Should America Ban Guns

[Bhootnike]

I think it's just the fact that guns have more damage than other weapons really..

I agree! I am suggesting an ultimate solution. I don't think it is very logic and smart to be banning every single threat we are exposed to. Why not increase the punishment/ sentence, something that will punish the offenders rather than those who DO follow the law??

Well, in terms of punishment, the offenders usually end up being shot and sometimes, like today, being killed...
or they kill themselves. - based on the news we've seen in the past few years about the shootings in the US

One problem with guns is that its an ongoing issue in the USA because there'll be some nutcase who will go on a killing spree massacre. from schools, colleges, villages, and now places of worship.

I don't think guns should be banned altogether, no.  I mean, they should employ something like Australia.

Also I think there needs to be more awareness about Sikhs in general, not just USA, even here.
Sikhs with turbans and beards are often mistaken as muslims, and especially after 9/11, sikhs have been targeted.
But still, i dont think innocent people, including muslims who may be still targeted for 'revenge', should be slain.

All they need to do is push that trigger and they've badly injured someone.  as evangelionzeta pointed out . sadly the fact is that is that its a more effective way of killing a large quantity of people.

[DisaFear]

Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

[Russ]

That's because the swiss have a civilian militia not an army, so everyone gets a gun. They also have incredibly strict ammo control laws

[JellyDonut]

I'm in the stricter control camp where firearm usage is limited to home invasion defense or sporting purposes.

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

A knife, being less lethal, may used a bit more liberally than a gun but you know, stuff

[brenden]

Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

Assuming the criminal says "Hello, I have a knife prepare to outrun me" instead of politely asking for the time and chucking it into your liver.
I think guns should be banned. Probs to the extent of Australia. Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.

[sabii]

I think it's just the fact that guns have more damage than other weapons really..

I agree! I am suggesting an ultimate solution. I don't think it is very logic and smart to be banning every single threat we are exposed to. Why not increase the punishment/ sentence, something that will punish the offenders rather than those who DO follow the law??

Well, in terms of punishment, the offenders usually end up being shot and sometimes, like today, being killed...
or they kill themselves. - based on the news we've seen in the past few years about the shootings in the US

One problem with guns is that its an ongoing issue in the USA because there'll be some nutcase who will go on a killing spree massacre. from schools, colleges, villages, and now places of worship.

I don't think guns should be banned altogether, no.  I mean, they should employ something like Australia.

Also I think there needs to be more awareness about Sikhs in general, not just USA, even here.
Sikhs with turbans and beards are often mistaken as muslims, and especially after 9/11, sikhs have been targeted.
But still, i dont think innocent people, including muslims who may be still targeted for 'revenge', should be slain.

All they need to do is push that trigger and they've badly injured someone.  as evangelionzeta pointed out . sadly the fact is that is that its a more effective way of killing a large quantity of people.

I don't think it should be about what race, and revenge honestly is no such reason!!! That's just as pathetic as doing the crime first hand??? Not any better. NO race or culture should be targeted, whether its is Islam or Hindu. (I know you stated, that already but I just felt the need to put it out again)

[Surgeon]

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?

That's because the swiss have a civilian militia not an army, so everyone gets a gun. They also have incredibly strict ammo control laws

That is true. I still think it is a good example of how firearms can be widespread and cause not nearly as much trouble as places like the US.

[EvangelionZeta]

Outlawing guns isn't going to put an end to the blood shed by innocent people or the people dying in vain. It's simply going to lead to a larger black market for guns or result in people using other weapons.

Take the gun laws in Switzerland (I think it is..) for example. Every adult is given a firearm and instructed on how to use it etc. Switzerland has one of the worlds lowest crime rates in regards to firearms.

A black market is hard to access for the nut jobs who often do public shootings. A model wherein gun control is much more stringent isn't likely to eliminate gang violence or anything, yes, but it is likely to make it much more difficult for a disturbed person to go on a killing spree.  The other thing worth pointing out is that a black market only arrives with demand; currently, it is cultural to own a gun, because it is an amendment of the constitution, and because people feel the need to defend themselves in a culture where other people can own guns.  If this culture of necessary defense (on a mass scale) is destroyed, then a lot of the impetus for the black market is reduced (and thus you can imagine a black market is not nearly as likely to exist; even if it does, it won't be on a very significant scale).

A model from Switzerland or whatever isn't pertinent to the debate; the question, rather, is whether or not a country where disturbed people can cause mass death (ie. clearly not Switzerland, it seems) should have firearms readily available to its citizens. Your example establishes that guns aren't a cause, yes, but it doesn't demonstrate that guns aren't a useful (and often necessary) tool for extremely violent crime.

[EvangelionZeta]

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?

Then you're even more screwed if they own a gun.

[Bhootnike]

Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.

Outlawing guns isn't going to put an end to the blood shed by innocent people or the people dying in vain. It's simply going to lead to a larger black market for guns or result in people using other weapons.

Take the gun laws in Switzerland (I think it is..) for example. Every adult is given a firearm and instructed on how to use it etc. Switzerland has one of the worlds lowest crime rates in regards to firearms.

But if they ban the general use of guns, and make it like australia in that you need a license and registration (think you do anyways!),  it will mean potentially less psychos going on killing rampages.

btw did a google search:

On 28 April 1996, Martin Bryant went on a killing spree at Port Arthur, murdering 35 people and wounding 21 more before being captured by the Special Operations Group of the Tasmania Police. This led to a national ban on semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.

Australia took drastic measures against it, and we haven't had THAT many killing sprees...
actually apart from the monash university shootings, i cant recall any shooting sprees.

but yeah..
whats the harm in making them more stricter on obtaining a gun, and licensing them etc etc.
 
or what brenden said:

Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.

[sabii]

Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

Assuming the criminal says "Hello, I have a knife prepare to outrun me" instead of politely asking for the time and chucking it into your liver.
I think guns should be banned. Probs to the extent of Australia. Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.

There are many useless things or 'unnecessary' things that we as humans can survive without, however we still use to use it. E.g. Cars which cause so much pollution. Many accidents occur every year, people break laws by hoon driving and what not. As humans we are not obliged to use the vehicle however it makes our lives much easier, and than yet again, the majority of us do follow the law. In saying this, I don't believe guns or any firearms are any different, if used with bad intentions of breaking law, than OFCOURSE It will be harmful???

My argument isn't to keep it, however to do something else rather than banning it fully!

[paulsterio]

Before we talk about whether to ban guns or not, can someone even come up with a reasonable defence as to why we should allow guns, and don't mention self-defence because we all know that rarely happens!

[Surgeon]

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?

Then you're even more screwed if they own a gun.

I think you're missing the point. If I magically emerged out of your computer screen right now and had you cornered, completely at my mercy, and gave you the option of being shot to death, hacked to death with a machete, stabbed to death with a knife, bludgeoned to death with a hammer or crow bar, butchered with a chainsaw, which would you choose?

P.S- I would never do that, I love you and your witty sense of humour.

A black market is hard to access for the nut jobs who often do public shootings. A model wherein gun control is much more stringent isn't likely to eliminate gang violence or anything, yes, but it is likely to make it much more difficult for a disturbed person to go on a killing spree.  The other thing worth pointing out is that a black market only arrives with demand; currently, it is cultural to own a gun, because it is an amendment of the constitution, and because people feel the need to defend themselves in a culture where other people can own guns.  If this culture of necessary defense (on a mass scale) is destroyed, then a lot of the impetus for the black market is reduced (and thus you can imagine a black market is not nearly as likely to exist; even if it does, it won't be on a very significant scale).

A model from Switzerland or whatever isn't pertinent to the debate; the question, rather, is whether or not a country where disturbed people can cause mass death (ie. clearly not Switzerland, it seems) should have firearms readily available to its citizens. Your example establishes that guns aren't a cause, yes, but it doesn't demonstrate that guns aren't a useful (and often necessary) tool for extremely violent crime.

The black market is hard to access? Spend enough time in a few particular restaurants/cafes in Carlton and I guarantee you'll be offered many things that are heavily illegal. That's just here in Australia.. I would assume the black market in America could be much more accessible/prominent.

This debate is practically redundant. As Russ said, the amendment will be practically impossible to remove. It will be a cold day in hell before they US citizens agree to have it removed. As you said, it's cultural to own a gun in the US.

[sabii]

Before we talk about whether to ban guns or not, can someone even come up with a reasonable defence as to why we should allow guns, and don't mention self-defence because we all know that rarely happens!

I am NOT for it. However my only concern is that many people do follow the law and enjoy hunting! Thousands of people hunt and use the weapon rightfully. Imagine being in a classroom where the teacher agrees to allow you to have free time but becasue of a group of idiots she refuses to allow you free time as a class and thus you are forced to do silent reading. The point is in every situation no matter if it is a classroom or outside, there will be a group of individuals who will not obey the rules and laws, why should those who follow it be punished. To you, maybe, hunting is not a good enough of a reasons, but for many people who do enjoy it believe me it is. Personally I believe that nothing beats the reason that, "everyone should not be punished, over one persons wrong doing:"!

[JellyDonut]

Before we talk about whether to ban guns or not, can someone even come up with a reasonable defence as to why we should allow guns, and don't mention self-defence because we all know that rarely happens!

How do you know that it rarely happens? For all we know, the suspicion that a victim (or his/her home) is armed may act as a deterrent for criminals and thus a crime isn't committed