I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.
It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.
Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.
True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)
That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist.
This is a saturation issue. It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
Crimimals wouldn’t have so many unregistered guns in the first place if there weren’t that many guns available from the beginning.
Escalation has proven to not be the answer. You don’t solve the problem that saturation has caused by creating even more saturation.
Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it?
Well, Australia managed to disarm a significant portion of its population in the past, so it’s possible.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market. Don’t have to start taking away people’s emotional support collections yet, just make sure nobody can start a new one.
… guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes.
Guns are weapons. Weapons exist to threaten, bring harm, if not outright kill another living being.
In areas where hunting is common, maybe the argument for them being useful tools to have can be made. Outside of this specific niche there is no reason for the public availabity of any weapon.
Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist. You realize that even if guns are no longer sold in the U.S., they can still be smuggled in from other countries along with other contraband like drugs and counterfeit cash. That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned. This is what I mean when I say “violent black market”. Guns can also be 3D printed.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australia’s gun control as proof that “it’s possible”. Australia doesn’t have anywhere near the same history that the U.S. has with guns. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist.
It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market.
I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.
That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned.
Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.
It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.
You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…
It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.
It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.
Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.
Well it’s a start.
You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.
Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.
In the end it will still require banning guns.
True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)
That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.
This is a saturation issue. It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.
Crimimals wouldn’t have so many unregistered guns in the first place if there weren’t that many guns available from the beginning.
Escalation has proven to not be the answer. You don’t solve the problem that saturation has caused by creating even more saturation.
Well, Australia managed to disarm a significant portion of its population in the past, so it’s possible.
But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market. Don’t have to start taking away people’s emotional support collections yet, just make sure nobody can start a new one.
Guns are weapons. Weapons exist to threaten, bring harm, if not outright kill another living being.
In areas where hunting is common, maybe the argument for them being useful tools to have can be made. Outside of this specific niche there is no reason for the public availabity of any weapon.
I consider it a symptom and a problem.
Weapons also exist to defend, but you only make the arguments that suit you.
You don’t need weapons.
Thats your opinion. I disagree.
It’s a fact. And you’re simply wrong.
Lol OK buddy. Dictionary.com exists btw
Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist. You realize that even if guns are no longer sold in the U.S., they can still be smuggled in from other countries along with other contraband like drugs and counterfeit cash. That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned. This is what I mean when I say “violent black market”. Guns can also be 3D printed.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australia’s gun control as proof that “it’s possible”. Australia doesn’t have anywhere near the same history that the U.S. has with guns. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.
Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.
No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.
You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…
Ah well…
Your comment quite quickly devolved into an ad hominem. If you had a strong argument against anything I said, you would have used it.
It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.
“It’s not an ad hominem”
“My argument can no longer be againt the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally”
That is the literal definition of ad hominem. You just contradicted yourself. Well done.