xwan said:
bouzane said:
xwan said:
Did criminals kill the school children, who exactly are "law abiding citizens", everyone is law abiding until you kill someone. What we called "normal" people are the ones armed to the teeth and killed everybody in the theater and booby trapped their apartment.
How many criminals do you run into everyday basis and has time to react with a gun you put away in your house while you are walking down 5th avenue getting gunned down? you point doesn't stand. Criminals will get guns rather you make it legal or illegal, if you make it illegal then it will be harder for them to get it.
And also regular civilians like you and I will have a harder time getting a gun if its ban, which is the purpose, prevent civilians from getting gun.
This is ridiculous argument to have in the beginning, the only ones in Austratlia that has regular access to guns are like the guy above me said, "farmers" use to defend their livestocks against other wild animals.,
Banning game will do good than harm for sure, just ban them already, everyday we hear ppl getting gun down, i think last week was AK 47 in Los Angeles.... |
Care to provide real life evidence to support your points?
Law-abiding citizens without a history of violence that purchase their firearms legally are far less likely to commit a crime with the aforementioned firearm than you would believe. Again, the problem is not with gun ownership but those who would illegally obtain a firearm with the intent to commit crime.
Gun prohibition will not necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to access guns. Australia is a real world example that contradicts this concept. Additionally, America has far more guns with over two hundred million currently in circulation, care to explain how we are to eliminate all of them?
Simply put, you would eliminate far more gun violence if you simply addressed the underlying issues, namely gang participation. This would be far easier to achieve and would actually resolve not only the much gun violence, but also organized crime in general.
|
You eliminate violence by doing all those "underlying issues" but this is a circular argument + GUN CONTROL. WHy are you so afraid of banning guns? The best way to reduce GUN RELATED death is to ban the guns, how hard is it to understand? THis argument is getting retarded, banning gun is the first step to stopping GUN RELATED violence, period.
|
No, no it is not. Gun prohibition is impossible to enforce under normal circumstances, let alone in America. How do you propose that we collect over 200 million firearms without missing any? How do you propose that we prevent new firearms from entering the country from Canada or Mexico? What if criminals simply start to use explosives in place of firearms in a similar fashion to those in China? Sorry but gun prohibition, like all forms of prohibition is absolutely impossible to implement in reality. This isn't a fantasy world, there are logistical problems that you must account for. What is so difficult to understand about this? Thousands if not millions of people would actively resist a gun ban. Criminals would have a field day because you would create a large, lucrative black market for firearms. You would waste billions of dollars attempting to enforce it. You would irreparably damage an extremely large industry (that would actively lobby against you). You would be violating both personal liberties as well as the Second Amendment. There are so many things wrong with what you are suggesting that it's flabbergasting to me that anybody could believe this to be a good idea.
