OK To TAKE GUNS TO END MURDER?

Taking every gun on this planet would solve nothing. First it is impossible, second there would be a black market resurgence so fast and powerful it would be mind numbing (and before you deny it, consider that cocaine and crack are illegal and practicly anyone can get them who has a mouth and can speak) and beyond that, if you think taking guns would cure the problem, then we need to take cars from all who drink and men's utility from all men so they cannot rape, then move on to....well, who cares, because it is impossible, and I fail to see why some guy who shoots targets should take responsibility for the actions of criminals.

I say if it will stop drunk driving, taking all cars away is a great idea. I say if it will stop rape, universal castration is a great idea. I say if it will stop people being flipped off, cutting off all middle fingers is a great idea........

Yes its obviously ok...most Europeans don't even start to understand why this is an issue for starters...wtf should civilians have automatics ??? by the way debating the formal structure in the question doesn't change much to the essence in the question...

The mob would love the idea. Then they could crank out underground guns and make untold millions and arm criminals themselves. Then when they had guns and did their little thing the gun ban people could blame....hmmm, I wonder who they'd blame then.

Abolishing freedom will never be OK in America.





Most Europeans are serfs.





I'm assuming you mean semi-autos, since you are referring to civilians having them.

The reason is because there is no reason to ban them.

You see, we're not serfs here in America. People don't get to violate our rights for no reason.

Are you talking of "freedom absolute rights" or "freedoms superiority" ? You remind me Imans...

I'm not sure what you mean by either, so am not sure how to answer accurately.

I can see you have not been touched by Imans wizardry yet you lucky bastard !

To the point, where do you draw the line eh ? Guns, Semi Automatics, rocket launchers, a bomb ? Shouldn't be the State the responsible for protection and defense Cowboy ? It is quite obvious guns are meant to be used not to stay in drawers... Guns make sense in a weak state where police and army can't function properly in remote areas, they made sense in the 19 century to an extent...your argument about liberty's and rights it is so damn linear, so damn schizophrenic, so autistic, it is pointless to try and make any sense out of it...

Strict scrutiny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

If the government has a compelling reason for banning something, and doing so does not violate any rights, the ban is allowed.





Rocket launchers and explosives aren't usual self defense weapons, and the government can likely come up with a good reason for banning them, so those restrictions likely pass muster (at least for the general populace; if we brought back the militia, militiamen would have the right to have them).

The government doesn't have a good reason for banning semi-autos, so no such ban would pass muster.

Guns are necessary for self defense, and the government doesn't have a good reason for banning them, so no such ban would pass muster.





Perhaps if the state were willing and able to provide every single person with a team of police officers to protect them all the time.





America is not a police state. We do not have a continuous police presence everywhere.





Freedom is everything. Freedom is more important than living.

All murder is not by gun. It would be OK to take away all criminals.