I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place

A car can be used as a weapon as can cleaning products, baseball bats, tire irons, kitchen knives, sharp sticks... etc. If someone wants to purpose something as a weapon, then they will.

Crime is defined by law and law is defined by government and/or society. As long as people exist, crime will exist. It is not sound reasoning to believe "crime should not exist" because if it were made illegal to wear black shoes, crime exists again, and as such it is an impossible standard.

Rather, I accept that crime will always exist in the world as a result, but aspire to a world wherein there is no real need to ban things like guns because no one uses them to harm other people - the same goes for cars, baseball bats, etc.

Banning registered/licensed owners from owning firearms does not do much, because the last thing a potential mass shooter does when obtaining a firearm is register or get a license. As such, laws that ban only really affect people who are generally responsible in the first place.

If all firearms suddenly disappeared, people would just build rudimentary ones if they wanted one for violence. Shinzo Abe was killed by a gun someone built in their home. To prevent that you would have to make the purchase of metal piping and whatnot illegal as well.

Stopping mass shootings, gun violence, and violence in general is not a matter of banning something, it is a matter of education and societal responsibility. Read about the comparatively high gun ownership yet low shootings in Switzerland for example.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178924000776

As some have put. Its ineffective in terms of there are always alternatives. I don't know many people who are ok for weapons to be allowed in all places. courts, public buildings, their own home against their will. I feel that individuals and locals should be able to limit them but they need to make rules for them being transported through and it should not apply to private property. So someone can have it in their home and if they want to bring it somewhere will need to do whatever the law stipulates for transport like tagging and appropriate containers and seperation of ammo and gun and such. They could then bring it to a place where it is allowed and take it out again.

The reason you cannot ban weapons is because anything could be a weapon. A rock, pencil, barb wire, glass, car, etc. Your ideals are not possible, it just sounds good. Banning weapons wouldn't make crime vanish. Also the whole point of crime is that you break the rules to do it. Your strict rules would just be broken by certain people hence creating the "crime". Guns and knives weren't created to cause crime but they are efficient at harming people. They both have very practical uses outside of crime.

If you truly want to REDUCE crime, then focus on the mindset of people, change it for the better. For a positive mind won't harm for no reason or just because of their feelings.

people should not have guns, noone needs them and the places without guns all seem to do fine without them, while it can even be observed in the us curretnly how having guns does nothing to protect you from facism. Only a strong legal system does. In mexico it can even been seen what other the us guns law did to other countries.

guns dont offer safety, only escalte violence.it should be the contranband the police and border security should focus on, instead of a needless war on drugs.

some guy with a gun wont win against a state ever, The weapons are way to advanced. This could been seen in the middle east for the last decades when fighting "terrorists", and even these were better equiped than anyone who just has a gun.

these gun people delude themself into thinking it would be safer for them if they had a gun, while they are fighting the danger they are themself creating

At the end of the day, people like to own guys and there is a very profitable industry that wants to keep it that way.

The main issue is that for the potential harm of having some gun violence, the downsides are significant. Guns by the selves being banned doesn't stop murder or anything. There are many ways to murder someone. You can do it with a rock. Guns in many ways make society more peaceful because it equalizes people. Women in particular can be every bit as dangerous as men if they need too.

The real issue with banning them, besides the people who will die because they cannot defend themselves, is that governments are extremely evil and always have been. Just in the past century governments have deliberately murdered in excess of 100 million people. Guns won't necessarily stop authoritarian regimes from taking power, but they do make it very difficult to oppress people, as every cop who has to arrest people have to worry about how they are perceived by the community. With an armed population, the state at least has to keep a venere of morality and legitmency to the people. America is a country that has more cops and prisons thay almost any nation in the world. They try to work around this by eroding away residence a little at a time, but this causes the economy to fail since our society creates so many losers and corruption runs wild.

Anyways I'm generally progun, maybe they shouldn't be allowed in some areas like in populated areas or public spaces, outside of security for peaceful protests, but banning them entirely seems like a bad idea to me. Most of the world's countries have already fallen to extreme orwellian authoritarianism and they are working on the U.S right now. Once the rich have robot police, 100 people will be able to control the entire human species with massive violence and terrorism. We are going to need guns at that point anyways, and hopefully before then if people wise up and stop hating each other and realize the state and the corporations are the ones doing everything possible to enslave and brainwash us, and destroy our freedom.

Only problem is, if the law enforcement is really controlled by the rich - which it is most places.

You can't outlaw weapons when nearly anything can be used as a weapon

a legal monopoly on violence is the cornerstone of the states power. while there are definitely valid reasons to want to restrict access to the tools of violence, the state will always have that access, and if it restricts the general populations access to same, it becomes far easier to oppress them.

also, if we're gonna ban weapons, i'd like to start with SUVs.

To make a counterpoint to all the views stated here: statistically, countries which have banned guns see far fewer gun deaths per capita than America. Gun bans work to reduce death, whatever else you may think.

The problem is that the ban is one-sided, and generally boils down to "the oppressed are disarmed but the oppressors are not."

Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and pretty strict gun control came in. Now it's only really sport shooters (who are a pretty responsible bunch from my experience), rural property owners with a good reason (pest control largely), certain occupations like specific security (cash transport for instance), cops and military that have guns. And criminals.

We still get the odd shooting but they're pretty rare and to my understanding, almost never done by legal owners.

I'm not sure what things were like back in 1996 but I don't believe we really have the gun culture so there's not much opposition to gun control by the majority.

Some people on Reddit were talking about how only dictators would want to disarm people

"I don't know why any individual should ever have a right to have a revolver in his house [...] people should not have handguns."

• Richard Nixon

Ronald Reagan and the NRA advocated for gun control once the Black Panthers started arming black communities. See: Mulford Act

Banning weapons is a problem if the government needs to be overthrown by its people. In places like the USA, this is increasingly obvious that traditional systems of government regulation are rapidly dissolving.

Emotions, mainly fear

In terms of the US, it is simply impractical. The political will is nowhere near the level required, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Agree or disagree, there are too many people for whom this right is not really negotiable. Within that context, yes, I own firearms even though I would really rather not. My right-wing neighbors certainly aren't going to give theirs up, so I think it would be naive for me to.

I'll bite.

I believe most crime is fundamentally due to poverty. I don't believe you can simply enforce your way out of crime. That would be extremely expensive and wouldn't do anything about the poverty. You'd be better off giving the police funding to the poor communities. Enforcement would be unequally dished out to poorer areas, creating an oppressive atmosphere. So when people say it's something a dictator does, it's because it ignores the fundamental problem in order to jump straight to aggressive policing. Aggressive policing is something a dictator does.

I'm in favor of armed revolution. In socialist society, we wouldn't really need weapons as much.

Well, there are 2 problems with banning weapons that I see

One. Weapons are dead simple to make. I can go to the hardware store and buy everything I need to make short range, single shot firearms, and this doesn't even take into consideration how dangerous slings and sling shots can be when used as a weapon. Additionally, more than a few full auto sub-guns have been made by folks in their basements or sheds, with admittedly mixed results. Turns out that the magazine is actually the hardest part of a repeating firearm.

Functionally, it's an impossible task. Weapons are generally the simplest of physics problems to solve. Just ignore safety and you've got t weapon.

Two. Lets say you succeed. Short term, what changes? A few less deaths, but overall crime goes up because the risks go down and you haven't done anything to address the true causes of the crime in the first place.

Long term, you have even bigger problems if people from outside the community that has banned weapons, suddenly view you as weak and helpless. And this also discounts the possibility of your own community leaders suddenly deciding to attack in order to seize more power for themselves.