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 NEXT
 

Buretsu:

Wolf In A Bear Suit:
Yea I don't see why people would be opposed to regulating gun ownership. As it stands in some countries any psycho can buy a gun. Over here you need permits for guns. You wouldn't really get a permit for a gun in a city. Only very select rapid response police have guns

The problem is that legal gun ownership is nowhere near as big a problem as illegal possession of a firearm. Yes, okay, make it harder for the law-abiding citizen to get a gun, and you'll reduce the number of times when someone decides to use a gun to settle an argument once and for all, or the number of times when accidental death occurs as the result of a stupid, irresponsible gun owner.

You'll also reduce the amount of times one can buy to give to their less than respectable friend or cousin. And, an interesting statistic from R&P forums, buried in one of the countless threads on the subject, sadly, would suggest that kind of "acquisition" makes up about a third of firearms that were used in crime.

Every "illegal" gun was legal at some point (not counting home distillery, of course). "Illegal" guns don't just pop into existance.

Penises! Those damn things are everywhere, they're a menace to society they are!

Buretsu:
The problem is that legal gun ownership is nowhere near as big a problem as illegal possession of a firearm.

But where do you think illegal firearms come from?
They don't just pop into existence. Every illegal gun has been legal at some point (with the exception of a few that are produced in illegitimate factories).
In a highly regulated market, it's almost impossible to get a hold of illegal firearms unless you want to pay huge amounts of cash for them.
Take Norway for example: We have a high gun ownership rate due to hunting, but firearms can only be acquired through a rather long legal process, and even then the kind of firearms you may buy are restricted, and they all have very limited magazine capacities. I think it was max two rounds or something, but don't quote me on that.

The only ways to get a hold of an illegal gun is to steal it from someone who's acquired it legally (hard to do because gun lockers are mandatory), or smuggling them across the border from some other country (or buying a gun from someone who's done that). Both of those are pretty hard to do, so criminals practically don't use guns at all here. Contrary to popular belief, what gun control does is take guns out of the hands of criminals, while letting people who need guns for legitimate reasons keep their guns.

JaceArveduin:

That actually depends, there's a guy who owns a big gun shop down in Arizona that has an old AA gun that he lets people fire for... don't remember the price, as it happens XD

His neighbours must love him.

Edit:

Vegosiux:
"Illegal" guns don't just pop into existance.

How the hell did I manage to use the exact same wording as this guy?

Cars, bats, knifes and forks of any kind.

I am not a supporter of banning things. Banning things does not make those things go away and only makes people desire them more. It's the whole 'Forbidden Fruit' phenomenon. I am a supporter a requiring a license to own and operate a gun or any sort of firearm, just like you do a vehicle, which last time I checked is how it is in most areas.

Lemme see...

All and any bladed implements, glass (any shape), vehicles (self propelled, animal propelled, and people propelled), playing video games (but only for extended periods of time while living in an asian country; seriously, how often does any one else manage to game themselves to death? must be something in the water), Over eating, under eating, cancer (non-celestial), Fire, water (puddle size or larger), Alcohol (unless used topically), humans (unless mute and disabled), the wheel, the lever, the wedge, Land animals (with the exception of the gerbil, which is neither large enough nor in the possession of the intelligence or natural weaponry necessary.), electricity, and of course, Time (that son of a bitch has no mercy).

Everything on that partial list has the potential to cause death and should be made illegal. Our children won't stand a chance in life if we don't do something about these horrible dangers!
Oh right, left that off the list. Children.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
I wish people would stop comparing guns to drugs. It's not an apt comparison. Banning the two has completely different effects.

Remember that time alcohol was banned and a massive crime wave occurred that involved a lot of gun related death?

OT: Yeah, don't try and justify gun related deaths. I'm not against guns but stop trying to delude yourself into thinking they're a benefit to society to have them in peoples pockets.

Yes i can not see why the world has not banned cancer yet.What is this world coming to we could save 567,628 peoples lives if we just banned cancer?

Pitch-forks. Because obviously there will be a redneck uprising in the near-future.

Jonluw:

Suki_:
Well what if you want to use the gun to kill a mouse and are to tired to properly put it away. What if you are a crazy American who thinks guns are useless if kept in a locker because how are you gonna shoot somebody for looking at you the wrong way if its locked up.

Introducing gun control to a country like the US is a gradual process.
You can't just suddenly ban all guns. That would leave a shitton of guns on the market, none of them legal.
You need to restrict what kinds of guns can legally be produced and sold and slowly increase the difficulty of getting a license to buy a gun.
Banning magazine sizes greater than what's needed for hunting, etc.
After a while you may ban handguns entirely.

You don't change the public's attitude towards keeping guns locked up overnight.

