Why? Because you don't like it? I provide this link:

 

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

 

It seems to work...

 

No, because it isn't practical, violates American citizens Constitutional rights, and wouldn't solve the problem.

No, because it isn't practical, violates American citizens Constitutional rights, and wouldn't solve the problem.

Why wouldn't it solve the problem? That article seems to point to that it might. I think it would be incredibly difficult and would take time but I'm not sure how it's not practical?

Why wouldn't it solve the problem? That article seems to point to that it might. I think it would be incredibly difficult and would take time but I'm not sure how it's not practical?

 

There are millions upon millions of guns in America. You think the government could effectively and efficiently confiscate those? Not to mention the crazy gun owners who would literally make them pry them from their "cold, dead hands".

 

It wouldn't solve the problem because guns will still be around. Idiots that are hellbent on doing this crap will find them or something else (you can make a bomb by performing a simple google search).

 

Our nation was founded with the use of guns. Places like Japan weren't. To compare them to America is beyond silly IMO.

Somebody please justify what use an automatic or semi automatic weapon has in civilian society? Personal protection? Don't think so. Hunting? Don't think so.

ALMOST everything should be on the table for discussion, until this happened nothing will change, and if having 20 6 and 7 year olds slaughtered isn't going to get discussions going, then nothing will!

Anyone who believes some sort of gun ban is the answer better be prepared for an all out ban. Anything short of an across the board ban is simply window dressing and a feel good tactic. That said I'm not sure the high capacity mags don't need to go. Like spindoc I just can't think of a good reason for them. But if we go down that road we need to be ready for the next ban after the next shooting. Because banning high capacity mags will not stop another shooting from happening. It just might not be 26 people next time. Maybe only 10 or 15. Then we're off to ban something else. Maybe eventually we will actually do something that will help.

Somebody please justify what use an automatic or semi automatic weapon has in civilian society? Personal protection? Don't think so. Hunting? Don't think so.

 

Semi-Auto

Hunting

Personal protection

Recreational shooting

Competition shooting

 

Full Auto

Recreational Shooting

Personal Protection

McVey didn't need a gun... The 9/11 terrorist didn't need a gun.. Hitler didn't need a gun.. Yet they were all murders...

 

And citizens having guns didn't/wouldn't have prevented any of these scenario's from taking place. The argument that murders would still kill even without guns, while true in some (no one can ever say all) cases, the point is many times people having guns (or access to) means many situations will escalate to gun violence that otherwise would not have necessarily ended with violence (again, not all). I understand the need people have or feel to protect themselves and their family. I have that feeling/need as well. However, I've never encountered a situation where I've needed a gun...and I've worked in some of the worst neighborhoods in Philly and NYC. And part of being a responsible gun owner is preventing easy access to your gun(s)...a locked up, not easily accessible gun is no better for protection.than not having a gun at all. And while I've been considering getting my CCL (even more so over the last several days), I don't know that I'm comfortable carrying a gun with me at all times. Again, I don't have the answer. A complete ban will/should never happen...kinda like closing the barn door after the horses get out. And the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding, responsible citizens, and excessive legislation will affect more good, honest people negatively than preventing the bad guys from access. But something has to change. Whether that's tightening rules, or making it tougher to buy guns, limiting magazine size or whatever. But we owe it to society to explore and try other options.

Anyone who believes some sort of gun ban is the answer better be prepared for an all out ban. Anything short of an across the board ban is simply window dressing and a feel good tactic. That said I'm not sure the high capacity mags don't need to go. Like spindoc I just can't think of a good reason for them. But if we go down that road we need to be ready for the next ban after the next shooting. Because banning high capacity mags will not stop another shooting from happening. It just might not be 26 people next time. Maybe only 10 or 15. Then we're off to ban something else. Maybe eventually we will actually do something that will help.

I'm willing to listen to intelligent discussion on the idea.

There are millions upon millions of guns in America. You think the government could effectively and efficiently confiscate those? Not to mention the crazy gun owners who would literally make them pry them from their "cold, dead hands".

 

It wouldn't solve the problem because guns will still be around. Idiots that are hellbent on doing this crap will find them or something else (you can make a bomb by performing a simple google search).

 

Our nation was founded with the use of guns. Places like Japan weren't. To compare them to America is beyond silly IMO.

Not in a short period of time but yes I think we can make drastic steps to curb the numbers.

 

Let's dismiss the idea of something that might work because crazies will find another way? I'm sorry...I just don't buy that defeatist attitude.

 

That doesn't pertain to my question of "what if Japan's ban ACTUALLY works"?

Here is something you probably will not see on the news.

 

Not in a short period of time but yes I think we can make drastic steps to curb the numbers.

 

Let's dismiss the idea of something that might work because crazies will find another way? I'm sorry...I just don't buy that defeatist attitude.

 

That doesn't pertain to my question of "what if Japan's ban ACTUALLY works"?

 

In a time where our economy is in the crapper, you want to spend millions, if not billions of extra money getting rid of guns? Why not pile some more debt onto our nations already growing problem.

 

Who cares if it actually works in Japan? Just because it works there, doesn't mean it'll work here.

 

As to your second point, you're admitting that crazies will find a way to cause crisis even if guns are banned, so what good will it do? I'd much rather have law-abiding citizen's rights not infringed upon because of a few psychopaths, then have the only people with the guns be the psychopaths.

In a time where our economy is in the crapper, you want to spend millions, if not billions of extra money getting rid of guns? Why not pile some more debt onto our nations already growing problem.

 

Who cares if it actually works in Japan? Just because it works there, doesn't mean it'll work here.

 

As to your second point, you're admitting that crazies will find a way to cause crisis even if guns are banned, so what good will it do? I'd much rather have law-abiding citizen's rights not infringed upon because of a few psychopaths, then have the only people with the guns be the psychopaths.

You're better than that.

Somebody please justify what use an automatic or semi automatic weapon has in civilian society? Personal protection? Don't think so. Hunting? Don't think so.

 

Most multi-round guns are 'semi-automatic'. Repeaters and revolvers are not technically. But revolvers work with one pull-one shot like a 'semi-automatic' does.

 

If you came across an 8-foot rattler in the woods the appreciations for a 'semi-automatic' would go up.

What I am wondering is how many lives do you think guns save? How much crime is deterred because of fear that guns maybe in the house?

 

I will give you the assault rifle angle...but not a shotgun/handgun.