Why does the USA allow its citizens to own guns?

I have no knowledge about America's law on owning guns. I was just wondering why don't they just ban them, wouldn't this reduce the amount of gun shootings and innocent people being killed? If anyone could tell me why, I would appreciate it :biggrin:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

M14B

Original post by Raizelcadres

I think it is one of their constitutional rights

Reply 2

ivybridge

The Second Amendment.

Reply 3

KingBradly

Because of their little amendmant which some of them hold a bit too dear.

The other problem is that many Americans don't seem to be able to make a distinction between "is it unethical to own guns", and "is it wise to make them freely available". While it isn't the former, nor is it the latter. I would love to own a fully automatic machine gun so I could offload it into scare crows covered with full sized images of Harriet Harmon or Alan Titchmarsh, but I'm also aware that it's probably best that such weapons aren't freely available for less sane fellows than me to purchase.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 4

Raizelcadres

Original post by M14B

I think it is one of their constitutional rights

So the government can't introduce a ban on guns as it would contradict their rights?

Reply 5

Anno007

Citizens of most countries are allowed to own guns, not just the US. The reasons are largely similar. It is also part of the Bill of Rights.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 6

M14B

Original post by Raizelcadres

So the government can't introduce a ban on guns as it would contradict their rights?

Kind of

Spoiler

Reply 7

username2269391

Basically when the USA was established, the founding fathers wrote something called the Bill of Rights to give 10 special rights to all Americans. One of those rights was the right to "bear arms" which means you can have a gun if you want. This made sense in the colonial days so people could form militias if the government turned on them (governments were scary and brutal at the time) so this made a lot of sense when everybody just had muskets. Now the American people have pistols and rifles while the American government has drones and nukes.

Reply 8

DoctorDC

I have no problem with their right to bear arms - however when those arms are sub-machine guns and the next best thing to a rocket launcher - thats when i think they should draw a line on gun sales !

Reply 9

Anno007

Original post by Raizelcadres

So the government can't introduce a ban on guns as it would contradict their rights?

Partly that, but mostly because nobody wants to ban guns in the US. Doing so would likely cause rioting and massive political discord.

You mustn't forget the type of governments who have tried to ban guns - North Korea and the Third Reich (for jews) have been successful. Even Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China never banned guns completely.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 10

Warminator

From what ive heard from a majority of Americans on the internet is that the main source of anger for the banning of the guns is from the second amendment that they have no defense of their home and families from criminals or the government itself .If the method to get guns legally was banned what is to prevent criminals from gaining guns illegally, especially in a country alike America where guns are so widespread both in open and black markets.

Reply 11

Anno007

Original post by JohnGreek

Because they needed militias to make sure that the slaves didn't run away.

These days, guns are mostly used for hunting, self-defense and for right-wing nutters in the South who run private militias to resist the government in case Obama comes and take their shotties.

And also for providing about 300,000 people with largely well-paying jobs.
http://nssf.org/impact/2016-Economic_Impact_of_Industry.pdf

And for giving the ATF something to do other than to arm drug cartels in Latin America.

Reply 12

Anno007

Original post by JohnGreek

The "oo look it creates jobs!" argument can be used to justify the invasion of Iraq, the Nazis forcing millions of Jews into forced labour, and countless other acts that are both good and bad. I get the economic argument, but we shouldn't fall into a false dichotomy between gun industry and no gun control vs. no gun industry and full gun control. The answer, for America at least, lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm sorry if I say that I don't particularly care about a parasitic industry that's arisen from the demand created for it by a bunch of extremely paranoid Americans.

Don't ignore the context of the thread. The OP is talking about a complete blanket ban.

Also, it's not just paranoid Americans. Millions of firearms are bought for sport shooting, hunting, collection, target shooting, reselling, movie props, etc. Many are also used for legitimate self-defence purposes - no different than in the UK for instance.

Reply 13

Rorschach II

Original post by JohnGreek

It's still an argument nonetheless.

Reply 14

Jammy Duel

Original post by Raizelcadres

So the government can't introduce a ban on guns as it would contradict their rights?

Simply put, yes.

The Constitution is the supreme authority, if a law contradicts the constitution the law is struck down. The problem with this is that since the Second Amendment (the bit that gives them the right to bear arms) stopped being relevant (it used to be pretty important and made sense) people have been too attached to it.

Reply 15

Anno007

Original post by JohnGreek

OP's an idiot who doesn't understand the practical realities of the matter. I never said that I agreed with him, and I do genuinely agree that there are a few legitimate uses for guns (Hell, both sets of my grandparents back in Greece hunt regularly).

However, there's no denying that gun ownership in the US isn't confined solely to leisure, and that there is an air of paranoia surrounding the ownership of guns (particularly semi auto rifles that are decked out with all the long-range scope attachments and so on) that stems from a rather traditional American fear of a tyrannical government. I feel that this fear is misplaced, and that small arms could do little other than wage some guerrilla war in some remote part of the country. There's also the question of whether active shooter situations can be worsened by citizens carrying firearms for their own safety. The point I'm trying to reach is that gun ownership should be controlled, but not banned entirely. In that sense, I imagine that we agree on this issue.

What an utterly irrelevant comment. Congratulations, you said nothing that addresses the OP's question or my point.

Reply 16

Raizelcadres

Original post by JohnGreek

Because I have no knowledge about how a countries law works makes me an idiot? However I am grateful for your input so thank you.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 17

remiremi

It's a deep rooted part of the united states democracy and culture.

There are also an estimated 300 million legally owned firearms (millions more owned illegally) so a "ban" or buyback scheme would never even be feasible.

Reply 18

banterboy

I think there's a cultural language barrier here,between brits and americans.

We just do not understand that unlike us, a nation whose identity is established by our historical development, Americas identity was established by a set of ideas. We might sneer at the bill of rights, but americans might also sneer at the absurdity of having a queen as a figure head. Different cultres can seem bizarre to each other.

Reply 19

Jammy Duel

Original post by remiremi

You don't necessarily need to directly ban possession or buy back, you simply need to make it illegal to buy new guns without a licence, eventually numbers will drop significantly, especially if you make it hard to do anything beyond trivial maintenance without a licence.

Perhaps something that wants looking into is how firearms were make illegal in European countries when things were tightened up.

Posted from TSR Mobile