Why not a Tarot or Palm reading instead?:dubious: They are just about as reliable as a Polygraph.:rolleyes:
Might as well ban bad thoughts and frowny faces.
What are cops going to do? Will gang members start trouble with silly string and squirt bottles?
If you could disappear every gun in the world today, I’d throw together a zip gun this weekend. Or you could disappear powder. It’d take me more than a weekend to make up a batch. Disappear primers, those are hard to make, then you’d have to go after flint next, then fire.
Whether or not banning them would result in people smiling on their brother, everybody getting together and loving one another right now doesn’t even strike me as an interesting thought experiment. Guns don’t cause violence, hatred, wars, drug addiction, domestic abuse, racism, Republicanism (well, maybe Republicanism)… Banning guns in countries with minimal ownership is possible - I’m fairly sure Great Britain didn’t have 200,000,000+ floating around in private hands, but around here you’ve got to drastically change society first.
Not only is it not a good idea, it’s a very very bad idea.
Still gives an average person a “more even” chance of not being killed immediatley with a bullet, they can have a chance of fighting back. Also, being clubbed or being stabbed with a knife gives you better chances of survival than being shot with a bullet.
No. Or maybe? How much are you going to pay me for the 21 guns you will seize from me? Get over 100k and we’ll talk…
And I disagree with you. So no, I don’t think they should be banned. I don’t believe any one group should have a monopoly on the power that comes from firearm ownership.
Polygraphs are 85% bullshit. There’s a reason why they’re not admissible in court, and even most polygraph proponents will tell you it makes no sense to ask hypothetical questions with them.
Can’t argue with that.
I don’t really see the point of the blood sample (perhaps a DNA swab would be more efficient) but whatever.
Then how would you decide to purchase a gun in the first place? Most people like to try before they buy. That’s why many gun ranges have house weapons that can be borrowed for use on the range.
Certainly, I would be in favor of a law forbidding the lending of guns to otherwise unqualified people.
What about self-defense? What if you’re a cop? Are you saying no police officer should ever draw their weapon when entering a potentially dangerous situation? That kinda defeats the point.
Absent appropriate uses, threatening, shooting and killing with a gun are already serious felonies in most jurisdictions.
That also prevents you from trying other weapons that you don’t yet own.
Don’t let Hollywood fool you. Gun shots are rarely immediately fatal, people more often bleed out if a major blood vessel or organ is damaged enough. Hollowpoints, Glazers, and the like expand the diameter of the projectile to increase the likelyhood of hitting a major vessel or organ, leading to more or faster bleed outs. They may also fragment.
Now take a knife, with a blade 2" wide and 7" long and stab somebody. Are you more or less likely to hit a major blood vessel? How about a machete, slashing the midsection? The main change would be the criminal’s proximity to the victim, and the criminal would therefore probably get more blood on themselves.
why? I don’t think something that’s not considered reliable enough to be used in court should effect people’s rights.
maybe. I don’t see why you should be disqualified for any crime, but violent criminals should probably give up their gun rights.
Probably ok constitutionally, but too big brother for my tastes.
complete nonsense. I can see what you’re trying to accomplish here, but a felony for lending your weapon to someone, even in absence of a crime, is absolutely draconian.
I hope you just forgot to include an exception for self defense here.
again, too intrusive in my opinion. I don’t think it violates the 2nd amendment but I’m just not comfortable with the government getting that involved in the lives of people who aren’t committing any crimes.
I don’t disagree with that, but you said “reduce violence”. By my estimation, fighting back increases violence.
Perhaps you meant “reduce fatalaties”? 
Guns in the wrong hands are a problem. Banning guns won’t solve the problem. It will just transfer the problem to some other implement.
But guns are also a symptom of a much larger, societal problem. Humans may be violent by nature but American society is very violent society, and that’s the real problem. We have a skewed outlook on life that disagreement must be settled by violence more often than not. Television, movies, video games are sell the best when there is violence and mayhem. Even much of our sports is centered around violence (or is it pseudo war?).
Banning guns is impossible, as already pointed out. The real problem is the violence. Find the root causes and go after them.
All firearms? You can have my arquebus when you pry it from my cold dead 15th century hands.
Which is a joke, but a meaningful one. What objection would anyone have regarding my owning of a flint or matchlock gun? Most likely none. So then what about antique firearms? I have several non-functioning (or at least I don’t have the stones to try them) guns that I’ve gotten that were my grandfathers or my great grandfathers guns and they do nothing but look nice and eat into my supply of Hoppes. Wait, those are ok?