They tried exactly that kind of stuff (including the magazine size restriction) under the Federal "Assault Weapons Ban," which created a new category ('assault weapons') that would be prohibited. It expired some years ago and was no renewed, because it didn't have any appreciable effect on crime (very rarely do gun crimes include these "assault weapons" anyway).

Ignatz_Zwakh:
Pitch-forks. Because obviously there will be a redneck uprising in the near-future.

Oh gods.
I can totally see this scenario playing out in the south during Obama's speech when he's re-elected. Only with a tv instead of a magic mirror.


He even goes "If you're not with us, you're against us"

The Unworthy Gentleman:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
I wish people would stop comparing guns to drugs. It's not an apt comparison. Banning the two has completely different effects.

Remember that time alcohol was banned and a massive crime wave occurred that involved a lot of gun related death?

OT: Yeah, don't try and justify gun related deaths. I'm not against guns but stop trying to delude yourself into thinking they're a benefit to society to have them in peoples pockets.

And what about knives? Face it, no matter how afraid of guns you are, they're just tools. Britain essentially banned guns and guess what? The violent crime rate is on a steady rise ever since. Now they're trying to ban the carry of knives, so the local chav population are instead using blunt instruments, and cops in London are carrying MP5 submachine guns regularly.

We get it, you like guns. Congratufuckinglations.

Those are some very specific statistics you're listing there. How many deaths are caused by guns and are NOT homicide? How many of those respiratory conditions, heart attacks, strokes, and "random" accidents (including vehicular and alcohol-related) were causally, related to use of firearms? How many suicides involve firearms, or the feeling of powerlessness because people who shouldn't have that kind of power own them? (a very real fear; it doesn't go away just because you also have guns.) From what country are those statistics taken, England? Switzerland? America has at least 10,000 shootings per week (though the number of fatalities are much lower).

If you're going to throw effectively random numbers copy/pasted from a FoxNews, NRA, or KKK website (like there's a difference...), you could at least verify them with some of your own research.

But, in answer to your stupid question, the only way for true safety and security is to have either complete control or none. One party must have absolute power. The only way to avoid turning that into oppression is to be that one. You cannot be secure unless you have the ability to control others' actions, or obey someone who does. That's how security works.

Ben Franklin said it best: "Any willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither."

Dastardly:
They tried exactly that kind of stuff (including the magazine size restriction) under the Federal "Assault Weapons Ban," which created a new category ('assault weapons') that would be prohibited. It expired some years ago and was no renewed, because it didn't have any appreciable effect on crime (very rarely do gun crimes include these "assault weapons" anyway).

Yup, handguns are what you should really ban (/restrict most strictly), but there would be an uproar, so you can't do that until later stages.
Placing restrictions on rifles and shotguns to only really be useful for hunting is mostly to keep criminals from turning to these weapons when the handguns are taken from them.
Although it is also useful to restric the impact a legal gun owner who suddenly snaps will be able to make.

Ban Cynicism and complaining on the Internet. I just want to see what happens.

Jonluw:

Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.

Actually, no it doesn't, that's a myth. Study after study has shown that stricter gun control does not reduce the rates of crime or violent crime, and concealed carry of handguns decreases crime. Also, a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia passed a law requiring all homeowners to keep a firearm in the house, the burglary rate fell by 89%.

You know, heart attack and cancer are the two biggest reasons so we should just ban those two instead of guns. That would save a lot more people!

Worgen:
The difference between guns and all the things you listed are that guns tend to be something we do to each other, everything else is mostly self inflicted to some degree.

I agree I also think it is worth noting that the lack of gun control in the US directly effects the amount of illegal guns crime in there neighboring countries. 90% of illegal guns in Canada came from the US and almost all gun related crime is with illegal guns.

shrekfan246:

WaysideMaze:
Is gun control the thread of the month now?

Yeah, it seems that way. What, you're not excited to get away from the gender politics again?

:D

Isn't gun control a much better topic to discuss?

Oh I'm definitely excited to get away from gender politics.

I feel a little lost in gun control threads though. I live in the UK, so it's all a bit foreign to me.

WaysideMaze:

shrekfan246:

WaysideMaze:
Is gun control the thread of the month now?

Yeah, it seems that way. What, you're not excited to get away from the gender politics again?

:D

Isn't gun control a much better topic to discuss?

Oh I'm definitely excited to get away from gender politics.

I feel a little lost in gun control threads though. I live in the UK, so it's all a bit foreign to me.

That's okay, all you have to do is continually point out how because you have much stricter gun regulations than the US does, you're much better off, and the US should follow the example of your country.

Unless you're not trying to get into the middle of the flame war, in which case it'd be best to just avoid them entirely.

@ The people saying gun control reduces gun crime: You are totally right, less guns means less gun crime. Except that doesn't mean anything because then other sorts of crime rise.

Unless someone is arguing that gun crime is fundamentally worse than any other form homicide or assault I don't see why they aren't after banning knives or any other tool that is great at killing people.

