Should firearms be banned? {Closed}

This may be going off topic, but if you Google "legal flamethrower", you will find an article on one and a link to where you can order it lol.

if the day comes where the US takes away our right to the extent of taking away our firearms, the US will then become a nation that will no longer be worth me risking my life to protect. (Mountain Infantry M249/SAW gunner)

never said that a tank was a small arms weapon and no where in the constitution does it mention "firearms" "small arms" or something you can hold in your hand ;-)

However, the word "arms" in this context, while not explicitly stating firearms, puts heavier emphasis on that spectrum of weapons over weaponized vehicles, for example. Not everything is put at face value and not everything means the same thing to everyone. Personally, I take "right to bear arms" as a weapon that can be used for self defense. And a tank... you know what, go ahead. Buy a tank and drive it onto the highway. That would actually be pretty awesome.

In Nebraska, we can own Class 3 weapons: flamethrowers, machine guns, grenades, mines, weapons of mass destruction and tanks. Gotta love Nebraska!

Truly of my opinion, I am a recreational hunter and hunting for me is a lot of fun. Banning guns would end hunting all together and revenue of other states who sell hunting licences. This is a link of last years generation of revenue from last year
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/local/2014/10/11/big-game-hunting-big-money-colorado/17116425/

Now tell me, would it be fair to cripple the economy because some person from the city thinks that guns are bad and kill people.

I am totally up for back ground checks of making sure the person who are buying weapons are sane but limiting or banning guns are not the answer of solving a major issue of the U.S. Your just making us hunters mad. To think of it, the workers who make the weapons and the ammunition. Un-employing workers making our economy suffer. It hurts a lot more people than it is doing good.
Trust me on this.... If someone is unemployed for a long while, they will start to become desperate to find a way to make ends. Murder,robbery, suicide, ect.

That is a great point I didn't even think of that before. Along with losing lots of Government funding, many Americans would be without jobs, because companies like Winchester, Remington, Colt, etc. would have to lay-off many of their members and the unemployment rate would go up.

Exactly! Your "hurting" way more people than you actually think when it comes to banning guns.

I think flat out banning guns any time soon is a terrible idea. Hunting is an important industry. I think what many people want is to ban or slowly limit the use of larger and less practical hunting weapons.

Large rifles are used for many large game. Almost any shotgun could be considered large as well. Is it really the large caliber rifles that are used in gun crime? Obviously some are, but it is far rarer than something small.

Large was the wrong term but I hope the idea of what I was trying to say got through. Some rifles are made for hunting while others are made for killing people. the ones for killing people are the ones that should be focused on controlling now and the rest when the economy is ready.

A lot of the rifles portrayed as "assault weapons" are not nearly as deadly as they are claimed to be. It is also rare for them to be used in crime. The guns criminals use are pistols, and the ammunition is almost always 9mm or something else small. The idea that big scary guns are the cause of crime is almost pure propaganda. Those who are driving gun control through the banning of certain guns prey on those who fear them, and what better way than to feed these people exactly what they are thinking?

If you are talking about fully automatic rifles or military rifles, they are extremely difficult to get, and very expensive. Any fully automatic gun for sale in the US must have been made prior to 1986. One must also wait six months after purchase of the rifle, which almost always cost upwards of 12-15 thousand. During the six month wait period, the purchaser has a variety of background checks done on them, and they are fully entered into a tracking system. This info was found here.

If someone has the resources and time to get a fully automatic weapon and want to use it for criminal purposes, the legality of the ownership will not stop them. They can travel places on the web and acquire the guns illegally quite easily.

I didn't say anything about cloning humans? I said we needed to clone more for things like eggs and milk, because shall we face it, more and more of us are born every year, with a longer life expectancy.

Yes, a lab grown sheep is a sheep, and that is why it isn't included on my list. It could be used for wool, but not for meat. You misunderstand. I don't support cloning for meat. I support it for things like milk and eggs.

I'm pretty sure that is only when fertilized.

Ever heard of free-range farms? I've only ever bought food from those.

I said common mistake because you were mistaking me for a girl like nearly everyone does...

kitten, no offence, but you said you'd leave up to two times now... and you're still here.

It dosent matter what gun is it he still died

I kept being dragged back, because my alerts kept showing up and people kept quoting me.

How do we do this? Gun control.

Also, your phrase "criminally insane" really bothers me. Yes, they are criminals, but the majority of the time they are not even remotely insane. They may have some form of mental illness, but they are not insane.

I just really want to understand something here, why do people feel that they need to have a gun to defend themselves or their family? I or no one in my family has access to a gun, but we feel safe in public, we feel safe at night. The likelihood that someone is going to come in and threaten us to the point that they're likely to kill us is so low, you don't even think about it as a possibility.

And this is all gun control is. You can still own a gun. You can still use a gun. You are just restricted to what kind of gun you have and you can't go running around in public with a gun.

Now, I probably should have been a bit more clear about the purpose of Australia's gun laws. These laws mainly exist to prevent people from accessing high powered automatic weapons (which can kill large numbers of people quickly), which many of you arguing against gun control say should be restricted to the military, so you really are contradicting yourselves.

There are still guns in Australia. People still use guns, they still own them. Yes, people do still die due to guns, but people no longer die in large numbers, because no one (except the defence forces) have access to automatic weapons.

Technically it's in our rights to bear arms. A lot I mean A LOT of people think this is un-constitutional of limiting rights. Listen I agree with you, a high capacity, automatic firearms are not used in hunting. Yes, those should be limited. I mean don't limit the amount of hunting guns like sniper rifles and shotguns;the issue is a high caliber gun with a high capacity with automatic options. Also, back-ground checks, I can't stress enough are the answer to make sure that guns aren't getting in the hands of criminals. Lastly, there are so many gun types in the USA that limiting or trying to remove high capacity magazines and automatic firepower is going to be physically impossible. No one will give their guns away because one man from a theater shooting had a semi-automatic fire-arm. I own one myself in the caliber .22. I use that gun to kill a lot of Rabbits and prairie dogs, not people. It's the higher caliber weapons are the problem. These are links that I am kinda basing off of.

What happened after the shooting in the firearm market:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting#Sale_of_guns_and_gun_control_debate

News thread about surge of gun buyers and debate:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54556710-68/gun-sales-colorado-friday.html.csp