Where do you draw the line in your definition of “firearms”? I also have several functioning antique firearms that will (or are at least safe to) fire that I don’t choose to use because of their value, admittedly some of which is novelty. I also have several state of the art modern firearms, but besides the date of manufacture, what’s the difference between an 1873 Colt Single Action Army and a 4th Generation SAA that was made last year?
Your slope is too slippery.
I’m not so sure. What part of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to mandate licensing of gun owners, much less an invasive registration of citizens with photographs and biological information? Remember, the Second Amendment, strictly speaking, is redundant.
Since the magical elimination of guns would reduce hunting by quite a bit, deer populations would explode. Deer already kill more people than any other animal in the US. Traffic fatalities would go up by significantly more than gun-related fatalities would go down.
Farmers would also have to resort to less humane ways of slaughtering livestock.
In VT, guns are everywhere, but the crime rate is almost the lowest in the US. Guns are not the problem.
It’s a simplistic notion, and would be doomed to failure.
Like most simplistic notions, it focuses on one aspect of a multi-faceted issue. It’s tempting to think that all else being equal, our society minus the guns would have less killing/violence/crime/what-have-you. But the fatal flaw, no matter how hypothetical you want to be, is that ALL ELSE WILL NOT BE EQUAL. Some consequences are predictable, some are not (and that can present major problems), but if the elimination of guns were possible and were done, you can be sure that the results would be very disappointing to those who proposed it. To think that you can take guns out of the equation and not have other things change - and for the worse- is naive, in my opinion.
In a word, no.
They’re already banned in places like NYC and Washington and we can clearly see how useless that is. All banning does is make criminals out of legal gun owners, and give the criminals who ignore the ban an edge.
Cite?
Firearms are not banned in NYC. Legally owning a handgun can be a hurdle, though.
Sheesh. You should also ban cars, stairs, swimming pools, baseball bats, knives, and anything else that hurts people.
People who legally own firearms aren’t the ones you need to worry about. It’s the criminals, because guess what, they don’t obey laws anyway.
Let me answer your question with a question…
I’m 39 years old, I have grown up around firearms, started with a Daisy BB gun at 7 years old, shot it under my father’s supervision (and I still have both my eyes), I got my first rifle at 16 (a Marlin Model 25 7-shot bolt action) , and currently have a small collection of firearms, some of which the anti-gunners think are “evil”
I own a Harrington and Richardson single-shot break-barrel .22, a Ruger 10/22 .22 carbine, with 3 10 round magazines, and 2 25 round magazines, a Mossberg Model 500 12-gauge, a Winchester 1894 lever action in 44-40, a CZ-75B 9mm semiauto, and a Kimber Classic II .45 ACP 1911
Number of times I have commited crimes with these firearms; ZERO
Number of times I have raised a firearm against another person; ZERO
Number of animals I have killed with a firearm; one, a potentially rabid fox, and I hated myself for doing so, but I had no choice, a potentially rabid animal around horses,cats, dogs, and small children is an unacceptable risk
Number of negligent discharges I have caused; ZERO
Number of times I have pointed the muzzle in an unsafe direction or in the direction of another person; ZERO
Number of times I have pointed the firearm at something I was unwilling to destroy; ZERO
So; tell me this, OP, WHY do you feel the need to ban/take my guns away, what have I done that warrants such a decision?
and for your edification, here are the “Four Rules” of firearm safety, any responsible shooter sees these rules as absolutely non-negotiable, they are the “Prime Directive” of firearm owners
1; Treat every gun as if it’s loaded (until you have verified it’s status)
2; Never point the firearm at anything you are unwilling to destroy
3; keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire
4; be sure of your target, and what lies beyond it
oh, and to answer the OP, NO, firearms should not be banned, a gun is an inanimate object, nothing more, no more dangerous by itself than a hammer, or screwdriver, or other tool
I do not believe the 4th amendment was intended to give all individuals the right to own whatever kind of firearms they want.
I think guns are generally a terrible thing and that the notion that one needs a gun for self-defense is generally laughable except for professionals who have intense training in how to use them for such purposes. More innocent people are killed by such guns than aspiring criminals (I can’t offer a cite on this but I have never heard of a story where a person who was not a police officer successfully defended their property or life using a gun, and dozens and dozens where a person’s own gun was turned against them, or was involved in an accidental shooting).
However, even though I would never hunt, I respect the legitimate desires of the hunter to pursue his sport. So I wouldn’t support a total gun ban. However, I do think that military weapons should be banned.
Even if you could ban all guns, even the manufacture of them, there would still be guns, just like there are still illegal drugs.