Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Unlike other pro-gun people, I personally don't think there would be a civil war if guns were banned, at least not anything major. However, It would still be terribly ineffective, potentially even making problems.

The are more firearms than there are people in the U.S. and there is a strong following behind it. What would happen if something with a strong following and was already in circulation got banned? We do not need a theoretical answer for that: History had already proven it. Through 1920-1933 alcohol was banned throughout the US. The wide spread love of alcohol resulted in black markets appearing everywhere, so much so that many police forces couldn't deal with handling the sheer amount of illegal businesses. Mobsters took advantage of these illegal businesses, and organized crime skyrocketed.

I believe something similar would happen if we tried to ban guns. Crude, automatic SMGs can be built using parts in a hardware store, and with the advent of 3D printing more advanced guns can be home made. Printers that are capable of printing metal are especially capable of this, being able to build an entire M911 out off blocks of metal (and maybe plastic for the grip).

What do you guys think?

People would bitch a lot on the Internet.

Well, it would take the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, which would take 2/3's of congress to agree on and write the repeal amendment followed by 38 of the 50 states ratifying it. If it can get through all that without a mass riot/civil war breaking out, I'd think we're good.

I'm not sure anyone is calling for the ban of all guns

No one except for the craziest soccer moms are because anyone with half a brain cell can tell it's never going to happen.

Most pro-gun control people are calling for better regulation of gun sales, up to making all guns licensed purchase only, and the banning of high power/high rate of fire rifles. Pro-gun people hear that as "ban guns" and go nuts.

Side note: No one on the pro-gun control side is calling for a long term plan to reduce the number of unlicensed and over all guns in the country to an amount comparable to other first world countries alongside their ban/license ideas, because they think gun regulation and an AR-15 ban will make them all evaporate or something.

I am not suggesting people are calling that. It is just what I think would theoretically would happen if guns were some how banned.

Civil war part deux.

"The are more firearms than there are people in the U.S. and there is a strong following behind it."

According to an NPR interview regarding gun ownership research (https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds), a mere 3% of the population owns 50% of the guns.

Its like the 1% club for gunowners, 'cept they're 3% and they spent all their money on guns and can't afford class.

I could see massive amounts of lobbying and some rioting.

Considering how highly unlikely such a thing would happen (with the whole Constitution thing, ya'know), it probably wouldn't end well.

If they were to do so the next election cycle would be an absolute slaughter for either side. A in essence political suicide move as their opponents would capitalize on this as "my opponents are against your freedom to defend yourself and your family".

The black market would also boom like crazy, and if anything we'd see a rise in crimes such as home invasion and robbery, like what was seen in the UK, due to all the criminals with guns knowing their targets we're not armed to stop them. It removes a risk factor that goes in to a lot of these fast kinds of crime.

People would complain a lot, but nothing would come of all that complaining. There wouldn't be a civil war, there wouldn't be mass shootings by people refusing to give up their guns.

These threads are hot.

Ban guns and we have people running around with flamethrowers, "magnetic pulse rays" <--not real, crossbows, ect..

Ban ALL weapons together and what do we have: A fist (your own naturally grown appendage)

link
link
link

Can you see the balancing act that politicians have to preform when major issues of mass shootings and personal protection are concerned. It really is difficult.

They use other weapons. Probably.

But what happens if they're balled for real? Meaning that absolutely no one will be wielding them without exceptions.

Here's another question. Suppose the 2nd amendment is repealed, how would the government collect the 300 million guns already here? 4th Amendment prohibits a country-wide gun siege. How long would it actually take to rid the US of guns? I say there is no way they're getting all of them and apporx. 5 million will remain, and it will take a generation to get that far.

It doesn't take an exhaustive search of recent op-ed articles and editorials to see that there are PLENTY of ignorant folks who do in fact believe that a ban of all guns is the answer to all their problems. In reality, it advances a political agenda and the rhetoric is clear that the anti gun crowd would love nothing more than to ban all guns.

How about instead we look at the root of the problems… Look at the statistics… Guns are blamed in thousands of deaths each year, and get lots of publicity… but how many of those where suicides done by folks who would have killed themselves some other way if they didn't have a gun? In reality, other social problems like drunk drivers, not wearing seat belts, teen drug use, aids, child neglect, team sports injuries, and others have a far greater death toll and impact on our society than heinous acts of gun violence (which by comparison are relatively rare).

If we are worried about preventing school shootings, then instead of taking guns away from law abiding citizens (in which case the bad guys would still have the guns… because after all, what difference does a new law make to them? they still won't abide by it) how about we train and arm our teachers, or at least give them the opportunity to take extensive firearm and self defense training like the police do, and then after a rigorous background check, we give them a special license that allows the teacher to carry a concealed weapon on campus that they could use in the event they had to protect themselves or their students. None of these school shootings would have ever happened if the "bad guys" had met an armed resistance. But instead, they went into the schools KNOWING without a doubt that there would be not one firearm on the premises that could be used to stop them.

In reality, if you ban guns…
1. the law abiding folks would likely relinquish their firearms, and would be defenseless.
2. bad guys would still have guns.

Doesn't make any sense to disarm the law abiding public, to create a black market for guns which would continue to arm robbers, rapists, and terrorists…. who then could harm the law abiding public without fear of resistance.

Lets think about other things which are currently banned…

1. illegal drugs are banned… but people (id bet even some people in the Anti Gun crowd) use them. Guess what, lots of people die each year due to drug use, drug manufacturing, or drug trafficking. EVEN THOUGH IT IS ILLEGAL

2. Driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal… but again, I would bet that we could find plenty of examples of even respected politicians and others on the anti gun side who are guilty of this, even if they didn't get caught. Im sorry, but a drunk driver is FAR more dangerous than the average sportsman who owns firearms.

3. Murder is illegal… dare I say it is even "banned"… but yet people still do it, and they even use other means than guns. Just read up on some of the mass murders in Japan recently… a country where guns are banned, but where the "bad guys" just use knives, swords, noxious gas, or sabotage to kill people.