inebriantia

Matthew
Take the Washington sniper for example. He'd never had been able to kill those all people with a knife.

Maybe, for thought, don't take this too seriously but….

Someone could have say stood on an overpass and used a high powered slingshot and shot a rock into the windshield of cars, causing them to wreck and cause a huge pill up, or simply hid somewhere and shot it at someone head killing them.

There is always some kind of projectile weapon, sure guns are far more dangerous, but there are other means of mass murder besides guns. If there were no guns people would just be more creative than they are now. That's why your true serial killers, mass murderers, are so infamous because most did not use guns to kill lots of people, they used creative methods.

The point is guns don't kill people, people kill people. Banning guns solves nothing, people would still get them somehow, they are always going to be here no matter how much we hate them, and how much saddness they cause the world. I hate guns, and like I stated before don't own, or have shot them. One of my best friends Matt Mussleman was shot and murdered by a gun just last Feb. on my g/f's birthday no less, but that does not mean I hate guns and they should be banned, because I see the good in them not the bad that people use them for. This topic can never be resolved, I suppose if we wanted to we could talk forever about this so this is my last comment on this…hopefully,lol.

Are you serious about the slingshot thing?

Sure serial killers would probably go on killing because they typicaly do not use guns, but the the typical every day drive bys and armed robberies would decrease.

I totally disagree with you that banning guns would solve nothing. The simple fact is that if the sale and ownership of guns were banned in the US, significantly less people would be murdered each year. It is proven that when you make a crime more difficult to commit for criminals, the overall average level of that crime decreases.

gbmasterman
Gun < Bomb

A gun kills 1 person, and a bomb can kill hundreds or thousands of people. It's not hard to make a bomb big enough to do some damage. So if the impossible happens and guns are banned, the next thing would be bombs, which would kill alot more than a gun. Besides as was stated before Americans are protected by the Second Amendment, so they will not be banned in America.

The point is guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Exactly.

It is true that bombs probably do kill more people than gunfire, but you're not putting into context here.

We're talking about gun crime in the US and how we can put an end to the killing, which in my view is to ban the sale and ownership of guns. In America hundreds of people die each year due to gun crime. These deaths are most commonly due to crimes such as drive by shootings, armed robberies, domestic disagreements, accidents, that type of thing. Very few of the criminals who perpetrate these type of crimes would resort to using explsives, if any, because bombs are not practical for these types of crime. Explosives are almost totally used by terrorists and terrorists alone.

So by banning guns in America you think that all guns will dissapear and nobody could get their hands on them ie. black market, imported, etc. The bottom line is that if someone wants it bad enough they will get it. Sure hundreds of people die in America each year because of gun crime, so we should ban it? Then we should also ban all alcholic beverages as well since in America drunk drivers kill more people each year, than those that have died in the Iraq war the past 4 years.

You can keep banning stuff until your head exploades, but there's always a way for it to come back. If we ban guns, wouldn't we also be leaving or self open? Police and military won't have weapons. Either way though, I don't think it'll stop anything.

It's quite simple to replicate a gun in the modern day, are you also going to take steps to ban literature in public libaries and on the internet that provide information about how to construct guns?

More people die from drunk driving and related accidents than they do from guns per year… ban that…. OH…. Wait…. they already tried to ban alcohol once…

gbmasterman
So by banning guns in America you think that all guns will dissapear and nobody could get their hands on them ie. black market, imported, etc. The bottom line is that if someone wants it bad enough they will get it. Sure hundreds of people die in America each year because of gun crime, so we should ban it? Then we should also ban all alcholic beverages as well since in America drunk drivers kill more people each year, than those that have died in the Iraq war the past 4 years.

Of course many people would still be able to get their hands on guns if they were banned. The point is that by banning guns, they'd be that much more difficult to obtain thereby making the opportunity to commit gun crime more difficult. The difficulty, danger and risk in obtaining, carrying and storing guns would reduce gun crime overall.

I'd have no problem with banning alcohol either. But you cannot compare alcohol to guns. Alcohol is for the purpose of enjoyment and having a good time. The purpose of the gun is to kill.

Peter Venkmen
You can keep banning stuff until your head exploades, but there's always a way for it to come back. If we ban guns, wouldn't we also be leaving or self open? Police and military won't have weapons. Either way though, I don't think it'll stop anything.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with the police or military using guns. Their job is to prevent crime, not to cause it. The ban should be with the civilian population.

How would you like to run for your life, terrified, being chased around by a bunch of people with shotguns to the point of exhaustion where you're eventually murdered?

I would not like that at all!

How would you like to run for your life, terrified, being chased around by a bunch of predators with claws to the point of exhaustion where you're eventually murdered?

I would also not like that at all!

…..but let's face it. Killing is a necessary part of life, and both of those things happen every day. It's called survival of the fittest. If you prefer not to kill animals for sustenance, then great, that's your choice and you're entitled to it. But don't be a hypocrite by defending the ‘animals’ that go around murdering the same animals themselves….
Some people in this world don't have the luxury of being vegetarian, like we in industrialized nations do. Thank your lucky stars you don't live in Kenya…..

As far as guns go however, I'm not the biggest fan. Hunting is the only thing I would prefer to use a gun for. But sadly it's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of truth. The truth is that evil exists in the world, and evil people are always going to use and abuse technology for their own sick gain, reguardless of what others wish or even demand. Guns (like it or not) have existed for centuries, and if murderers want ‘em, they can get ’em (legally and illegally just the same). It's not like nanotechnology where the government could ACTUALLY and definitively stop it…. And like Peter Venkmen said, if we decide to BAN guns, all out, then the only real change that will occur is with law enforcement and law-abiding citizens NOT having guns. And believe it or not, that's probably MORE dangerous at the end of the day…..

(Mathew)
I don't think that there's anything wrong with the police or military using guns. Their job is to prevent crime, not to cause it. The ban should be with the civilian population.

Well I'm glad you agree with law enforcement having guns, but that still leaves law-abiding citizens a lot more suceptable to shootings. I think you'll find in a lot of crime situations, police are gonna arrive too late to really save anyone. Those guns are primarily to protect themselves. Ordinary people ALSO have the right to protect themselves, and if they want a firearm to do it, then I think thats just grand. Wouldn't you prefer a stricter set of criteria for who can legally OWN a gun?…

You say one minute that the only purpose of a gun is to kill, but then say if Law Enforcement uses it it's ok. Obviously there are a number of problems with logic like that.

What if Law Enforcement kills someone by using a gun, what if they don't? That right there overly states that there is more than a killing use for guns.

There are also people who buy and own guns for entertainment, I know several people who own guns for their Historical Novelty and several others who own guns merely to shoot at targets! Because they enjoy that.

Ban guns and people will use bows, which are just as deadly. Or they will improvise their own projectile launchers.

I have seen strong and well thought out logical arguments for banning guns before, your propositions and reasonings do not fall into this category.