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.