If guns were banned in the US......

Gun owners; how would you react; would you hand over your guns without a fuss or no?

Do you think there would be civil war on the streets of America if guns were suddenly made illegal?

I mean i just in vision when cops turn up to certain gun owners houses(a real gun nut) to confiscate their guns, that there would be some tense stand offs.

Just to add I'm not one that is all out for banning guns, just tougher gun laws if they are effective, just want to see how you guys would react.

EDIT: its just hypothetical guys just like a thread asking what would you do in a zombie apocalypse.

It's kind of weird this came up today, as someone earlier stated, "If they just took gun confiscation off the table, I'd be willing to talk about stronger firearm regulation."

I thought, "As far as I know, gun confiscation IS off the table." It's constitutional standing is ironclad, and there is no serious political movement calling for it. I'm not sure why this is the point at which this discussion always leads.

You have cops taking away civillians rights left right and centre in the US with no one official speaking out against it, so don't be so comforted by your constitutional rights.

Anyway its just a "what if" scenario.

Better than a hypothetical that is close to impossible, it would be better if you stated which specific measures you propose and we take it from there.

I have no problems with stricter gun controls. But, an outright ban? I'd bury mine in the desert first and dig them out as I see fit.

Measures?

Its just a what if scenario bro, just like when somone makes a thread about what would you do in a zombie apocalypse.

@xeno_ghost: it would do basically nothing because theres already 300 million in circulation theres no way to round them up.

A more realistic thing to do that gun owners/NRA/2nd Amendment zealots also vehemently oppose would banning handguns. FBI statistics show that 85-percent of gun homicides are committed with hanguns. The number done using rifles/shotguns is the same as the number committed with knives.

Realistically no one needs a handgun. Hunters can hunt with rifles/shotguns and militia people can use assault rifles.

Personally I would rather see all types of assault weapon legal than having handguns legal. Its a lot easier to hide a hangun than pack a rifle down the street without someone calling the cops.

But whatever. Its never going to happen anyway so theres no point even debating about it. If a school full of little children getting massacred didnt make people want to do something about guns nothing will.

FYI I own guns, have a military family and also grew up hunting. The biggest problem this country faces with firearms is that most people arent trained properly to use them/respect them. People buy guns like toys nowadays and treat them the same way.

Maybe they should bring the draft back so people can actually be part of a well organized militia and actually get trained to respect firearms?

@oflow: "it would do basically nothing because theres already 300 million in circulation theres no way to round them up."

I don't agree, if guns were banned the authorities need only consult the records of gun ownership, there would be a record of guns owned by who their addresses, if their guns are not handed in by a specific time they would go on a list to have their guns seized by the police. It probably would be a long huge logistical task but not impossible imo.

"Personally I would rather see all types of assault weapon legal than having handguns legal. Its a lot easier to hide a hangun than pack a rifle down the street without someone calling the cops."

Good point hand guns are so easily concealed its scary.

"If a school full of little children getting massacred didnt make people want to do something about guns nothing will."

So true i love the way some pro gun people talk down the seriousness of mass shootings by mentioning other things like car accidents and disease that kill more people than mass shootings, as if that some how detracts from the problem of mass shootings in US. Denial.

I can see alot of pros to owning a gun but the one con that that gun could end up in the wrong hands is enough to equal if not out weigh the benefits of having a gun.

Luckily, such a notion will never happen - it's a pipe dream. My guns aren't going anywhere.

How do you determine whether they are effective or not? Would you advocate repeal of current gun control laws that aren't effective?

That individual doesn't represent all or even most gun owners. It isn't just about banning guns but erosion of gun rights.

To tell you the truth mate, i don't have the answers. Truthfully i don't think there is a solution other than banning guns, but in saying that the good people that own guns would have to suffer for a few bad apples and thats not fair either. I think this problem is ingrained into American culture and i cant think of any laws that will stop a dude with a huge grudge from getting a gun and shooting a bunch of people, he could go to anyones house that he knows owns a gun steal it and go on a killing spree with it, no amount of laws could stop that. You could say ok laws say you have to lock up your guns and ammunition separately, gun must be unloaded to prevent what i mentioned, but then if you have an intruder its not going to be very practical to have to unlock your gun and ammunition then load up your gun in time for when you might need it.

