Pros and Cons of Gun Bans

TommiGunn31

I realize there are two sides to the gun ban argument.  Some good points are that fewer people will have guns, so possibly fewer crimes.  Also, fewer guns means children may not have such easy access.  However, there are some negative, as well.  Rewriting the Constitution sets a bad precedent.  If we can rewrite the Second Amendment, what's to stop them from changing whatever they want.  The Constitution was put into place to protect us from a corrupt government.  They are already playing it fast and loose with taxes.  If we let them change one part of the Constitution, what's to stop them from slowly changing all of it, until we have no protection from them.  Granted, this is a worst case scenario, but it could happen.  Also, how would we protect ourselves and our children?

Chimo

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

nuff said

rbower80

Guns should never be banned for so many good reasons and have all been told before.Number one though we have the right to protect ourself's clear and simple.Talk of banning guns is the number one problem with us not concentrating on the right problems we have in this Country,bad people.The Gangs are out of control and they do very little to fix this problem.They either corrupt the police or they make them scared of them either way they are in control of our streets.If we would get rid of Gangs and gang related crimes we would reduce crime by at least 75%.Wouldn't this be a better place to start then trying to stop the ownership of a legal gun that 98% of the time is not going to hurt anyone.

TommiGunn31

I agree, rbower.  The problem with gangs isn't just that they corrupt the police, though.  It's also that they outnumber them.  Gangs grow every day.  The police forces don't.  The area where I grew up no longer has a police department. If there is a problem, they have to wait for the cops from the next town. 

rbower80

Then maybe the Federal and State and Anti's should concentrate on this more then trying to change our constitution and worrying about what they can do to the law abiding citizens.If they want to fix something you need to start at the root of the problem,not pick and choose and ignore the real situations.What do they expect when they themselves back off on the protection that is needed.Why shouldn't we worry more and more about our protection and being able to protect ourselves.

remnant

One of the pros of gun bans is that it would result in greater gun control enforcement, security services alert and prescence and vigilance as well as a mental shift against reliance on guns as a means of security provision. On the flip side, it can result in some gun owners going underground or create conditions for a black market involving gun running to thrive. This is precisely the same argument that is advanced with regard to banning drugs.

remnant

There are no two sides to the gun control debate in my opinion. Having a gun in the first place would place the power to kill which would be in multiples less than if there were no guns in the first place. Even accidental discharges are enough to discourage gun ownership. A paradigm shift should take place in the direction of preempting violence in general and identifying the triggers that necessitate gun ownership in the first place with a view to mitigate the problems occasioned by gun ownership.

JohnnyHopkins

If we do end up banning personal firearms it will involve a change of the constitution and I agree with your point. If we start changing it so easily then in the future more changes will keep coming. 

BLACKHAWK0701

Well tommigun, to answer your question, gun bans have very negative effects, because the law abiding citisens (im sure i spelled that wrong) turn in there guns, but the criminals dont care about gun laws, and on top of that, they usualy monopalize on gun bans to attack defencless people.

GunNutsNovel1

The second amendment should be viewed for what it is, an historical artifact. Back 240 years ago, it made sense for us to maintain militias. As long as both sides were armed with muskets, there was the real prospect of defending our homes and our country. In today’s world, the second amendment has no place, at least the way Antonin Scalia and his right wing cohorts defined it. The militias that exist today seem to consist of ill-trained guys who live in some sort of fantasy world. There’s a wonderfully funny look at militias in a new novel called “Gun Nuts.”  http://amzn.to/2etsFus 

ChristopherABrown

The thread reads as if no one realizes that people kill people not guns.

Flat out, America needs effective mental health care before it needs gun control, and anyone who thinks otherwise is to blame for gun control and the violations of the second amendment that are upon us.

Dedcemoi

There so many guns out there if that ban gun happen you would never get them all and criminal would get one anyways or use something else if a person wants to do crime murder etc, that means it is only disadvantage don''t have advantage at all.

AskMeAnytime

Ban of guns may cause harm to other people if theyre place is full of bad people. But if there are no bad people in the country, banning of guns can be good.

argel241

Gun is a very effective weapon from attackers and criminals.However, There are good reasons why the gun should be ban.Few reasons are the risk of violence and accidents, especially for the kids.There is news about a kid shooting accidentally his playmate and at a young age, he became a murderer.Sometimes even how responsible you are, still can't avoid the risk of accident it iether you shoot yourself or shoot somebody else.

Alexandoy

When criminality is on the rise like now in our country, a gun ban just makes the situation worse. The so called riding-in-tandem criminals are having their heyday. Aboard the motorcycle, they can easily escape even when there is heavy traffic on the roads. And since the civilians are unarmed, only the cops can stop those armed criminals. When I was young, my father always carried his gun because gun control was not strict yet. Ironically, criminals were not bold and daring because they know that any guy may be armed and could shoot them. Now that only a few carry guns due to the strict laws, armed criminals have the upper hand.

Dedcemoi

In terms of advantage on gun ban, yes it could less the crime but lets face the reality that criminals will always find ways to get gun anyways so there's no point of gun ban, so many things to consider.

GunNut

People dont commit crimes because they have guns, so crime will not decrease because of a lack of guns. You can still rob a store with a baseball bat, commit mass murder with a molotov, murder someone with a hammer, and rape someone at knifepoint. All this does is reduce means of self defense. You cant have a shop owner effectively defend himself with a baseball bat, defend yourself from a mass murderer with a molotov, defend against a murderer with a hammer, or have a small woman defend herself from a rapist with just a knife

HazelDJ

Having gun is good for military men or people who is in charge of the peace and order of a certain place. I said this because they are trained on how to handle a gun. However, having gun for a personal use is a "No" to me. It has a lot of disadvantages to me. I am afraid that somebody will rob and use it for crime. Eventually, I am be blamed for that matter. Another disadvantage of having gun is that I am afraid to commit crime. For me, I pray earnestly to God that He would protect me from undesirable people and situation. So, I may not need a gun for my security. Lastly, I am afraid of the sound of a gun. I am in nervous whenever I heard a gun shot.

HazelDJ

In addition to the above idea, I am neutral for gun ban. For me, as long as it is a necessity such as used for wicked and criminals, I think there is a need to use a gun to preserve the peace of a certain community.

sha30

Gun is have a positive and negative impact im gun used in a bad way its terible but if gun use in a good way its good ithink gun is banned to prevent crime but its hard to do this because many people have a gun even no paper ang not authorized because if yo have a money i think its easy to buy a gun without paper gun baned its possible if all people cooperate to do this but many people scared to report who people have a gun without paper or not authorized because if you report this maybe your life is danger thats why its hard to do this gun banned.

kaisantos2229

How would you imagine a world were guns don't exist? I mean, It's possible if people could only resolve their differences peacefully but in our world that's not the case. To some people owning a gun is empowering and that what makes a gun owner dangerous whether you are a private citizen or in the military it's all the same. Even if you claim you are a responsible gun owner, you cannot still erase the possibility that your gun can hurt someone. Gun ban is good but it would be best if people can stop using gun to solve their problems.

Kakashi2020

There shouldn't be a gun ban in the first place. It's our right to protect ourselves and having a gun gives us the protection we need. It's better if they just make stricter buying rules. Don't sell to undesirables who might commit acts of terrorism or something. Also selling to students and minors of any kind of firearm must be strictly implemented.