Can someone explain how banning guns would work?

Can someone explain how banning guns would work?

Murder is already banned, but all those kids got murdered anyway. It doesn't seem reasonable to think that banning guns would somehow stop it.

congratulations you already have an iq higher than the average 5 year old aka liberal

lets ban oxygen and water too.

people always find a way dumbass.

look at Australia, declining homicide after banning guns..

Nobody wants to fucking ban guns completely. That's a cuck straw man. People just want sensible gun laws like Canada has.

>Bombing public property is already banned
Let's just unban owning HEs, people are going to blow shit up anyway if they truly intend to.

Move to Canada ya cuck

I'm not American, but I hope your gun laws never change. Every time one of you morons goes on a spree and kills a bunch of your children and you refuse to do anything about it, the easier it is to roast you fucking idiots. American lives are worthless.

the constitution guarantees the people the right to bear arms

it does not guarantee people the right to never be murdered

>I'm not American
Where are you from?

Bullshit. Liberals are bombarding MSM with gun “collection” program proposals and shit like that. Of course that’ll never happen but the fucking libby’s want it to.

It’s funny how much Restoftheworld-Istan cares about the U.S., but how unrequited it is.

Wales. Honestly the states are just a joke to us now.

thats not true
you can still by guns in Australia and there safety measures are about the same as ours

If by 'caring' you mean watching your retarded manchild president make you all look like mooks on national television while you mass murder each other in public schools

Is it a constitutional right or a good given right?

>Police state faggots still have homicides on the daily

No user, you're the joke.
Go check your violent crime rates increase after you banned guns.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

in general a ban or heavier restrictions on guns and gun types will mean statistically there will be less mass shootings.

Now it won't stop mass shootings from happening but it does lower the chance and frequency of them happening.
It also has a flow on effect of also limiting the amount of damage caused in the even of a mass shooting too since they're more likely to be weilding a gun that isn't built to take out several ppl per clip.

It's like pot. They banned it and so nobody can get any. Like prohibition stopped all alcohol.
It's just common sense. Ban guns and magically no guns exist any more and everyone will be nice and polite and live happy ever after.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? Yes. How about in comparison to other deaths? Not really.
All death of course, is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

Don't worry. I'll protect your feelings from the mean scawy wiberals.

there is declining homicide rate in the US too

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."

How retarded can you be?

Argentinean here, our last school shooter was in 2004 and we got and attempt last year but the girl just kill herself and leave metal gear solid in the backpack

If the country has gun laws it's hard to get a gun

Harder to get guns=less killers


Guns are not part of our society like the retarded north americans

I really think you overestimated how much I care. The US has been a joke for many years, and you fat dipshits will continue to fuel laughs in the rest of the civilized world for many more.

and how do you make getting a hold of them more difficult in a country with 300 million of them?

>Harder to get guns=less killers
Being this fucking stupid.
Argentina had a murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000 population with a significant lower amount of guns than the U.S.
Check this anons image.

this doesnt look to good for you

The best analogy I can think of in the case of gun violence is vehicular homicide. When a person gets behind the wheel while intoxicated and causes a fatality, do we can cars? Do we outlaw alcohol? No, we hold the driver solely at fault because of his decision to err. This is not the guns fault. It is simply the sad outcome when instability meets murder.

we are of one mind it seems

Keep projecting, if you didn't care you wouldn't have made an initial post and certainly wouldn't have responded to me.

Because America is fucked in the brain.

Enjoy your McDonalds, dead kids and oompa loompa president m8

>McDonalds

what fuck backwards country are you in that doesn't have a McDonald?

I thought you didn't care user, why are you still responding to me?

and how many mass shootings per capita to other western nations suffer annually? Bans work

murder isn't banned

it's punishable

Kek

Why do people only look at shootings?
Why not homicides?
Why not violent crimes?
If a rapist knows the county is a gun free zone, is he more likely to go rape a woman there or not?
Now switch it up, is he likely to go into a town that has a sign heading in that says this town advocates gun owning and self protection, would he be more likely to head on in and break into the first home to rape the woman inside?
lol

Banning guns prevents their sale making them much harder to acquire and transport thus making it harder to commit a mass shooting.

Your question is as retarded as saying why ban murder if people will murder anyway.

>and transport thus making it harder to commit a mass shooting.
Criminals will still commit crimes though, correct?
Criminals will still make their own weapons if needed, correct?
The only thing that will do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons.

>spot the close minded libtard

rights are not given by invisible flying jews

>because school shooting are so spontaneous
fucking retard logic again

if people want to kill, they will kill

>do we ban cars?
This seems like a flawed arguement. I'm not saying I support banning guns, just pointing out that I hate hearing this arguement.
We require cars to get around this large country, their main purpose is to get from point a to point b. Guns are primarily designed for injuring and killing things, not for something benign like transportation.
We don't require guns in the hands of most individuals to function as a society, people like them for hunting and sport.
Sport and target shooting is kind of silly though, you could just use air rifles for targets or something nonlethal.

A more apt arguement is knives or axes or something, but even those serve an obviously more practicle function than guns.

It'll make it much harder to do all that.

I have an idea why not legalize child pornography? People are gonna make it anyway right?

>submachine gun
kek

Sorry reality hurts.

...

ban high capacity flash drives that can hold over six million CP photos

no one needs a flash drive to hold that many CP photos

also ban cameras that can take photos of children with no government oversight

Australia hasn't banned guns, only placed very heavy restrictions.

Their murder rate has dropped by about 20% since their gun restrictions.

Over the same time period, the United States' murder rate has dropped by more than half.

Over that same time period, the number of legal guns in the US has more than doubled.

Tell me, if guns cause crime, how could it be that in the US, murder and violent crime have dropped by more than half despite the number of guns doubling?

>reality

Banning guns won't do shit. It's like saying banning drugs = no drug abuse.
We need to fix the root cause of the problem which is failed parenting and bad company. The internet is also contributing via mobbing and other toxic and fucked up stuff.
Just look back a few decades. It was nowhere near as bad as it is right now. And it's getting worse every year. Sure as hell not because of guns, doh

I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you. If gun sales were restricted it would make it harder for school shooters to acquire firearms. Read that slowly a few times over. Maybe you'll understand

in other countries people are generally more peaceful

Maybe not stop, and maybe not even decrease premeditated events, but decreasing ease of access and lethal availability undoubtly decreases the risk of spur of the moment self inflicted violence.

When the UK phased out coal gas ovens suicides dropped by a third, as approximately half the suicides at the time were performed via head in the oven style methods.

>We require cars to get around this large country
We require guns/weapons to keep our governments in check, history doesn't lie.
> their main purpose is to get from point a to point b.
A gun is just a tool, meant to push a bullet from pint A to point B.
>Guns are primarily designed for injuring and killing things
IE. protection/Survival, yes.
>We don't require guns in the hands of most individuals to function as a society
Wrong, history proves we need weapons to keep governments in check.
>Sport and target shooting is kind of silly though
You started your opinion with a fallacy though, it's not about hunting or sport at all in regards to the Constitution, it's about protection.
>A more apt arguement is knives or axes or something
More people are murdered every year in America by stabbing and fists than they do from rifles.

>It'll make it much harder to do all that.
UK's violent crime went up after they banned guns user, the criminals knew those people were NOW UNARMED.

Yeah because that works great in countries with very strict gun laws.

That's more akin to banning industrial equipment used to produce firearms than firearms itself.

We're not discussing the means by which firearms or child pornography is produced but the end product, it's okay I get it though, logic is hard

That isn't true at all. It takes about 6 months to get your first firearm because you need a license, although easier after you have it. You must have a gun safe at an appropriate weight or bolted to the floor and I have heard that the police will from time to time randomly rock up at your house to make sure everything is fine.

We havent had a mass shooting since 1996.

All of this works though because we have no right to guns. So to do this, murrica needs to ditch the 2nd.

They tarted slitting their wrists and hanging themselves instead though.
You didn't minimize anything.

So your argument is if you can't stop something completely you shouldn't try at all?
Fucking autists

Lol That you guys need to keep watch at schools like you're girls in Pakistan trying to go to school? Malala called she wants her gig back.

You think your country doesn't have mass shootings is because of a floor safe?

Nice try ED frequenting kid from America trying his first trole

Best solution is let Americans keep their guns but make the bullets $200 for each one.
That way Americans keep there guns and gun manufacturers make a shit tonne of profit.

It wouldn't work, because America's a fucking rancid country that is so far from redemption that no amount of banning or mental health care will ever fix your degenerate population. Get defensive, I don't give a fuck, most of you are retarded.

Your bodies of government are so shamelessly self-motivated and unreliable that the conservatives and gun-sucking hicks are right, you DO need to protect yourselves, from yourselves, by assuring suburban mutually assured destruction where everyone is pocketing a gun.

Your country's idea of curing the mentally unstable is to put them on a cocktail of medication their family can barely afford, only to have it backfire because it's fucking with their head even further. There's no hope for you clowns.

Checkmate.

/thread

source please

How many mass shootings have say..japan, China or Australia had?

>Fucking owned

notice that most (not all, but most) countries with homicide index below 2.0 have stricter gun control laws than USA

>Stricter gun laws = less guns overall
>less guns overall = less guns on the market
>less guns on the market = less guns on the black market
>less guns on the black market = higher price on the black market
>higher price on the black market = less illegal guns

Your point by point arguements are a bit pedantic.
Of course a gun is a tool for pushing a bullet from point a to point b. But you don't ride the bullet around to get to work, the bullet is to injure, kill or destroy it's target, as you agree upon in your next point.
I don't really have any opinion on if guns are needed to keep our government in check.
My only point is that comparing it to cars is a silly arguement, as one is designed with lethality in mind, and the other is designed with transportation in mind.