Then at the comment about gun related suicide: You think if guns were banned they wouldn't try to kill themselves? Over dosing, hanging, jumping off a bridge or tall building, I don't see suicide being drastically reduced because of gun bans.

Banning guns doesn't do anything besides lower gun related crimes. People will still find other ways to harm themselves or others. And there are more than enough ways to kill people as is.

People who are planning to shoot people will find guns, legally or illegally. There is really no point in banning guns since you'd just be enlarging the black market.

We should ban stupid people, lunatics and psychopaths. Once they are gone there will be a lot less non natural deaths all around.

How would we go about banning religious extremism?

Worgen:
The difference between guns and all the things you listed are that guns tend to be something we do to each other, everything else is mostly self inflicted to some degree.

Using official data released by the Department of Transport, this map plots the location of every fatal road crash in Great Britain between 1999 and 2008, a total of 32,298 deaths.

...

This is 11 years of deaths and injuries on Britain's roads. You can zoom around the map using the controls on the left or search for your town. Each dot represents a life.

...

369,629 people died on America's roads between 2001 and 2009. Following its analysis of UK casualties last week, transport data mapping experts ITO World have taken the official data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - and produced this powerful map using OpenStreetMap. You can zoom around the map using the controls on the left or search for your town using the box on the right - and the key is on the top left. Each dot represents a life.

...

Germany's federal statistics office Destatis reported on Wednesday, that a total of 4,477 persons were killed in traffic accidents on Germany's roads in 2008, which is fewer than in any year since 1950. Compared with the previous year, the number of people killed in road traffic accidents was down by 472 or 9.5%. At the same time, that figure is only about one fifth of the number of persons killed in traffic accidents in 1970, the most dramatic year in accident statistics, when 21,332 people died on Germany's roads. A ban on alcohol introduced in August 2007 for new drivers has had a positive impact.

Irish publicans are lobbying the ruling Fianna Fáil party to block moves by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey, to lower the drink-drive limit.

...

There were 10,182 firearms offences in the year to the end of September {2007} compared with 9,755 in the previous 12 months - an increase of more than 400 crimes, or more than eight every week.

The rise is the biggest percentage increase since September 2004, when figures showed a five per cent increase in gun crimes.

While gun-related deaths were down, from 55 to 49, the number of slight injuries, threats and non-injury incidents linked to guns increased.

...

Murders with firearms (most recent) by country {notably not per 100,000 population, just the total}

Rank Countries Amount // Population
# 1 South Africa: 31,918 // 50,586,757
# 2 Colombia: 21,898 // 46,927,125
# 3 Thailand: 20,032 // 69,518,555
# 4 United States: 9,369 // 311,591,917
# 6 Mexico: 2,606 // 112,336,538
# 11 Germany: 269 // 81,726,000
# 14 Canada: 144 // 34,482,779
# 25 Australia: 59 // 22,620,600
# 26 Sweden: 58 // 9,453,000
# 27 Bolivia: 52 // 10,088,108
# 28 Japan: 47 // 127,817,277
= 39 United Kingdom: 14 // 62,641,000
= 39 Denmark: 14 // 5,574,000

14 x 311,591,917 / 62,641,000 = 69.64, which is 0.0074 of 9,369. The USA firearm murder rate per capita is 134.5 times the UK firearm murder rate per capita.

shrekfan246:
That's okay, all you have to do is continually point out how because you have much stricter gun regulations than the US does, you're much better off, and the US should follow the example of your country.

Unless you're not trying to get into the middle of the flame war, in which case it'd be best to just avoid them entirely.

I find them quite interesting to read, if you can find your way through the flames to the coherent posts anyway.

It always makes me laugh when people who live in different countries critisize the way another country does things differently. Or, like you said, compares.

Eclpsedragon:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
We should ban sweaters on dogs.
They're already covered with fur, they don't need a sweater
(unless they're hairless dogs, or live in very cold places, those dogs get a pass).

As ridiculous and annoying as they are, my grandmother had one on her dog when, i shit you not, a hawk swooped by and tried to take the poor thing away.
The sweater prevented that dumb bird from taking that poor little jerk to its nest.

banning something will not make us safer, if anything it'll promote illegal dealings in order to obtain the object in question
promoting the purchase of such items can also decrease safety since they more than likely fall into the wrong hands
if you want safety, you need Big Brother breathing down your neck and a shock collar which activates anytime the government or whoever is in charge thinks you're doing wrong, there is no complete way to promote the illusion of safety other than to see the "bad guys" getting dealt with, which makes most people feel glad they aren't them and that they aren't doing something to make themselves enemies of everyone else

Knobody13:
snip

You should include the statistics on homicide by other means.