I think all America can do is try to protect against shootings in schools etc by having armed guards or metal detectors apon entry something along those lines, airport style xray thingies lets at least protect the future up and coming.

Guns don't kill people, rappers people do.

These people who go on rampages would end up doing it with a knife, their car or a bomb eventually because they are mentally defective.

Gun Grab agenda, government shut down/collapse of the US dollar imminent... some Zionist goon Bernie Sanderstien running for president and gaining popularity/pathetic, the scene is basically the Jew funded Bolshevik Revolution all over again, Jews genocidally slaughtered upwards of 40-60 million innocent Russian citizens, sure they first took away their guns. Most of these fake incidents never actually show evidence, just hearsay nonsense. Notice that in most of these gun grab staged events the year 2015 technologies all fail to appear and we're reverted back to morse code, and sketch artist news from the likes of the year 1780, nothing works, the security camera are missing, the cellphones everybody had low batteries and we have no footage of the shooter, the shooting, the bodies, the blood etc, nothing... we get a few still shots of some actors and a preplanned new conference of some halfwit morons claiming it's all wrapped up and solved and how the victims "loved Jewsus, rainbows, lollipops, Coca Cola and are all happier to be dead, IF NOT FOR THESE EVIL GUNS, little Julie's dying wish was to FREE THE WORLD OF EVIL GUNS" etc.

Don't buy into the Zionist shilldom. Vote for anybody but Bernie Bolshevik Sanderstien.

If they took my defense weapons, then i would just get new ones.

Then only criminals will have guns...........

Ditto.

Nothing like solving a problem by failing to admit there is one

Yes
I am sure it would have been just as easy to kill a mass amount of people with a knife...

There is no evidence of gun control working.

Banning guns now could be especially problematic as well.

Still, the harder access to guns is key to reducing the amount of tragedies that happen. Look at the EU, where cars, knives and homemade bombs can be easily accessed, yet compare the amount of violence to that of the US. Sure, guns don't kill people and it's the crazies. These crazies won't go away just because we regulate guns, I know, but in the meantime we're making it a lot easier for them to do so because they have such easy access to guns.

Basically... I hope Obama's speech will convince some of the opposers. Either way, while the world and the US has this discussion, there'll be plenty more school shootings to suffer.

None whatsoever...

@chaoscougar1 said:

@Maroxad said:

There is no evidence of gun control working.

Banning guns now could be especially problematic as well.

None whatsoever...

Guns should be banned. simple as that.

@mjorh said:

@chaoscougar1 said:

None whatsoever...

Guns should be banned. simple as that.

I'm not a fan of this position. I believe that certain people do need a gun to protect themselves or things like that. If I were living in a rural area with tonnes of bears, I would feel more comfortable having access to a ranged weapon that could save me from a bear attack.

That's just the thing though; guns don't need to be freaking military-grade assault rifles to kill or at least injure a bear to save yourself, and bears sure as hell don't waltz around freely in big cities, so why is access to these guns in these places so easy?

That graph is interesting too. I wonder what type of gun laws Chile has, and if it does in fact prove a negative correlation between regulation and gun homocides.

I wouldn't give up my guns, I consider them a tool and nothing more.

Do I think there would be a civil war over it? I don't think so, however, I do think it would be an extremely difficult policy to enforce and there would be a lot of consequences. I'd wager at least initially there would be some violence from the fringes of the gun owning communities. In addition, I think it would be largely ineffective with millions of guns remaining in circulation, largely in the hands of criminals.

I don't think anyone's expecting regulation to change the country by morning. Still, the path needs to be paved towards a less violent country, and regulating the weapon-of-choice for these mentally ill people is a pretty good start.

I agree with the goal, I'm just do not agree the proposed regulation would actually fix that problem. By the way I'm not totally against new gun related regulation...closing loopholes and things like that are fine by me. That being said, if you look at a lot of the recent massacres it actually wouldn't have prevented them. Even if it was a case where that person due to new regulation couldn't get a weapon, and they couldn't get one illegally, it's not like they couldn't build a bomb like the Boston Marathon bombers.

