Things besides guns we should ban to give ourselves the delusion of safety

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 

ElPatron:

CaptainMarvelous:
Uhh, internet ate my post so take 2 and briefer. Cars require quite strict licensing

Licensing that was designed so that most of the population could drive a car and that doesn't prevent deaths worldwide.

Licensing that does not stop anyone without a license to just steal or acquire a car in the black market.

CaptainMarvelous:
, the Bugati Veyron requires a lot of insurance and vehicular homocide is far lower than fire-arm related homocide (unless you can prove otherwise).

What do you mean with proving? Vehicular homicide is probably one of the worst ways to kill someone.

However, car accidents are waaaaay more common than firearm accidents.

Doesn't change the fact that the Bugati Veyron has to purpose as a road car.

CaptainMarvelous:
Majority of cars designed to travel well over the speed limit aren't street legal, those that are.

Wat. Even a Fiat Punto or a VW Golf can go over 120kmh. Even a Smart can do it, you just have to keep your foot down for two weeks.

If by "well over" you mean something like 250 km/h, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo can reach those speeds. Heck, lots of German cars are limited to 250.

To me, "well over" means enough to constitute a severe infraction, which is 150 km/h. Lots of cars reach those speeds.

Though I don't understand why would top speed be the equivalent to bulk in firearms.

CaptainMarvelous:
Your attempt at ridiculing the argument does not appear to have suceeded. Although while we're on the subject of ridiculing arguments, I'd rather like to carry a katana with me in public. Maybe some frag grenades, y'know, I don't HAVE to use them to blow people up. I can use the katana to cut the plastic tags off new clothes.

Katanas suck. Get a spear or a heavier sword with two edges.

I'm gonna be lazy and just do paragraph by paragraph down here.

You're right, it is possible to acquire a car illegally. It is also possible to acquire a gun illegally so for the purposes of comparison I dunno if this gels with the point. Car licensing at least requires you to show some responsibility, I don't believe the gun background test does? (other than showing you haven't gone on a rampage before, I guess, not overly familiar so could well need correction here)

By proving I mean statistics, say stats of vehicular homocide VS deaths by firearms. I'd ask for stats for the car accident/gun accidents thing but I'm inclined to think you're right, if just because of the far greater prevalence of cars and the fact they can be caused by a wider range of factors (deer in front of the car, old pedestrian, cyclists suddenly zipping across, etc)

I'm still getting my brain around kilometres so this may be why I'm unsure of the scale but the fastest I can concieve a regular car achieving is 150. That's dangerously speeding to be sure but this is only likely to be on a main road/freeway/highway as it does take time to get that fast. Same with bikes, Motorbikes can go incredibly fast in a short period of time but generally don't kill many people (other than the people ON the motorbike). When I think of well over I'm thinking 200ish miles and while some cars can likely achieve that (probably even some which are street legal) it's usually reserved for more impractical things like F1 cars. But this could be my own personal bias, this may have been a faulty line of reasoning on my part.

Rounding off, I'm actually having to fall back on sodding Cracked to think of a good way to express the point, all those cars can be used for a purpose other than killing people or practicing killing people (yes, you can use them to just shoot inanimate things because you want to, that unfortunately is still under the umbrella of practicing to kill people). It's the same reason I wouldn't carry a katana around with me (that and a spear would probably work better, I think I once again must concede ground on my argument for that) it can be used for only killing/injuring or practicing that. Cars can be used for a number of things such as driving around and disposing of the body involved in the earlier killing/injuring. You can weaponise nearly anything it's trickier to de-weaponise a weapon.

CaptainMarvelous:
You're right, it is possible to acquire a car illegally. It is also possible to acquire a gun illegally so for the purposes of comparison I dunno if this gels with the point. Car licensing at least requires you to show some responsibility, I don't believe the gun background test does? (other than showing you haven't gone on a rampage before, I guess, not overly familiar so could well need correction here)

Just because I know the laws and write them in a test does not prove I am going to follow them. Just because during the driving exam everyone drives at 45km/h (it gets annoying because there are several driving schools near my home and college) doesn't mean they will do that in a "real life" situation.

Background tests do not show responsibility? Fair point. But they also show that you are not being fined for drinking and driving, being a drug addict, beating your wife or assaulting people on the street. In the Netherlands a kid was granted a license to own a gun even though his medical records shown that he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and attempted suicide.

CaptainMarvelous:
Rounding off, I'm actually having to fall back on sodding Cracked to think of a good way to express the point, all those cars can be used for a purpose other than killing people

I'm not talking about killing people. I'm talking about purpose. Certain cars are designed as road cars but at the same time purpose built for performance.