Qtoy:

Eclpsedragon:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
We should ban sweaters on dogs.
They're already covered with fur, they don't need a sweater
(unless they're hairless dogs, or live in very cold places, those dogs get a pass).

As ridiculous and annoying as they are, my grandmother had one on her dog when, i shit you not, a hawk swooped by and tried to take the poor thing away.
The sweater prevented that dumb bird from taking that poor little jerk to its nest.

Out of curiosity what kind of dog does a hawk try to eat?

Shoqiyqa:
How would we go about banning religious extremism?

Worgen:
The difference between guns and all the things you listed are that guns tend to be something we do to each other, everything else is mostly self inflicted to some degree.

Using official data released by the Department of Transport, this map plots the location of every fatal road crash in Great Britain between 1999 and 2008, a total of 32,298 deaths.

...

This is 11 years of deaths and injuries on Britain's roads. You can zoom around the map using the controls on the left or search for your town. Each dot represents a life.

...

369,629 people died on America's roads between 2001 and 2009. Following its analysis of UK casualties last week, transport data mapping experts ITO World have taken the official data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - and produced this powerful map using OpenStreetMap. You can zoom around the map using the controls on the left or search for your town using the box on the right - and the key is on the top left. Each dot represents a life.

...

Germany's federal statistics office Destatis reported on Wednesday, that a total of 4,477 persons were killed in traffic accidents on Germany's roads in 2008, which is fewer than in any year since 1950. Compared with the previous year, the number of people killed in road traffic accidents was down by 472 or 9.5%. At the same time, that figure is only about one fifth of the number of persons killed in traffic accidents in 1970, the most dramatic year in accident statistics, when 21,332 people died on Germany's roads. A ban on alcohol introduced in August 2007 for new drivers has had a positive impact.

Irish publicans are lobbying the ruling Fianna Fáil party to block moves by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey, to lower the drink-drive limit.

...

There were 10,182 firearms offences in the year to the end of September {2007} compared with 9,755 in the previous 12 months - an increase of more than 400 crimes, or more than eight every week.

The rise is the biggest percentage increase since September 2004, when figures showed a five per cent increase in gun crimes.

While gun-related deaths were down, from 55 to 49, the number of slight injuries, threats and non-injury incidents linked to guns increased.

...

Murders with firearms (most recent) by country {notably not per 100,000 population, just the total}

Rank Countries Amount // Population
# 1 South Africa: 31,918 // 50,586,757
# 2 Colombia: 21,898 // 46,927,125
# 3 Thailand: 20,032 // 69,518,555
# 4 United States: 9,369 // 311,591,917
# 6 Mexico: 2,606 // 112,336,538
# 11 Germany: 269 // 81,726,000
# 14 Canada: 144 // 34,482,779
# 25 Australia: 59 // 22,620,600
# 26 Sweden: 58 // 9,453,000
# 27 Bolivia: 52 // 10,088,108
# 28 Japan: 47 // 127,817,277
= 39 United Kingdom: 14 // 62,641,000
= 39 Denmark: 14 // 5,574,000

14 x 311,591,917 / 62,641,000 = 69.64, which is 0.0074 of 9,369. The USA firearm murder rate per capita is 134.5 times the UK firearm murder rate per capita.

That is why I said mostly. Also it would be nice to ban religious extremism.

Eclpsedragon:

Qtoy:

Eclpsedragon:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
We should ban sweaters on dogs.
They're already covered with fur, they don't need a sweater
(unless they're hairless dogs, or live in very cold places, those dogs get a pass).

As ridiculous and annoying as they are, my grandmother had one on her dog when, i shit you not, a hawk swooped by and tried to take the poor thing away.
The sweater prevented that dumb bird from taking that poor little jerk to its nest.

Out of curiosity what kind of dog does a hawk try to eat?

Chihuahua-Pomeranian-About-11-different-terriers mix.
She's friggin' tiny.
I'm not arguing with you, dog sweaters are stupid. I just love telling that story.

we should definitely ban people then, also air, food, medicine, science, religion, mental imbalances, fatal diseases, peer pressure, water pressure, air pressure, piers, opposable thumbs, faulty toasters and the fabric of reality itself.

Spygon:
Yes i can not see why the world has not banned cancer yet.What is this world coming to we could save 567,628 peoples lives if we just banned cancer?

Technical point: by preventing the development of cancer, heart disease, diabetes or CJD you are not, in fact, preventing any deaths. You can only postpone them. If you want to push life expectancy to 150 you'd better be prepared to push retirement age to at least 100.

Ban paper having edges... I'm getting pretty sick of the damned papercuts. Might give Doctor Who something to work on in his spare time, too.

Ok, so what's the point of starting a thread about an argument that there are already... I think 3? 4? threads about?

Unless you have extra arms/keyboards, I'm pretty sure there's only so much arguing you can do at one time.

In theory.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked