Is banning weapons such a good thing?

[Oxstone]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:

-Pros

• Lower murder rate because knife are less deadly
• Less or even no mass shootings and no accidents like "4 year old killed brother playing with dad weapon"
• Less police kills because policemen don't have to be paranoid as 99% of criminals don't have guns

-Cons

• You're completely at the mercy of your government. You can't do anything against it as angry as you can be
• You have to rely solely on state police, which can be great but only if it's efficient

Problem to me is that the submissive state of the population is really a huge red flag. When I see how powerless European citizens are currently...
When you got riots government just increase number of policemen...

Would you support freedom of weapons trade in a European country without weapons? Considering freedom of trade doesn't mean without huge regulations of course.

[1714048705]

1714048705

[1714048705]

1714048705

[Spendulus]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see....

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

[Wananavu99]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment, with that being said, we need to at least shore up some loopholes that currently exist, especially for people that have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, these people should not have access to a weapon.  I believe there are laws already in place to address this, but the authorities at the Federal and at many State levels are just incompetent or do not enforce the current laws.  

Boggles my mind that many on the left want to ban certain weapons like the Armalite AR-15, its a semi-auto rifle, which means there is no selective fire, thus it's not an "assault weapon".  I have an AR-15 that fires the 5.56 and 223 calibers and an AR-10 that fires the 308 and also the 7.62×51 NATO, (the 7.62x51 can chamber into a 308 rifle, but technically they're slightly different and I'm not gonna go into the details here).

I also conceal carry where I can, but lawfully and I never intend on breaking any laws such as conceal carrying on a university campus (state law) or at a post office (federal law).  When going to the post office, I always park across the street and never on postal property and leave my weapon in my car and then go mail my boxes or whatever.  My guns are always locked away in safes and ammo in gun cabinets.  These are in two separate rooms, and the only guns that are chambered are the ones in my bedroom safe.  

Freedom shouldn't be subverted because the collective says so! No sir, freedom is born out of free will, and free will is the greatest gift our creator endowed us with.  It's how we use our free will that will determine our destiny and future.  At present, we should continue to have guns to defend ourselves and our families until the time where human consciousness rises to the next level.

[cizatext]

Freedom of weapons is just like total liberty to man oppression and the rate of killing will increase because any one can have access to weapons but once there is regulations of weapons the government can now do their regulations work to minimize the rate of crime in the society.

[Flying Hellfish]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment, with that being said, we need to at least shore up some loopholes that currently exist, especially for people that have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, these people should not have access to a weapon.  I believe there are laws already in place to address this, but the authorities at the Federal and at many State levels are just incompetent or do not enforce the current laws.  

Boggles my mind that many on the left want to ban certain weapons like the Armalite AR-15, its a semi-auto rifle, which means there is no selective fire, thus it's not an "assault weapon".  I have an AR-15 that fires the 5.56 and 223 calibers and an AR-10 that fires the 308 and also the 7.62×51 NATO, (the 7.62x51 can chamber into a 308 rifle, but technically they're slightly different and I'm not gonna go into the details here).

I also conceal carry where I can, but lawfully and I never intend on breaking any laws such as conceal carrying on a university campus (state law) or at a post office (federal law).  When going to the post office, I always park across the street and never on postal property and leave my weapon in my car and then go mail my boxes or whatever.  My guns are always locked away in safes and ammo in gun cabinets.  These are in two separate rooms, and the only guns that are chambered are the ones in my bedroom safe.  

Freedom shouldn't be subverted because the collective says so! No sir, freedom is born out of free will, and free will is the greatest gift our creator endowed us with.  It's how we use our free will that will determine our destiny and future.  At present, we should continue to have guns to defend ourselves and our families until the time where human consciousness rises to the next level.

Now I need to have a flamethrower, grenades, land mines and I might as well get a few RPG's in case you get a gunship or drone or something cool to defend myself against someone as armed as you are.  eventually we all need nukes to protect ourselves!  I am 99.9999% sure you are not a threat to me but what if the guy coming to get me IS that well armed, I need to be better armed.  You only need to look at the cold war to see that arms escalation on a global scale leads to a metric fuck ton of wasted money and time, on top of producing thousands of nukes that need to be maintained and eventually disposed of...

[Spendulus]

....
Now I need to have a flamethrower, grenades...

FAIL at attempt using logical error, reducto ad absurd.

Want to actually try to support your position, or is it simply ridiculous?

[darklus123]

It is really very hard to justify if to either ban weapons or not. It is because not banning weapons can really help in a situation that you did not expect to as your protection.

My take on this is that since there are really license gun owners that are responsible enough. It only means that the rule should really have to be critical in this. All type of tests should be performed for all the applicants because what is really happening now is there are a lot of corruption and that was really causing the real problem

[hardhardy]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:

-Pros

• Lower murder rate because knife are less deadly
• Less or even no mass shootings and no accidents like "4 year old killed brother playing with dad weapon"
• Less police kills because policemen don't have to be paranoid as 99% of criminals don't have guns

-Cons

• You're completely at the mercy of your government. You can't do anything against it as angry as you can be
• You have to rely solely on state police, which can be great but only if it's efficient

Problem to me is that the submissive state of the population is really a huge red flag. When I see how powerless European citizens are currently...
When you got riots government just increase number of policemen...

