What if America banned guns?

[Abaja]

Why is it always the people antagonistic towards Christians who pull the "B-But you gotta t-turn the other cheek!" line when anyone talks about countering their antagonism?

A fetish for “owning hypocrites”, I’d imagine. I had the same condition in my cringe phase when I was fourteen. They expect Christians to conform to their interpretation of Christianity, never realizing how fucking stupid that is.

They think that Christians protecting themselves from crazy asses suddenly makes them violent

Romans 13:4
“For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

[Crockerland]

I never understood how Christians, which most conservatives are, could support guns, that's very purpose is to take life from gods creatures.

THIS!!!

Guns are a sin against the law and word of God!

THOU SHALT NOT KILL. It’s a commandment.

Guns didn’t exist until recent eras of history.

OMG OMG WE NEED OUR GUNS TO BE SAFE! IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT!

People in the old days used things called swords and bows with poison darts.

If you need to defend yourself use a taser.

>Bows with poison darts

Pretty much sums up the whole issue right there. It's another issue like GMOs, nuclear power, or vaccines, anyone who has the slightest idea what they're talking about is on one side of the debate.

[ImperialRussia]

Then America would be easily invaded by China

[Chernoslavia]

Then it's boogaloo time.

[Sundiata]

The United States should not ban guns but educate its citizens on how to use them.

[Chernoslavia]

The United States should not ban guns but educate its citizens on how to use them.

But that would mean actually solving the problem and teaching others self-responsibility. We can't have that!

[Kernen]

The United States should not ban guns but educate its citizens on how to use them.

Bro. We know how to use them.

[Arlenton]

What if Japan banned chopsticks?

[Chernoslavia]

The United States should not ban guns but educate its citizens on how to use them.

Bro. We know how to use them.

Most of us atleast.

[Bloodshade]

Banning guns is unrealistic in the US. Gun culture has its root deep in American society so pulling that out would be difficult and messy.

Instead of that, maybe if we prevented the NRA from opposing any research against gun violence since to them, that would be a 'nuisance'. Scientists, medical professionals and policy-makers could be able to act on that data and suggest solutions but no, the NRA and its lapdogs in Congress would much rather send thoughts and prayers and blame video games in response to mass shootings and the rising gun deaths in the US.

Maybe if the NRA stopped opposing medical professionals through lobbying in Congress whenever they try to collect data and find remedies to reduce the gun death toll, gun users wouldn't be seeing politicians proposing to ban certain guns and could instead see gun violence dip.

You know, surprising fact, you can fund research on gun violence and solutions while not seeing your guns being taken away but unfortunately, the NRA's supporters and gun nuts are too paranoid about anything to do with science or research that they'd rather eat up whatever bullshit the NRA feeds them while quoting Thomas Jefferson about 'dangerous freedom' whenever they can and we're talking about the same man who believed blacks were inherently inferior to whites.

Then America would be easily invaded by China

Why in the world would China even want to invade the US when it's cuddling with all of the US's major corporations? Also, it's bizarre for you to think that the US would somehow be significantly weaker because of a gun ban despite the fact that it is still possess the world's strongest military force and spends significantly more on the military than China.

Besides, China's navy is not capable of such a sea-based invasion. If they did, they'd have invaded Taiwan a long time ago.

[Teachian]

Ngl, I have a feeling that the OP made this scenario already knowing that it’s a shit idea. Especially given “anti-gun” is an option on the poll.

A total gun ban would be problematic, unpractical and probably one of the most counterproductive “solutions” in America’s gun debate. There’d be legal problems galore, a lot pissed off people who hadn’t done anything wrong, and in all the chaos and now untraceable gun market, the gun violence and mass shootings “anti-gun” people tried to stop wouldn’t stop.

Then again, a total gun ban and police going door to door seizing firearms is such an extreme and unfeasible idea that it a) will thankfully never happen and b) makes me wonder how defensible the OP actually expected their scenario to be.

[Mingulay Isle]

But the Bible also endorses absolutely wrecking the shit of your enemies if God gives the go ahead. Like, have you really read the Bible? God and his chosen people have fucking demolished tons of enemies in very awe inspiring ways. Even Jesus wasn’t all that peaceful. The mad lad flipped over tables and whipped people over one sacrilege or another. The Bible absolutely does not endorse being a wet noodle and I personally blame a lot of the inconsistencies on mistranslations.

Why is it always the people antagonistic towards Christians who pull the "B-But you gotta t-turn the other cheek!" line when anyone talks about countering their antagonism?