Even knives and axes have other purposes. A better comparison is knives specifically designed to be lethal like stilettos, switchblades, and the like.

>coal gas ovens suicides dropped by a third
10/10 my sides left low earth orbit

Not a difficult concept. Full auto machine guns are already banned in most cases. You can't go out and buy a 6000 rpm minigun, and most people agree you shouldn't be able to.

This is just expanding the amount of banned guns. Or at least making them harder to get. It's an extension of a very easy to understand concept. Even if you don't agree it's not the alien libtard whatever right wing buzzword things morons would have you think.


Personally I think raising semi-auto buying age to at least 21 except vets, and strong enforcement of background checks is a good start. Can buy an AR-15 over age of 25 seems reasonable, unless a veteran, then 18.

None of this touches on violent crime rates going down though. It's quite literally the opposite user.

...

I welcome the debate user. I would simply remind you of the fact that regimes like mao's and Stalin's would have resulted in far less state sanctioned murder had they not been sure the population could not arm themselves.

You must be mentally handicapped if you think your AR-15 is making the government scared. They have predator drones and Abrams you fucking mongs

>You didn't minimize anything.
Of course I didn't, I had nothing to do with it.
>They tarted slitting their wrists and hanging themselves instead though.
Yes, they started using other methods to off themselves, but overall suicides decreased by roughly a third. It's a lot easier to work up the courage to kill yourself when the method is quick, painless, and readily on hand when you are depressed, like gas or a bullet to the head.

>Personally I think raising semi-auto buying age to at least 21 except vets
How can you justify this though?
Active military only get so much time on the range and practice with their weapons.
Studies show civilian gun owners get out and fire their weapons more often, so your argument is pretty moot and baseless.
>Can buy an AR-15 over age of 25 seems reasonable, unless a veteran, then 18.
Retarded.

The government point is moot anyway. We'd all get drone striked from 20k feet if civil war did pop off.

>get in a car or bus or whatever
>drive through a bunch of school kids
>???
>profit
No guns needed. Not even pipe bombs or other deadly weapons

And that might be true, again I have no arguement I want to put forth on gun rights.
Just that I kind of hate the comparison to cars as they aren't really anything alike in their primary function or design goals.

nigga you so dumb - I'm not the shitposter saying the stupid "car kill too" argument.

your ignorance is showing

That's fine, you carry on. We've our seats and bags of popcorn.

I wrote about licensing an restrictions and what you took from that was a floor safe?
It's really difficult to acquire guns here and next to impossible to buy a semi auto anything. You also have to prove you have a use for the firearm like a club, security work, sport or farm.

Then why'd you quote me to argue against my points?
My only point was that comparing guns to cars is an unfair and silly arguement.

You ban the guns, then cross your fingers the Pax Americana holds together and your country doesn't fall into dictatorship, because if America goes, there's nobody there to stop it and that's all she wrote for Earth.

and they aren't given by the government either

Because most school shooters are under the age of 21. And by 25, you start to calm down from being a fucking hot-head young moron. Most murderers are under the age of 26, and that drops every year.

The vet or active duty argument is the same as why they can drink on base under 21, if you are saying they can go overseas and shoot guns and literally shoot kids in the head in extreme cases, then they can drink a beer or have a gun here. Again, easy concept.

then on all accords the fda should ban food product, cigarettes/alcohol and the dot should ban transportation.. all of which cause significantly more deaths..

or we could enforce capital punishment for all 50 and watch these sickos stop doin stupid shit out of fear.. instead od giving them free food, shelter and education on taxpayer dime

>Of course I didn't, I had nothing to do with it.
Great way to not address my point, you fucking retard.

Historically, a generally downward trend in suicide rates was observed between 1981 and 2007, with a decrease from 14.7 to 10.0 deaths per 100,000 population (see Figure 1). Suicide rates began to increase in 2008 – peaking at 11.1 deaths per 100,000 in 2013, before dropping slightly in 2014 to 10.8 deaths per 100,000.

Looks like the trend was happening anyways.

if guns get banned i'll just grow one on a tree

checkmate liberals

Now use your brain. Do you think it's because of the gun laws or because Asian countries and Australia monitor their citizens and visitors very closely? Good luck finding lowborne Muslims or other kind of criminal niggers in Asia

>Because most school shooters are under the age of 21. And by 25
So, you're going to punish legal law abiding citizens because of a tiny niche of crimes?

Capital punishment won't stop school shooters you retard, the majority of them are suicide missions anyway