Anyways my opinion is we def have a violence problem in this country, but guns aren't the cause of it, and taking away guns from the 99% of population that are good responsible people isn't the solution, either.

seems like a lot of effort

As horrible as it sounds, with the amount of guns circulating in the states, I'm surprised there aren't these kind of shootings once a day.

As for an outright gun ban, no way in hell will that happen. But I don't know, I suppose I am fairly "conservative" when it comes to guns and gun rights.

I see gun violence as a symptom of a much larger problem in American society, and no, I'm not blaming violent media. I do believe in taking in some gun control measures but we should also invest more in help for mental illness, welfare, and education reform.

IF the technology existed such that a firearm could perfectly tell whether or not it was pointed at another human being who was legitimately a threat or not and not function if it were not, ( can't shoot person fleeing, can't be used in anger, etc.. ) would those in favor of less gun control regulation be in favor of the technology?

hypothetical of course because no such technology exists currently

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/2015-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/

i mean shooting in anger in a non-defensive way, for example two people in an argument and one decides to settle it by shooting the other person

as stated obviously the technology does not exist to take all the subtleties into account, hence it being hypothetical :P

@ianhh6 said:

@mjorh said:

@chaoscougar1 said:

None whatsoever...

Guns should be banned. simple as that.

I'm not a fan of this position. I believe that certain people do need a gun to protect themselves or things like that. If I were living in a rural area with tonnes of bears, I would feel more comfortable having access to a ranged weapon that could save me from a bear attack.

That's just the thing though; guns don't need to be freaking military-grade assault rifles to kill or at least injure a bear to save yourself, and bears sure as hell don't waltz around freely in big cities, so why is access to these guns in these places so easy?

That graph is interesting too. I wonder what type of gun laws Chile has, and if it does in fact prove a negative correlation between regulation and gun homocides.

They can have tranquilizers.

Tried to understand this law, but let's be honest you don't need a gun in a civilized country, hell i'm in a third-world country and nobody carries gun here and we don't have such horrible incidents ...i'm not an expert tho... that's just my thought.

I´m in awe, Chile and Turkey are part of the "developed" world according to that chart.

I´m not against the possession of guns, I practiced hunting for many years and you use guns ( rifles and shotguns ) to hunt ( of course you can hunt with bow and arrow ) to practice the sport ( which in some places is not a sport but a necessity ), however, I don´t see a why you "need" an assault rifle or a submachine gun but if the law allows you to own it then you can own it.

According to you Chile and Turkey aren't developed?

I think gun control advocates need to come to terms with the unsavory reality that guns in the U.S aren't going anywhere; that train left the station long ago.

I'm in an awe of his awe. raugtcon seems to be of the opinion that being located in the western world is the benchmark of development.

Ban lethal fire arms and substitute it with something that isn't. You don't need to kill a person to protect yourself.

Dude did you even attend grammar school ? where the hell is Chile located ?

I specifically used the term western world as opposed to western hemisphere, airhead.

@GazaAli: @raugutcon: Yeah Chile is on the western coast of South America. Like all S. American countries, there are arguments that can be made in favour of it being 1st world or 3rd world. Nonetheless, Chile, along with Argentina and Uruguay, is far more 1st world than 3rd world, even if it has its poor areas and people like all countries.

and now let's keep the personal attacks away from the conversation.

@klunt_bumskrint: Good luck killing/critically wounding two dozen people with a knife. Possible? Yes. Easy? No.

I like Chris Rock's position: Make ammunition so prohibitively expensive that you really have be invested in pulling that trigger. You can target shoot with non-lethal ammo.

America has an overweight problem, maybe we should be talking about legislating restrictions on sugar and fat?

Well the last gun shop in San Francisco closed last week.

@chaoscougar1 said:

@Maroxad said:

There is no evidence of gun control working.

Banning guns now could be especially problematic as well.

None whatsoever...

Yep, none.