If banning guns saved lives, would you be in favor of it?

Hypothetically speaking, if banning guns reduced crime and gun violence by 50%, would you be in favor of it?

No.  The principle of a person having a right to defend themselves on a relatively equal footing to criminals is sound.  Whether or not the statistics showed a collective lowering of gun deaths is not the issue.  

it  always has to come down to a total blanket ban, or a limitless free-for-all in these debates doesn't it.

Banning cars would probably save a lot of lives too. Why not ban those?famicommander

I don't have an answer since the hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous.  Zeviander

Yup. May as well ban cars so we can reduce the drunk driving rate by exactly 100%!

No.  The principle of a person having a right to defend themselves on a relatively equal footing to criminals is sound.  Whether or not the statistics showed a collective lowering of gun deaths is not the issue.  

hartsickdiscipl

Assuming the reduced rate of crime and gun violence was a direct result of the gun ban, would you still be content with letting people die so you can continue to own guns?

it  always has to come down to a total blanket ban, or a limitless free-for-all in these debates doesn't it.

 

Audacitron

I don't have an answer since the hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous. Like, ban guns for whom? Everyone? Civilians only? And would this only affect a single nation? Or the whole world? Zeviander

Civilians only, worldwide.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

No.  The principle of a person having a right to defend themselves on a relatively equal footing to criminals is sound.  Whether or not the statistics showed a collective lowering of gun deaths is not the issue.  

nekrothing

Assuming the reduced rate of crime and gun violence was a direct result of the gun ban, would you still be content with letting people die so you can continue to own guns?

I don't believe in collectivist thinking.  People have an individual right to defend themselves.  If you put an outright gun ban in place, many criminals would still be doing the killing with illegal guns.  Even if that number was a lot lower than it is currently (which isn't how it works), I would still be disarmed in a country with armed criminals.  No way,  

Banning cars would probably save a lot of lives too. Why not ban those?famicommander

I don't own a car, so it makes no difference to me.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]I don't have an answer since the hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous. Like, ban guns for whom? Everyone? Civilians only? And would this only affect a single nation? Or the whole world? nekrothing

Civilians only, worldwide.

Given what we've seen historically, this is a very bad idea.  Military and police can lay down their arms first.  Then I might think about it.  

Crushing someone's trachea probably isn't that difficult you fairy. Perhaps is is BEAR hands that you require?22Toothpicks

If your hands can reach him, his can reach you.

My .308 can reach a hell of a lot further than your hands.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]No. I want the option to kill someone if they harm me. 22Toothpicks

Hard to do that when the person trying to kill you is using an illegal gun.  

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]I don't have an answer since the hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous. Like, ban guns for whom? Everyone? Civilians only? And would this only affect a single nation? Or the whole world? nekrothing

Civilians only, worldwide.

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"] Crushing someone's trachea probably isn't that difficult you fairy. Perhaps is is BEAR hands that you require?br0kenrabbit

If your hands can reach him, his can reach you.

My .308 can reach a hell of a lot further than your hands.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"] Crushing someone's trachea probably isn't that difficult you fairy. Perhaps is is BEAR hands that you require?22Toothpicks

If your hands can reach him, his can reach you.

My .308 can reach a hell of a lot further than your hands.

You'd be totally dead if using your "method" against a person with a gun.  

No, I'm not fond of giving up liberty for safety. Getting rid of the right to privacy could save millions of lives, but I would never support it being banned.

I'm totally impressed.22Toothpicks

I'm making a point.

Because cars weren't designed with the sole intention of killing someone.22Toothpicks

Total deaths in the U.S. in 2011 was 2,468,435. Total gun deaths around 30,000. Of the 30,00 gun deaths 19,392 are by suicide.

So about .44% of deaths in the United States are by deliberate gun violence.

No, I wouldn't be in much favor for it or else we would have to ban over eating as that is a cause of death too. More than gun deaths. Both of which are liberties given to us in the Constitution, Bill of Rights. Overeating may not be explicitly, but you could certainly argue it would be discrimination and in violation of the 14th Amendment. 