Would you support freedom of weapons trade in a European country without weapons? Considering freedom of trade doesn't mean without huge regulations of course.

US States with gun control have slightly worse gun crime stats than states with no gun control laws.
Data shows that even the most obvious PRO in your list is actually all that real.
Maybe it works for some European countries, but now that everyone in the States already has guns, it would lead to nothing good.

[Lanzer]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see....

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

3d printing ? you mean 3d printing module ? its likely toys maybe

[bitmover]

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

The issue is that some people, maybe even most of them,  try to be correct and right, and don't wanna print a fire weapon at home if it is illegal to have one.

If guns are banned in a country, only criminals will be allowed to have them . If you have one, yo are a criminal.

That's the situation in Brazil now, and many other countries, like Venezuela.

[Spendulus]

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

The issue is that some people, maybe even most of them,  try to be correct and right, and don't wanna print a fire weapon at home if it is illegal to have one.
...

I think you mean, that statement is true except when it isn't true.

Any number of cases can be cited. Rampant ethnic cleansing in a country torn apart would be one example.

[bitmover]

I think you mean, that statement is true except when it isn't true.

No, I am saying its not true. It's the same as buying an illegal weapon.

[Spendulus]

I think you mean, that statement is true except when it isn't true.

No, I am saying its not true. It's the same as buying an illegal weapon.

Fine. Now we understand your position, and you are wrong. You replied to this statement of mine...

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

... with a misdirection to the LEGALITY of 3d printed weapons.

The reason you are wrong is that a population with general purpose 3d printers can literally overnight possess a massive number of firearms.

Having said that, I understand your point, but you are still not correct. For example, in the USA, there are specific exemptions to federal firearms licensing for firearms a person has manufactured himself.

Going back to the original question, let's review it again. Post #1.

I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

And I replied "I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required."

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment, with that being said, we need to at least shore up some loopholes that currently exist, especially for people that have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, these people should not have access to a weapon.  I believe there are laws already in place to address this, but the authorities at the Federal and at many State levels are just incompetent or do not enforce the current laws.   ....

Those laws are incompetently vague and useless. There is a specific issue regarding the prescription of certain psychoactive drugs for treatment of certain illness. People that take these, the risk of their going ape if and when they miss their meds literally skyrockets.

I don't think there are any laws in place that covers this issue.

[jjjfff]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment

Random off-topic comment here: the traditional meaning of "liberal" is that you do not want regulation.

Being socially liberal means you do not want religion and  tradition to tell you how you should behave socially (sexuality, marriage, religion and so on).

Being financially liberal means you do not want the State telling you how to spend your money.

So liberalism is the ideology of less control.

Strangely though this does not apply to guns.

When you say you're a liberal in the context of gun control, it means you want State control of guns.

Just a random observation.

[Spendulus]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment

Random off-topic comment here: the traditional meaning of "liberal" is that you do not want regulation.

Being socially liberal means you do not want religion and  tradition to tell you how you should behave socially (sexuality, marriage, religion and so on).

Being financially liberal means you do not want the State telling you how to spend your money.

So liberalism is the ideology of less control.

Strangely though this does not apply to guns.

When you say you're a liberal in the context of gun control, it means you want State control of guns.

Just a random observation.

That definition of "liberal" has not applied in the USA since the 1960s. It's progressively moved toward control, and now is attempted minute control of every aspect of life. Speech, sexuality, yes including "approved" religions or not. Guns was one of the first things they went for starting in the 1980s.

[3acaga]

I believe that every creature on our planet protects itself and its loved ones - therefore I am negative about the law on the prohibition of weapons.
There are many cases when the state cannot protect in time ...

[criza]

Weapons are undeniably deadly. And if its deadly, should it automatically and necessarily needs to be banned? Well, personally, I believe that we must have the right to protect ourselves but what is more important is the safety of many more than some. I think that the government should not totally ban the possession of weapons but should only control and regulate the ownership of those weapons. Criteria and qualifications should be cleared out for those who are in need with the weapon possesion and ownership. But more than this issue, one thing that the govenrment should give emphasis and focused on is the security and safety pf the whole, as a whole, so that people will not be in argue regarding banning of weapons since they feel that they are all living in a safe community.

[Spendulus]

Weapons are undeniably deadly. ...the govenrment should give emphasis and focused on is the security and safety pf the whole, as a whole, so that people will not be in argue regarding banning of weapons since they feel that they are all living in a safe community.

I think we can show easily many cases where a government looked the other way instead of doing it's job and protecting the people.

Rape of women in India has been a continuing issue, hasn't it?

They go to the police department to report it and then get it a second time, gang raped by the police officers.

[mOgliE]

That definition of "liberal" has not applied in the USA since the 1960s. It's progressively moved toward control, and now is attempted minute control of every aspect of life. Speech, sexuality, yes including "approved" religions or not. Guns was one of the first things they went for starting in the 1980s.

Yeah but it's not the fault of the rest of the world if USA speaks American and not English 

In the whole world liberal qualifies people not wanting regulation. That's more an economical term most of the time but whatever the subject liberal = deregulation.

[ClockworkTrader]

You can`t ban guns completely, there is always black market - is a person wants to get a gun, he or she will manage to do it regardless.
More measures shall be implemented to regulate it, for example improved and regular psychological testing.
But even if it is effective, more and more people will raise to protest: it is a threat to their freedom, they won`t be consent with more regulations.