Because anyone's who's gone to church knows that that lesson isn't about being pacifist in the face of violence, but about resisting unpopular roman laws nonviolently, by exploiting the roman's social standards in order to put them to humiliate them. This is the same reason that he say that when someone demands your cloak you should give him your tunic, or when forced to carry equipment a mile carry it two. The former undermines the Romans because to look upon someone naked was shameful, while the latter because while roman authority could force a person to carry their burdens for a mile they faced disciplinary action for more then that.

In the case of striking someones cheek it's because a backhand strike with the right hand is reserved for inferiors, so if you turn the other cheek you given them the option of striking you with the the open hand(which is a challenge to an equal), or striking you with the left(the use of which would bring shame on them because it's the "unclean" hand).

[Chernoslavia]

Ngl, I have a feeling that the OP made this scenario already knowing that it’s a shit idea. Especially given “anti-gun” is an option on the poll.

A total gun ban would be problematic, unpractical and probably one of the most counterproductive “solutions” in America’s gun debate. There’d be legal problems galore, a lot pissed off people who hadn’t done anything wrong, and in all the chaos and now untraceable gun market, the gun violence and mass shootings “anti-gun” people tried to stop wouldn’t stop.

Then again, a total gun ban and police going door to door seizing firearms is such an extreme and unfeasible idea that it a) will thankfully never happen and b) makes me wonder how defensible the OP actually expected their scenario to be.

I don't think the OP supports a total gun ban.

[Ors Might]

Banning guns is unrealistic in the US. Gun culture has its root deep in American society so pulling that out would be difficult and messy.

Instead of that, maybe if we prevented the NRA from opposing any research against gun violence since to them, that would be a 'nuisance'. Scientists, medical professionals and policy-makers could be able to act on that data and suggest solutions but no, the NRA and its lapdogs in Congress would much rather send thoughts and prayers and blame video games in response to mass shootings and the rising gun deaths in the US.

Maybe if the NRA stopped opposing medical professionals through lobbying in Congress whenever they try to collect data and find remedies to reduce the gun death toll, gun users wouldn't be seeing politicians proposing to ban certain guns and could instead see gun violence dip.

You know, surprising fact, you can fund research on gun violence and solutions while not seeing your guns being taken away but unfortunately, the NRA's supporters and gun nuts are too paranoid about anything to do with science or research that they'd rather eat up whatever bullshit the NRA feeds them while quoting Thomas Jefferson about 'dangerous freedom' whenever they can and we're talking about the same man who believed blacks were inherently inferior to whites.

Then America would be easily invaded by China

Why in the world would China even want to invade the US when it's cuddling with all of the US's major corporations? Also, it's bizarre for you to think that the US would somehow be significantly weaker because of a gun ban despite the fact that it is still possess the world's strongest military force and spends significantly more on the military than China.

Besides, China's navy is not capable of such a sea-based invasion. If they did, they'd have invaded Taiwan a long time ago.

What expertise would medical professionals have on preventing mass shootings? Don’t they only deal with the aftermath?

Like, no amount of medical knowledge would have any effect on a shooting occurring or not occurring.

[Celritannia]

The thing with the whole firearm issue is, no one (well except a small group of people) is wanting to ban guns. In fact, in most other countries, they are just heavily regulated, and are not seen as a right.

It's the fact that firearms are seen as a right, the ease of access and availability of them (especially in stores like Walmart), makes them easy to get a hold of.

[New haven america]

Absolutely nothing of value would be lost.

[The Two Jerseys]

The thing with the whole firearm issue is, no one (well except a small group of people) is wanting to ban guns.

You can quit spouting that line, Beto and Co. already disproved it.

In fact, in most other countries, they are just heavily regulated, and are not seen as a right.

And I feel bad for people who have to live there.

It's the fact that firearms are seen as a right, the ease of access and availability of them (especially in stores like Walmart), makes them easy to get a hold of.

Except they're not easy to get hold of.

[Ors Might]

Absolutely nothing of value would be lost.

Guess families that rely on hunting to help keep themselves properly fed don’t have value.

[Pacomia]

People would riot. A nation like America couldn’t just ban guns, especially all at once.

[Farnhamia]

Then America would be easily invaded by China

No, but people would still be digging up old, dead threads.

DO NOT POST IN A THREAD THAT HAS NOT HAD A NEW POST IN MORE THAT FOUR WEEKS.