I think that denying things to citizens based on "purpose" should mean the end of pretty much a big chunk of luxury items. Because I am that mean.

Suki_:

GunsmithKitten:

WickedSkin:
I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Ignorant AND racist, all in one package!

Your right we should throw black people on that list as well.

ElPatron:

Leadfinger:
I did read reliable news that someone had damaged a car windshield using a Digicon, and that was the reason for the stiffened airsoft controls, but I haven't seen anything reliable documenting that someone had been killed. I mean, the most you could possibly juice up any sort of airsoft gun would be to the level of a pellet gun, so I suppose it's remotely possible to kill someone, but it would be pretty hard to do so.

Digicon Targets are almost BB guns. Modify them for unrestricted CO2 and load steel BBs.

I am not talking about upgrading a Tokio Marui. Running it on unrestricted CO2 would probably shatter the slide, lol

Leadfinger:
Anyhoo, to get back to our topic, yes there are cultural differences between Japan and the U.S., but even so it's hard to deny that Japan's tough gun laws have something to do with the lack of firearm related killings in Japan. Ergo, gun control works. This isn't to say that exactly the same kind of laws that work in Japan would work in the U.S., but I also disagree with those who say gun control could never work.

The Yakuza has guns. They have no need to use them, be it for cultural reasons or to avoid too much heat from the fuzz... I have no idea, I have never been associated with them.

Simply, they have illegal weapons and the police has the right to search people for the tiniest reasons. Even if a weapon is confiscated illegally, in Japan it's okay to use illegally seized evidence in court.

Japan is all about social control. I can't say that "gun control" itself prevents gun deaths, because the guns are there. They are simply not being used.

WickedSkin:
I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

The Yakuza don't generally have guns except in Takeshi Kitano movies. The guns aren't generally there, and they aren't used, because there's too much heat from the fuzz, and the penalties for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime are quite severe.

BTW, Japanese police don't have the right to search a person unless they have probable cause, just like in the U.S. Also, illegally obtained evidence can't be used in court.

Leadfinger:
The Yakuza don't generally have guns except in Takeshi Kitano movies. The guns aren't generally there, and they aren't used, because there's too much heat from the fuzz, and the penalties for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime are quite severe.

Which is exactly why they are not used. Simply put it's a market that is being explored.

I looked around and the sources I found claim from 50k to 100k illegal weapons circulating in Japan. The Yakuza deal with prostitution and drugs. Why wouldn't they sell those illegal goods if they have no need for guns?

You cannot claim that the guns are not there because guns exist everywhere Man has set foot on. Sten sub-machine guns can be manufactured in any machine shop, even if the ammunition is nearly impossible to get.

Leadfinger:
BTW, Japanese police don't have the right to search a person unless they have probable cause, just like in the U.S. Also, illegally obtained evidence can't be used in court.

Then one of the sources can eat a bag of dicks because they gave me useless info.

I still think it's more about social control than gun control alone.

ElPatron:

Leadfinger:
The Yakuza don't generally have guns except in Takeshi Kitano movies. The guns aren't generally there, and they aren't used, because there's too much heat from the fuzz, and the penalties for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime are quite severe.

Which is exactly why they are not used. Simply put it's a market that is being explored.

I looked around and the sources I found claim from 50k to 100k illegal weapons circulating in Japan. The Yakuza deal with prostitution and drugs. Why wouldn't they sell those illegal goods if they have no need for guns?

You cannot claim that the guns are not there because guns exist everywhere Man has set foot on. Sten sub-machine guns can be manufactured in any machine shop, even if the ammunition is nearly impossible to get.

Leadfinger:
BTW, Japanese police don't have the right to search a person unless they have probable cause, just like in the U.S. Also, illegally obtained evidence can't be used in court.

Then one of the sources can eat a bag of dicks because they gave me useless info.

I still think it's more about social control than gun control alone.

I think it's probably a question of both social control and gun control.

You do have spree killings in Japan. The killer is often armed with a hammer or a kitchen knife. Every time I hear of such an incident, I'm glad the psycho in question didn't have access to an assault rifle.
captcha-needs must

ElPatron:

WickedSkin:
I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

Thank you captain Obvious

GunsmithKitten:

WickedSkin:
I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Ignorant AND racist, all in one package!

Since those 2 always goes hand-in-hand it's not really a sensation is it?

Sooo what's your point? We should ban cancer and alcohol?
I'm seeing a lot of arguing, and a hell of a lot of analogies, but not any real point. It's all reactionary.

The thing is, banning guns isn't going to happen, no politician would dare try, so there's no point getting all pissy about the idea of it. And even if they did, it wouldn't stop psychos getting hold of firearms.

