Should guns be banned in America?

[sin0001]

If it wasn't for the NRA's 'donations' to powerful politicians, gun control would've already been implemented.

[Dayman]

If it wasn't for the NRA's 'donations' to powerful politicians, gun control would've already been implemented.

Yeah it has nothing to do with the constitution or the 83% of America who own guns

[spectroscopy]

its up to the americans if they want to ban guns or not, states like vermont and arizona and nevada they LOVE their guns and if they did a vote no-one would vote to ban it, and same as places like tennessee, whereas new york has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, california too, the culture varies state to state too heavily to make one big federal law on it all, but i think they should vote once every 4 or 5 years and re evaluate the laws but idk if you go on some american forums or talk to people actually in america they have no problem with the gun laws in their state
theres no nra conspiracy or anything LOL they just like their guns

[Professor Polonsky]

Yeah it has nothing to do with the constitution or the 83% of America who own guns

For the billionth time. The Constitution allows almost any gun control measure. The chances any legislation would be found Unconstitutional are minute - only a handful have been so far. The Federal measured pushed by Obama have all already been enacted before, whether on a State level or Federal level. None of them have been found Unconstitutional. And yes, State laws have to conform to the Bill of Rights according to the Court's interpretation of the 14th - it's called incorporation.



So yes, the only reason reason commonsense gun laws have not been passed is the NRA's opposition to them, which causes many lawmakers to automatically oppose them as they're more scared of losing the NRA's backing than their constituents'.

[Dayman]

Soo what you're telling me is that the american government are not infringing the bill of rights or are never planning to...?

 Because all this hype is about 'guns being taken away from the people' who have the 'right to bear arms'. Please help me understand.

I certainly agree with the 'common sense laws'  they should already be passed.

[Professor Polonsky]

The measures in the image are the ones Obama seeks to enact. The NRA opposes all the ones to do with guns (i.e. not police offers or mental health). According to Obama's plan, no guns will be taken away.

So far, the Supreme Court has only found two gun control statutes Unconstitutional on the basis of the Second Amendment. Lower courts have found maybe a handful more Unconstitutional.

From the Court's opinion in District of Columbia v. Miller:

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.  Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

[Special At Specialist]

Basically what Russ is saying that the extremely high numbers of deaths in the US could be due to other reasons. The only way to figure it out is by actually trialling a gun outlawing in the US. However...such a measure would be impractical at best.

A complete ban on guns would be very difficult to trial, however, gun control measures, such as the one that occurred between 1994 and 2004, would probably work.

If it wasn't for the NRA's 'donations' to powerful politicians, gun control would've already been implemented.

I agree with this. America is dominated by large corporations such as the NRA. People need to learn to think for themselves.

UK has one of the highest crimes rates in the world you need to do better

Wow, I didn't even realise this until I did a google search just then... I always thought that the UK was comparable to Australia in terms of safety, welfare and crime rates. But then again, the UK riots made me think less of them.

I think that this may be partially due to the fact that the UK is so archaic. I mean, they still have a queen and royal family living in a palace. It's like they refuse to advance any further than the medieval age, a time when crime rates were high and life expectancy was low. They need to stop obsessing over their "traditions" and "ancestry" to focus on what the future has in store for them.

edit: No offence to the UK, I'm just trying to find a reason why their crime rates are so much higher than other first world countries.

Honestly in my humble opinion crime/homicide rates is related to the social benefits available in that country. Otherwise the poor have nothing to lose they have nothing so going to jail is not a big deal. The sandy hook and newton massacres were caused by drugged up insane fucks.

I kind of agree with this as well. Whilst powerful weapons do make killing a lot easier, the ultimate cause is almost always a feeling of hopelessness and having "nothing to lose".

[Dayman]

The enactment even if passed is like a toothless tiger in America unless America become tyrannical and remove the constitution no gun control will ever work unless they conspire a very big false flag then they'll scare the people and will get what they want the proof is in the history. Soooo there's is no use discussing this anymore thank you for sharing that information.
( I mean the bill no use discussing it anymore because it won't work America's culture is integrated with guns)

[Professor Polonsky]

I have no idea how you concluded that from my post.

[Dayman]

I have no idea how you concluded that from my post.

Sorry I should've explained myself.
1. obamas enactments only limit guns use and will increase illegal unregistered guns to become more prevalent.
2. Imagine this hypothetical "I am the crazy maniac who wanted to impersonate the joker do you think some gun ban is going to stop me from obtaining a gun or making explosives
3. People can buy others guns the cost of guns will increase due to increase in demand ( the increased penalties won't be a deterrent unless its a lengthy jail time.)

The matter here is that guns =kill  but so do cigarette=kill both are common place in America and  a ban on both wont work however restrictions might so... I guess I was wrong.

[Professor Polonsky]

1. obamas enactments only limit guns use

True

and will increase illegal unregistered guns to become more prevalent.

Perhaps illegal guns will increase, but almost all guns used in mass-shootings have been legal. So while illegal guns may increase, overall guns will decrease.

2. Imagine this hypothetical "I am the crazy maniac who wanted to impersonate the joker do you think some gun ban is going to stop me from obtaining a gun or making explosives

No, but it will make it a fair bit more difficult. What's the point of any law if criminals are going to break it anyway? Might as well legalise everything

3. People can buy others guns the cost of guns will increase due to increase in demand ( the increased penalties won't be a deterrent unless its a lengthy jail time.)

Sure, there will be a black market for assault rifles currently in circulation. The main point of these gun law reforms is not the AWB, though, rather the increased background checks and their increased efficiency. The AWB previously worked between 1994 and 2004.

[Dayman]

I guess there's got to be a solution which effectively protects society as well as avoiding restrictions to freedom(but does that solution exist is a another question)... Ill be reasonable to say at this point no one needs automatic assault rifles it's uncessecary.
       
To be honest I love the fact that Australia have gun restriction because I can trust the Australian government but if I lived in america and my guns were taken away I'd be pissed off. This is why I take the pro-gun side.

If America really want to get their shit-together they should have a war on poverty and help their veterans get off the streets, get proper public health care and their economy back on track (which is impossible lol).