MADD has already fvcked the system up by making the drinking age 21. Only around 10,000 die from drunk every year. Your state cannot get federal grants for highway maintenance unless the drinking age is 21. Pretty fvcked up.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

depends.

is it the realistic "we should ban guns, but they can be obtained illegally still" scenario?  Then no, I don't really see the point.

or is it the ideal "no one has a gun, criminal or otherwise, and we can end all gun-related deaths" scenario?  Then of course yes.

If a ban was guaranteed to have a drastic effect on the amount of people getting killed by guns, yes. Results are more important than principles IMO.

However, the idea that banning guns in the US will drastically reduce the amount of people killed buy guns is tenuous as hell, so in reality, I don't support banning guns.

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"] I'm totally impressed.br0kenrabbit

I'm making a point.

Civilians only, worldwide.nekrothing

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"]Because cars weren't designed with the sole intention of killing someone.Zeviander

Guns have other uses than killing, just like cars (which can be used with the intent to kill, and have an innumerable amount of times), and it is incredibly naïve to think banning them outright would solve all the worlds problems.

We'd just find other ways to kill one another.We will always find ways to kill one another.

That would be a large percentage...

 

is it the realistic "we should ban guns, but they can be obtained illegally still" scenario?

mrbojangles25

As long as you can buy a metal pipe, grow some hay, start a campfire and urinate, you can make guns and ammo.

If you want to get fancy, get a ceramic kiln.

Boom....factory.

Might need more people pissing in a jar than just you if you're going all mass-production, though.

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"]Because cars weren't designed with the sole intention of killing someone.Zeviander

No, I'm not fond of giving up liberty for safety. Getting rid of the right to privacy could save millions of lives, but I would never support it being banned.

Ingenemployee

I personally don't think liberty is more important than safety or vice-versa. I think society should strive to find the best balance between the two.

For all of you saying that you wouldn't give up your "liberty" to save lives, how would you feel if your life was on the line? Would you still feel the same way, even if it meant your death? Or the death of a family member (son, daughter, parent)?

Are your guns worth more than your life? Pathetic.

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

No, I'm not fond of giving up liberty for safety. Getting rid of the right to privacy could save millions of lives, but I would never support it being banned.

GreySeal9

I personally don't think liberty is more important than safety or vice-versa. I think society should strive to find the best balance between the two.

Do you live in the US?  

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

 

is it the realistic "we should ban guns, but they can be obtained illegally still" scenario?

br0kenrabbit

As long as you can buy a metal pipe, grow some hay, start a campfire and urinate, you can make guns and ammo.

If you want to get fancy, get a ceramic kiln.

Boom....factory.

Might need more people pissing in a jar than just you if you're going all mass-production, though.

yeah i remember making a shotgun out of some pipe when I was younger when my friend and I found a shell.  Really, really stupid thing to do...but at the time it was a good idea :P  Good ol' anarchist cookbook

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

No, I'm not fond of giving up liberty for safety. Getting rid of the right to privacy could save millions of lives, but I would never support it being banned.

hartsickdiscipl

I personally don't think liberty is more important than safety or vice-versa. I think society should strive to find the best balance between the two.

Do you live in the US?  

Yes.

Come the fvck off of it.22Toothpicks

For all of you saying that you wouldn't give up your "liberty" to save lives, how would you feel if your life was on the line? Would you still feel the same way, even if it meant your death? Or the death of a family member (son, daughter, parent)?

Are your guns worth more than your life? Pathetic.

nekrothing

You're very naive.  I can forgive that.  I can't forgive you insulting people who acknowledge the lessons that history teaches us.  

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"][QUOTE="famicommander"]Banning cars would probably save a lot of lives too. Why not ban those?thegerg

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I personally don't think liberty is more important than safety or vice-versa. I think society should strive to find the best balance between the two.

GreySeal9

Do you live in the US?  

Yes.

Big fan of our current president?

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

If your hands can reach him, his can reach you.

My .308 can reach a hell of a lot further than your hands.

hartsickdiscipl

You'd be totally dead if using your "method" against a person with a gun.