Leadfinger:
I think it's probably a question of both social control and gun control.

Uh, social control involves gun control. You can't separate both. If you're in control, it's not the guns that worry you.

Leadfinger:
You do have spree killings in Japan. The killer is often armed with a hammer or a kitchen knife. Every time I hear of such an incident, I'm glad the psycho in question didn't have access to an assault rifle.
captcha-needs must

Assault rifles are illegal in most countries. In the US there are no assault rifles registered after 1986 (the year of the machine-gun ban). The only ones available for purchase cost several thousand dollars because they are rare.

Their purchase also requires a $200 tax stamp and a VERY detailed background check done by the ATF. They will investigate your life and decide if you can have the assault rifle or not.

The purchase is covered with red-tape. I have searched about it, and apparently there has only been ONE crime ever committed with a legally purchased Class III weapon (where assault rifles belong) - ironically it was a policeman using a MAC11, which isn't even an assault rifle.

WickedSkin:

ElPatron:

WickedSkin:
I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

Thank you captain Obvious

I'm sorry for not detecting sarcasm trough simple text.

I didn't read the 11 pages, sorry if it was said before...

We should ban LIFE.
You know whats the MAYOR real safety issue in the world: People living!
Let me explain. A LIVE person can DIE. (And a DEAD person just can't)
So I decree! from now on, everyone should die, to prevent them from getting hurt and dying. (Kinda reaper logic)

DONE safe place for everyone.

ElPatron:

Leadfinger:
I think it's probably a question of both social control and gun control.

Uh, social control involves gun control. You can't separate both. If you're in control, it's not the guns that worry you.

Leadfinger:
You do have spree killings in Japan. The killer is often armed with a hammer or a kitchen knife. Every time I hear of such an incident, I'm glad the psycho in question didn't have access to an assault rifle.
captcha-needs must

Assault rifles are illegal in most countries. In the US there are no assault rifles registered after 1986 (the year of the machine-gun ban). The only ones available for purchase cost several thousand dollars because they are rare.

Their purchase also requires a $200 tax stamp and a VERY detailed background check done by the ATF. They will investigate your life and decide if you can have the assault rifle or not.

The purchase is covered with red-tape. I have searched about it, and apparently there has only been ONE crime ever committed with a legally purchased Class III weapon (where assault rifles belong) - ironically it was a policeman using a MAC11, which isn't even an assault rifle.

WickedSkin:

ElPatron:

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

Thank you captain Obvious

I'm sorry for not detecting sarcasm trough simple text.

By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.

Leadfinger:
By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.

...

That isn't an Assault Rifle. The defenition of an Assault Rifle is: "A military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge." Technically, any rifle can accept a "large" magazines. Making a gun that accepts one box with more ammo than another box which has the same connection points is not very easy.

Besides, MOST crimes are done with handguns (85% by some studies), not rifles modeled after military weapons.

Leadfinger:
By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.

Then you are wrong. That is not an assault rifle.

It's a semi-automatic rifle just like any other. Military-styled assault rifles are only used in about 1% of crimes and they really don't increase the death toll.

If you remember Breivik, he used a Mini-14. It looks just like a lot of hunting rifles.

This is an AR15. Both fire comparable calibers (.223 and 5.56 are nearly the same in terms of lethality, you just shouldn't use 5.56 in .223 weapons).

The big differences are in the operational mechanism, the looks and the sights. The AR15 sights are elevated in comparison to the Mini-14 - that means that it's slightly easier to hit targets at hunting ranges because you're not hitting almost 2 inches under the point of aim.

Now, don't tell me that the black plastic makes the gun deadlier.

Ironically, the 100-round drum magazine jammed.

ElPatron:

Leadfinger:
By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.

Then you are wrong. That is not an assault rifle.

It's a semi-automatic rifle just like any other. Military-styled assault rifles are only used in about 1% of crimes and they really don't increase the death toll.

If you remember Breivik, he used a Mini-14. It looks just like a lot of hunting rifles.

This is an AR15. Both fire comparable calibers (.223 and 5.56 are nearly the same in terms of lethality, you just shouldn't use 5.56 in .223 weapons).

The big differences are in the operational mechanism, the looks and the sights. The AR15 sights are elevated in comparison to the Mini-14 - that means that it's slightly easier to hit targets at hunting ranges because you're not hitting almost 2 inches under the point of aim.

Now, don't tell me that the black plastic makes the gun deadlier.

Ironically, the 100-round drum magazine jammed.

