More than a discussion based on reality, this thread is meant to be an argument on whether something that would be practically impossible to do would in fact be a good thing, at least in theory.
I dissagree with the whole notion of people having the “right to bear arms” regardless of what the constitution says.
The old saying goes “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Well, true–ish.
I believe if all firearms were banned, the world would be better off. Sure, thefts and murder will continue to happen, but without guns, things become a little more complicated for thieves and/or criminals.It would make killing and stealing from people more difficult.
There are lots of perspectives of this issue. Although we know banning all types of firearms is impossible, would it be a good thing to do (all in theory of course)?
What do you, fellow doper, think about this issue? Would banning firearms be a good thing? Why or why not?
Why don’t we ban bad people? Or Republicans? Or cars? Totally impossible to do, and stupid on top of that. Exactly who is going to enforce this ban? Jesus? Sam Colt made all men equal, and that is a Good Thing. Get rid of guns and the world belongs to the biggest and strongest again. No thank you. Your premise is flawed on so many levels.
Even if we were able to ban them all, every single one of them, gather them all up and destroy them in front of witnesses, there would be new ones within a week. Making a firearm is no trick for a skilled machinist, and as such it would be quite tempting (and quite lucrative) for that person to start making them on the side. Of course, that would also demonstrate a truism of gun violence, that when guns are banned only criminals will have guns, but that’s neither here nor there.
Ultimately you can ban them all you want, but when you do guns will achieve the status of banned drugs- no matter how hard you try you’ll never be able to stop the trade of them.
The OP made it clear he or she sees a banning as impossible, and is asking what people think in the hypothetical case. Why do people always have such trouble grasping this type of thread, and have to explain why the hypothetical situation is impossible, even though it was already clearly declared as such in the OP?
To answer the OP, yes, I think it would be a good thing. I believe violent deaths would be reduced, and I do not believe that the populace having weapons is any kind of effective safeguard against government tyranny, at least not for while now.
Banning firearms is the right thing to do for society, but would be completely impractical to carry out. The cost to society of gun ownership, including crimes committed with guns and accidental shootings, clearly outweigh the benefits. How many mass shootings have we had in schools in the US over the past 20 years? Countries with strict gun ownership laws, such as the UK, seem to manage just fine without every street thug having the ability to blow your brains out. Sure there will always be crime, by the empowerment a gun gives someone makes killing far too easy. As a friend of mine in the criminal justice system once told me, it’s much harder, both physically and psychologically, to strangle or stab someone to death than to stand 20 feet away and pull a trigger.
THe OP set up a hypothetical case where conditions were right for banning guns, not magically eliminating them. Banning guns just means making them illegal.
And I’m with Airman Doors. The gun as an equalizer and enforcement device in society prevents the tyranny of the strong. Plus, they’re wicked fun to shoot.
So, we’re assuming that all the world’s firearms disappear, by magic or something, and never appear again. Okay, I’ll play.
I reckon that there would be an immediate reduction in homicides. I believe, however, that certain crimes against persons would increase, particularly home invasions and violent crimes against women and the elderly. Certain criminals would be emboldened by the certain knowledge that victims that appear helpless are in fact helpless.
I think there’s a possibility that gang violence would actually increase. It’s just a guess, but it seems to me that, without firearms, gangs will have to become larger in order to accomplish their goals, move in larger groups, that sort of thing. You can terrorize a house full of people with a drive-by shooting with three guys in a car; with no guns, you’d need maybe twelve to thirty people to rush the house and take out everybody at once hand to hand.
The lack of firearms would cripple the police and cut their apparent authority drastically.
In rural areas, predators would start moving back in, feeding off livestock and having a pretty easy existence. Certain vermin species would be nigh-uncontrollable.
On the plus side, I suppose there’ll be a surplus of leather and nylon formerly used for holsters. Hooray for cheap shoes!
I see nothing in the OP stating that guns would cease to exist, other than “Sure, thefts and murder will continue to happen, but without guns, things become a little more complicated for thieves and/or criminals”, which seems to me to imply a feeling that thieves and/or criminals are using legally-purchased guns to perform their crimes. Instead, the OP was asking about if guns were banned. Not disintegrated.
I believe that this would be a terrific boon for the medical industry because there would be, as I stated above, many more people injured without being killed in robberies and domestic arguments than there are currently.
I also believe that our over-filled jails would continue to be over-filled, and people found to have guns would probably get more fairly soon after being released.
Do guns magically disappear? Can new guns be made? Are police and military guns gone too?
If we are talking about a SM Stirlings quasi-magic “Dies the Fire” where powder just doesn’t explode anymore, then bows and swords and stuff just take their place.
Now if we are just talking a ban?
Gun bans do not seem to reduce violent crime in a significant way. They just turn to other sources of guns or use other weapons.
I’m assuming this means that hunting with firearms will now be illegal, only bowhunting. And farmers and ranchers aren’t allowed shotguns to control varmints.
So given a total ban on all firearms, can police officers carry guns? Park rangers? How about soldiers?
Guns are just a physical manifestation of our violent nature. If you could wave a magic wand and make every firearm on earth disappear, people would still bludgeon, stab and beat one another.
Ban them or don’t ban them - it doesn’t make much difference.
They don’t need to be banned. There just needs to be very strict guidelines.
For instance:
You must pass a basic polygraph asking hypothetical questions regarding harming others or committing crimes.
You must have a clean criminal background. Qualifications may vary.
You must be fingerprinted, photographed, and a blood sample be taken from you when applying for a gun license. You’re photograph and finger print will be uploaded to a firearms owners public database. This database will be used in order to verify your identity when purchasing a weapon or ammunition.
4, You may not lend your firearms to others. In a case you do it, would be considered a felony for both you and the person borrowing the weapon.
If you use your weapon to threaten, shoot, or kill anyone, the sentence would be a minimum of 3 years.
You may only purchase ammunition for weapons you own, which are registered to you. Also, you must present your ID, gun license, and fingerprint for any transactions involving the purchase firearms or ammunition to verify your identity along with a list of current firearms you own.
uncreative rap artists who make a career out of rehashing NWA’s material from the 90’s pack up & go home
Negatives:
increase in other forms of violent crime
sudden disappearance of multi-billion dollar industry from our economy
damage to various local ecologies as various game animals suddenly balloon in population, overeat their food sources, etc.
complete dependence on government agents for defense of rights causes degradation of rights in communities with corrupt, inept, or underfunded governments.
No more Penn & Teller Catch a Bullet in Your Teeth trick.
Neutral:
News media continues to chase ratings by pursuing the most shocking, depressing stories out there, and find no shortage of human depravity to terrorize the public with. The average American non-gun-owner feels not one bit safer in this country than he did before the gun ban.
I did state in my original post the word “ban”, but in fact, I should have stated “completely dissapeared”. As in eliminating all guns, not simply making them illegal.
But for discussion purposes, feel free to address either the banning of all guns or the (hypothetical) elimination of all guns.
This is not made into a pit thread because my feelings about this subject is not particularly strong enough for me to start fighting about it. I just honestly think that no guns existing would reduce violence.
Surely you don’t mean this. Humans will grab any old thing to administer a beat-down on one another. If they don’t have a gun they’ll use rocks and sticks. Wasn’t there a domestic-violence case recently where one of the parents hit the other one with the baby?