

[madhatters4]

@Jager66 i understand that but you can't simply 3-d print a gun. you still have to buy parts at a gun store required to make the gun function, like hammer or something to create the propulsion. so if you banned guns (and therefore the requisite parts to make a gun function) a 3-d printed gun would be useless as it would have no firing mechanism

[Jager66]

@madhatters4 well with that way of reasoning we need to ban pretty much everything and all people need to live in padded rooms.

[madhatters4]

@Jager66 if that's what you took from it then so be it. but i think that leap of logic is absurd

banning guns -> banning gun parts (as why would you need gun specific parts if guns are banned) -> banning everything and living in padded rooms?
nah

[Jager66]

@madhatters4 yes it is absurd, that is exactly my point... reductio ad absurdum

[madhatters4]

@Jager66 well you are entitled to your opinion and i mine

[Righttobeararms83]

We seen in cities were guns were banned that crime didn't drop nor gun deaths reduced in fact violent crime increased. Anyway of you really wanted a gun the could be easily manufacturered in a machine shop.

[jacquesvol]

@Righttobeararms83 War gas and explosives too can easily be made at home. Even light artillery can easily be made at home. Is that a reason to sell them on the supermarket?
Gun deaths at home happen because the gun is there, within reach, for some paranoiac reason. Any other tool could kill too. A gun just makes more victims.
Indeed , gangsters will always get weapons. First time criminals, drunks , mentally deranged persons don't get them that easily.

[Righttobeararms83]

@jacquesvol all I know when intruders broke into home on two separate occasions I was able to protect my family, yes a gun death happened in my home and I thank God the gun was there within reach and the police didn't arrive for 1hour. The problem isn't with law abiding citizens owning guns.
I saw growing up how easy it was for gangsters, terrorists and theives to get guns despite one of the most strictest gun laws in the world as well as strict anti explosive laws didn't stop those who wanted it getting semtex and making fertiliser bombs. I know for a fact that I could go across town and buy a gun illegally fully automatic if I wanted too, a lot of illegal guns come up from Mexico. As long as there is high levels of mass criminality with violent crime unarmed citizens will be vulnerable.

[jacquesvol]

a lot of illegal guns come up from Mexico, indeed. But I guess many more are just stolen within the US: with that many guns in the US, most break ins will yield a gun for the criminals.

[Righttobeararms83]

@jacquesvol point is its simple to get a gun. Fortunately most criminals will leave if you have a gun and never come back. If you are unarmed and they successfully rob you they will be back again as your a soft target. A neighbour got put in intensive care recently by theives that broke into his home and im not surprised as once when we discussed it at a barbecue he was under the impression that you could be reasonable and negotiate with thugs in a situation like that giving them what they want, well he was wrong.
If theives break in and get a gun while when the house is empty I don't care its when there's people at home that I worry.

[jacquesvol]

Only dumb criminals will break in when you're at home. Dumb criminals don't have long careers: the cops catch them quickly.

[Righttobeararms83]

@jacquesvol they catch them after they committ countless crimes too late for you if they come into your home.

[Dred1614returns]

Banning guns is a fool's errand.