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Leadfinger:
What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

bizentine:

Leadfinger:
What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

The M16A4 is the battle rifle issued to the USMC. Automatic fire may be the the primary defining characteristic of an assault rifle according to your definition, but not according to the Marines' definition.

Leadfinger:
What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Irrelevant. The M16A4 is not available for purchase, only an "assault weapon" semi-automatic AR15.

Also, the definition of machine-gun in the US is "more than one shot per trigger pull", which makes the M16A4 or A2 a machine-gun. If you look at the parts inside they are just full auto weapons with a counter that blocks firing.

You are grasping at straws with that argument.

bizentine:

Leadfinger:
What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

3 round burst = automatic fire. Just because it's not full auto (will expend all ammunition until the magazine goes empty or trigger is released) doesn't mean it's not an assault rifle.

It was designed for combat under 300m, has a pistol grip, detachable magazines and features select fire - it's an assault rifle.

ElPatron:

Leadfinger:
What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Irrelevant. The M16A4 is not available for purchase, only an "assault weapon" semi-automatic AR15.

Also, the definition of machine-gun in the US is "more than one shot per trigger pull", which makes the M16A4 or A2 a machine-gun. If you look at the parts inside they are just full auto weapons with a counter that blocks firing.

You are grasping at straws with that argument.

bizentine:

Leadfinger:
What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

3 round burst = automatic fire. Just because it's not full auto (will expend all ammunition until the magazine goes empty or trigger is released) doesn't mean it's not an assault rifle.

It was designed for combat under 300m, has a pistol grip, detachable magazines and features select fire - it's an assault rifle.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm more of a "word" person that a "gun" person. I don't know what guns have what besides the ones I own, but my point is that it isn't an "assault" weapon if it is semi-automatic.

bizentine:
You'll have to forgive me, I'm more of a "word" person that a "gun" person. I don't know what guns have what besides the ones I own, but my point is that it isn't an "assault" weapon if it is semi-automatic.

No problem, I was just going berserk with all the assault rifle thing.

But unfortunately the term "assault weapon" is. It's a semi-automatic clone of a military weapon that accepts hicap magazines and a pistol grip. Several countries ban the so called "assault" features.

Assault weapon =/= assault rifle. The media usually use both interchangeably.

ElPatron:
Assault weapon =/= assault rifle. The media usually use both interchangeably.

Assault weapon in the sense you are talking is only defined that way in certain legal documents such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and a few other laws. So, while "assault weapon" might be a convenient legal term, the definition of the word is unchanged. It's much like calling a violin a "fiddle," It isn't entirely accurate, but it's been uses so popularly to describe the word that it's become a meme of sort, but at the end of the day a violin is not, in fact, a "fiddle" nor are military-style semi-automatic weapons "assault" weapons.

bizentine:
So, while "assault weapon" might be a convenient legal term, the definition of the word is unchanged.

The jig is that "assault rifle" is a defined term and "assault weapon" isn't the same term. Call it a marketing ploy, say that the term is based on emotional arguments and not in actual facts, etc.

But my country does ban "assault features", what should I call to the banned weapons? I am ashamed that our society got to the point of implying an intent to an inherently inanimate object, but if "assault weapon" has a totally different meaning than "assault rifle" I don't see why should the term be considered incorrect.

ElPatron:
but if "assault weapon" has a totally different meaning than "assault rifle" I don't see why should the term be considered incorrect.

That's kindof my point. "Assault Weapon" has two possible *denotations* 1. A weapon classified as an assault weapon (i.e. automatic fire) or 2. A weapon witch an assault can be preformed with (i.e. Any weapon ever). "Assault weapon" meaning things like semi-automatic rifles stylized to look like an *actual* assault weapon is a fairly new term, and I believe would be classified as a *connotation* and really just a term of convenience.

I guess it really comes down to if you suckle the tit of Merriam-Webster or not. Because while they may think that "Assault Weapon" is an ok term to use for a weapon that is "Assault" only in appearance, these are also the people who decided that "Thingamajig" was a gem of a word that just couldn't possibly not be considered an actual component of the English language. Personally, however, I like to think the dictionary froze just before you could add words by petition.

We should ban water.

image

bizentine:
That's kindof my point. "Assault Weapon" has two possible *denotations* 1. A weapon classified as an assault weapon (i.e. automatic fire) or 2. A weapon witch an assault can be preformed with (i.e. Any weapon ever).

Pretty much this. You're implying intention to an inanimate object. Also, I'm pretty sure if you have the intent to harm someone, any object can become "assault [object]".

The "Assault Weapon" spiel was obviously created to ride on the fear towards "assault rifles". I don't know any "assault SMG" or "assault LMG". But the assault rifle was the evil baby spawned by Nazi Black Magic during WWII and harnessed by the Commies to create the Aye Kay Forty Seven.

If you hate guns, what better term to describe a weapon than one coined by Hitler himself?

This argument is as pointless as the "art game" argument. I still use the term "art game" because it's easier than come up with a new one.

Guns are specifically designed for wounding or killing an intended target. Not for self defense, the main difference being that self defense can be achieved in non-lethal ways.

As the sole intention of a gun is to cause fatal wounds, it has no real place with a civilian whom of course should have no reason to need to kill something.

Of course this problem can be broken down. Shotguns and rifles are more designed for hunting, so have at least some place in a civilian market, older guns are often sought after by collectors and rarely used outside of decoration, again having a place. The main problem in all of this is the standard handgun. The majority of homicides, suicides and accidental death cause by a firearm are caused by handguns, and the sad thing is they have no other use other than a tool for one human being to kill another. When you train with a handgun in a firing range, you are training to hit a human target. This has NO place in a civilian market.

Handguns are useful for military as a sidearm and at a stretch a police force; not civilians. When civilians get a hold of them their only purpose becomes shooting a person and practicing for shooting a person.

So while firearms in general should probably not be taken completely away from civilians, tighter restrictions on who can get what for what purpose should be imposed. Having a gun because you feel safer knowing you can brutally murder someone should you get a bit too freaked out should not be a valid enough reason to own a firearm, a number of self defense measures are available that do not require murder.

-

As for the rest of the argument, the obvious one first:
Natural illness and accidents are self inflicted? really?

And the alcohol.

Firstly, a small amount of Alcohol has been proven to be healthy for you; and while it's true that incidents arise when too much alcohol is consumed, you're kinda missing something there; That the large majority of these incidents are SELF INFLICTED; that is, in a large number of these apparent deaths cause by alcohol the person whom died was the person injesting the alcohol, while the number you quoted for guns was homicide, so the person killed someone else; that is a very significant difference. It means that with alcohol, if you dont want to put yourself at risk, you just know not to drink, a fate not so avoidable when you're facing down the barrel of a gun, you can't just say 'im not getting a gun, therefore i will not get shot' while you can say 'im not going to drink, therefore im not going to accidently drive off a bridge or get severe liver damage.

Now that we've presented alcohol in the same light you presented the gun related crimes, lets flip it, and present the gun related crimes in the light you presented the alcohol related ones, by which i mean lets look at ALL gun related deaths shall we?

In America, its not homicide that gets the biggest body count believe it or not, the USA boasts a suicide rate thats actually higher than its homicide rate

"Firearm-In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States"
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)
Considerably higher than you're 12,632, and higher than you're suspiciously even 25,000 alcohol related deaths.

And about that, the 'alcohol related deaths' encompasses a massive amount of different actual causes, the number related to those where alcohol is merely a contributing factor, and when another person is killed the large majority are accidental (road accidents) which obviously doesn't excuse it; but its a much less evil than the ease of a premeditated murder or even killing spree. You know how much harder a killing spree would be if you were completely hammered?

James Mann:
As the sole intention of a gun is to cause fatal wounds, it has no real place with a civilian whom of course should have no reason to need to kill something.

I both agree and disagree.

If you have a need to defend yourself, you have a need to kill someone. Lets say you taze a guy who tries to mug you. What do you think will happen if he EVER sees you again? More than likely, he will try to exact revenge. A gun is not a tool used for winning battles, it is a tool for winning wars. Quite frankly, I don't see why I would mercifully incapacitate someone who intends to cause myself, my family, or my friends direct harm. A police officer who has to wrangle in someone who is mentally handicapped, absolutely, but *me*? If someone steps to me, I will end them, and I would hope you would be as protective of yourself and those around you. So, in that sense, yes, even in self defense a gun is used for killing people.

On the other hand, I would argue that *bullets* are designed to kill people, and guns themselves are simply designed to focus an explosion into a single direction. Rubber bullets, bean-bag rounds, ect are both non-lethal and still fired by those gun-things you claim are designed to kill people.

Guns are a tool. A very efficient tool. And people who mean to cause harm will always use the most efficient tool available. If guns didn't exist, we'd likely be having a similar conversation about swords or crossbows, and in 40 years I imagine we'll be having the same conversation about lasers or some nonsense. The core problem is that people are violent, and uneducated.

EDIT: Criminals will always have guns, and your suggestion that they should be given an advantage over law-abiding citizens greatly worries me. Shooting sprees are almost always targeted at places that you can't carry a firearm. I can only imagine if that was "everywhere".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked