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
 

you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

lotr rocks 0:

Jonluw:

Suki_:
Dont forget about all of those accidental gun deaths. You know all the four year old blows his head off or shoots dad ones.

Granted, those can be stopped without even enforcing anything like strict gun control.
All that's needed is to implement a law that requires every gun owner to store the weapons in locked firearm boxes, and without being completely assembled.
Like pretty much every other country that allows gun ownership does.

if people wanted to keep guns for personal safety, what would be the point of having the gun disassembled, not loaded, and locked in a cabinet somewhere... I'm pretty sure that kind of defeats the purpose if you randomly get a break in at 3 in the morning, the last thing you want to worry about is finding your key, putting the gun together, and loading it before you can use this. All of this likely in the dark and half a wake...

In countries where the gun control enforces a locker rule, guns aren't kept for personal safety. (And, surprisingly, people aren't constantly dying in robberies and the likes)
They're pretty shitty for self defense anyways.
Granted, for home defense, they're alright. Although pretty useless if you can't get a drop on the criminal.
In a society where guns are controlled, you're better off just defending your home with a bat, or calling the police.

bloodmage2:
but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

Owning a gun is no more an 'unhealthy addiction' than playing a video game.

bloodmage2:
you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

AngloDoom:

bloodmage2:
you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

Buretsu:

AngloDoom:

bloodmage2:
you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

You just contact whichever authority the gun is linked to, when the guns needs to be serviced (two per annum, once per annum, whatever it may be) and basically make an appointment to service your gun. You are given six hours in which to service that gun before it must be returned to the safe. If it is not returned to the safe within six hours then alert the shitstorm brigade. If any gun related crimes occur in that area around the time, you now potentially have a much smaller list of potential suspects.

Captcha: that's it

Again, this is clearly from someone who has no idea about guns so you'll have to tell me if I'm clearly missing points - such as the whole servicing thing.

Hey, let's ban death! That'll work!

bloodmage2:
you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

If you think this is halfway then you have no idea what my position is.

1) How will you enforce this?
2) You know very little about guns, correct?
Guns are not generalist devices, they tend to be very specialized for their tasks, collectors dont collect just for kicks.
3) Telling me how to raise my children eh?
When I was about 14-15 a friend came to my house, as we walked through the living room he saw my dads gun and picked it up. I immediately told him to stop, took it from him and unloaded it. When you raise kids with knowledge about firearms you dont have to worry about them being stupid with them. From the age of 7 or so I knew where a gun was, it was no mystery, I had already learned to shoot it and could do so anytime, I didnt have to sneak, I just had to ask.
4) Excellent area for a backdoor ban, just make the tests too hard to pass, also, literacy tests have already made a precedent in the US, you may not test someone before they are allowed to access a right.

How about this for halfway
A) Increased sentencing for anyone caught committing a crime while in possession of a firearm
B) Felon in possession = 10 years
C) Knowingly providing a firearm to a felon or for use in a crime = 10 years.
D) Theft of a firearm = 10 years
E) Mandatory firearms training, as part of high school education.

Punish individual criminals, not collective society.

To clear out prison space I suggest we legalize drugs and prostitution, which will also deprive gangs of their income.

AngloDoom:

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And I want to similarly lock your garage, because your car is polluting the world and causing climate change.

AngloDoom:

Buretsu:

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

You just contact whichever authority the gun is linked to, when the guns needs to be serviced (two per annum, once per annum, whatever it may be) and basically make an appointment to service your gun. You are given six hours in which to service that gun before it must be returned to the safe. If it is not returned to the safe within six hours then alert the shitstorm brigade. If any gun related crimes occur in that area around the time, you now potentially have a much smaller list of potential suspects.

Captcha: that's it

Perfect, except for all the unregistered firearms out there, there will be no end to them since the US has such long and unsecured borders.

AngloDoom:

Again, this is clearly from someone who has no idea about guns so you'll have to tell me if I'm clearly missing points - such as the whole servicing thing.

6 months is about right if you never do anything with your firearm but clean and reload it.

The most important thing to learn about gun owners is that we consider the owning of arms to be a right, second only to a right to free speech.

1. If you start to regulate guns really strictly in the US right now it probably would create a huge black market, simply because guns for personal use are demanded there. However here in Europe there is no big black market even though guns for the most part are very regulated. The difference as always is cultural, and culture takes a while to change. That does not mean that it shouldn't be however. And looking at the statistics, the US could benefit on some change in that area.

2. Comparing drugs to guns is not valid. Drugs only harm the user directly,but the only functional purpose of guns is to harm others directly. That, to me, legitimates a more stirct approach.

3. There are some validity to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Though it's validity is very limited. Knifes are very common and they are relatively easy to kill with. However I do not go about knifing people to death even though I could. Odds are I would not go about shooting people if I had a gun. BUT: killing people is much easier with a gun. A lunatic isn't that much more dangerous with a knife, but he is with a gun. It's a bit like nuclear weapons; in the hands of rational people they can be very useful, but one can't gatarntee that they stay in the hands of rational people, hence it would be best if they didn't exist. And hence it would be best if guns where strictly regulated (not banned alltogether, they have their uses after all).

4. Lunatics that want to kill alot of people with a guns probably will succeed. Here in Norway we have very strict gun-laws, but we also had one of the worst shooting-massacres in history very recently. That does not legitimate leaner regulation - it would probably have been easier to get hold of the weapons used in said massacre in the US.

EDIT: In #1 I am talking about a market for private, non-criminal citizens.

Once again, humanity defends humanities's right to kill other.
We don't NEED guns in a civilian environment. If you want to play the "People die all the time" card, then, as this is the case, why does anyone need a gun to add to the people dying anyway.

Get rid of the guns permanantly in civilian situations, you knock a massive chunk off of the yearly death list. Look at england and Japan. Some people still have guns, but barely anyone is killed with them.

FalloutJack:
Hey, let's ban death! That'll work!

Y'know emperor Caligula actually did ban death because he was dying?
Then He died.

At least they couldn't give him the death penalty (Which I think was the actual punishment)

Mathurin:

AngloDoom:

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And I want to similarly lock your garage, because your car is polluting the world and causing climate change.

Can we drop the comparisons between guns and cars? Yes you can kill someone with a car, but you can't drive to work on your gun. Many societies could exist with strict gun-control or absolutely no guns, while many more societies would face difficulty if cars were gone.

Nail-bombs and medieval cannons kill less per year than cars, that doesn't mean we should legalise them and let average Joe have them in his home: trivialising the argument like this doesn't assist anybody.

AngloDoom:

Buretsu:

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

You just contact whichever authority the gun is linked to, when the guns needs to be serviced (two per annum, once per annum, whatever it may be) and basically make an appointment to service your gun. You are given six hours in which to service that gun before it must be returned to the safe. If it is not returned to the safe within six hours then alert the shitstorm brigade. If any gun related crimes occur in that area around the time, you now potentially have a much smaller list of potential suspects.

Captcha: that's it

Perfect, except for all the unregistered firearms out there, there will be no end to them since the US has such long and unsecured borders.

Agreed, something I have previous addressed in my previous post about this topic. However, I'm talking about the rings home-owners should jump through to use a gun, not street-gangs and criminals. If you want to play the game of Keeping Up with the Joneses with criminals then you always be out-gunned; I'm sure automatic weapons are not legal in all states of America, but I'm sure some street-gangs have automatic weapons, should we then legalise automatic guns because criminals have them?

No, of course not. You don't legalise something because criminals use it to their advantage - quite the opposite. If everyone has a gun, doesn't it just devalue the usefulness of the police?

AngloDoom:

Again, this is clearly from someone who has no idea about guns so you'll have to tell me if I'm clearly missing points - such as the whole servicing thing.

6 months is about right if you never do anything with your firearm but clean and reload it.

The most important thing to learn about gun owners is that we consider the owning of arms to be a right, second only to a right to free speech.

Unfortunately I can't understand that ideal at all, as a result of not being a part of your culture. I don't understand why having a weapon should be anywhere near the same class as protecting your right to voice your opinion and be an active member of your society. Personally, I think claiming them to be anywhere near the same degree of right is an insult to those rights. I understand, however, this view isn't shared by everyone and I come from a place where if I hear a bump in the night the worst I expect is a man with a knife.

I just think a society where people feel the need to constantly carry a lethal weapon to feel safe a bit paranoid.

Knobody13:
I believe that a gun is the ultimate symbol of power. A person with a gun will always have power over a person without, and to make laws that ban people from having guns is to make laws that ban civilians from having power. The United States is a country founded for the people by the people. The power should rest with all of us equally

So somebody with a tank will always have power over somebody without a tank. Guns are hardly the ultimate symbol of power. I can hire a bunch of goons and buy them guns and then I'll still have power over other people with a gun. Would it not be truer then to say that, if we followed your idea, people with the most money should have power over everyone else. A cynic would say that's already the case.

People have no right to power.

And just because we can never prevent every bad thing from happening doesn't mean we should give up and just let it happen. We responded to the threat of terrorism with increased airport security measures. Learning from our mistakes is the only way to make any sort of progress, not cling to outrageously outdated ideals.

PrinceFortinbras:
1. If you start to regulate guns really strictly in the US right now it probably would create a huge black market, simply because guns for personal use are demanded there. However here in Europe there is no big black market even though guns for the most part are very regulated. The difference as always is cultural, and culture takes a while to change. That does not mean that it shouldn't be however. And looking at the statistics, the US could benefit on some change in that area.

Most of americans gun crime can be blamed on gangs, mostly linked to drugs, and no amount of laws will prevent dealers of smuggled substances from getting their hands on smuggled hardware.

Further differences between the US and europe explain the crime difference as well, being founding by paranoid nutters we have a strong tradition of hobbling government authority, especially in the justice department since that was heavily used against the colonists by the British, this makes it harder to catch and punish criminals.

PrinceFortinbras:

2. Comparing drugs to guns is not valid. Drugs only harm the user directly,but the only functional purpose of guns is to harm others directly. That, to me, legitimates a more stirct approach.

3. There are some validity to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Though it's validity is very limited. Knifes are very common and they are relatively easy to kill with. However I do not go about knifing people to death even though I could. Odds are I would not go about shooting people if I had a gun. BUT: killing people is much easier with a gun. A lunatic isn't that much more dangerous with a knife, but he is with a gun. It's a bit like nuclear weapons; in the hands of rational people they can be very useful, but one can't gatarntee that they stay in the hands of rational people, hence it would be best if they didn't exist. And hence it would be best if guns where strictly regulated (not banned alltogether, they have their uses after all).

So comparison to drugs is not valid but comparison to nukes is?

Lets make this clear, nobody should have nukes, they exist already so we dont have a choice, but nukes only did 2 'good' things
1) prevent the US from needing to invade japan (arguable)
2) prevent the cold war from escalating to total war

Guns are tools, destructive tools yes, but just like an axe, destruction used correctly is extremely important, without firearms we would still be under the heel of feudal lords.

BTW, mass knifings do occur, pretty frequently in Japan and I saw a story about a chinese fellow who used a butcher knife on a kindergarten class.

PrinceFortinbras:

4. Lunatics that want to kill alot of people with a guns probably will succeed. Here in Norway we have very strict gun-laws, but we also had one of the worst shooting-massacres in history very recently. That does not legitimate leaner regulation - it would probably have been easier to get hold of the weapons used in said massacre in the US.

EDIT: In #1 I am talking about a market for private, non-criminal citizens.

Bombs are way more effective, and impossible to effectively ban

Well yeah, but you have to admit that there would be less dead people if there were less guns. That's kind of the pivotal argument here.

Also, your premise would appear to be slightly contradictory. You say that "People just want to feel secure; they want to feel safe in a world without safety, and they are willing to sell their freedom away to the government for the PROMISE that the government will make the bad people go away" but also say "Having a gun next to your bed, can help you rest easy knowing that if someone tries to break into your home you will have some sort of power over the situation" which is pretty much the exact same thing, a feeling of safety.
You can't really disparage the concept of security while also promoting it as a positive feature in the possesion of a gun.

To be clear, I'm not advocating any particular course of action but I'd like some sort of clarification on your position.

It seems we agree on a lot of things. The gang problem in America is obviously the product of a lot of complex causes (the war on drugs, urban poverty etc.) not just the lack of gun control, and we do have similar problems in Europe.

Mathurin:
So comparison to drugs is not valid but comparison to nukes is?

I think the comparison is valid. Like guns nukes are made to directly harm other people, and drugs are not.

Mathurin:
Guns are tools, destructive tools yes, but just like an axe, destruction used correctly is extremely important, without firearms we would still be under the heel of feudal lords.

This is a far too simplified view of history. Handguns began to be common in Europe about 1500 AD. It took almost half a millenia for demcracies to develop.

Well, just to point out what should be mind-numbingly obvious: Gun deaths don't have to happen. Unlike heart attacks or strokes, gun deaths caused by legal licensed firearms can be stopped. (I'm not going to touch the issue of whether they should be with a ten foot pole).

Why not compare it to some other things we've banned: Drink or drugged driving, Assault, leaving children in cars without windows open? Some things are preventable and can be stopped. It's nothing to do with a "delusion", it's a fact. Having less guns, makes it less likely to be shot by a legally owned firearm. End of story. Whatever points you have on whether guns are good or bad, it's got nothing to do with this: Pro-gun people think that the risk is more than justified by their arguments (Which, before someone points it out in an annoying quote because they didn't read my second sentence, includes the defense against illegally owned guns and criminals), and Anti-gun people think that the risk is not justified. These arguments have merits and failings. Strawmanning everyone is just stupid.

Now, there's plenty of things in the same boat: Drugs can be dangerous, and whether they should be used or sold is an issue of a similar nature. In the end, the question is, is the risk too great, that we must sacrifice a freedom, or is the benefit worth the risk?

Strawmanning people you disagree with as wrong because you've got a bigger issue you can point to is a non-sequitur. A red herring. A straw man. A failure to understand statistics. It's just an epic fail. So I'd ask OP: What rhetorical questions we should ask to give ourselves the delusion of a valid logical or rational opinion?

We should ban people that like guns, just stick em all on an island together. That would sure as hell make me feel safer. We'll call it Bangybang Island and it'll be located somewhere FAR FAR AWAY.

AngloDoom:

Mathurin:

AngloDoom:

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And I want to similarly lock your garage, because your car is polluting the world and causing climate change.

Can we drop the comparisons between guns and cars? Yes you can kill someone with a car, but you can't drive to work on your gun. Many societies could exist with strict gun-control or absolutely no guns, while many more societies would face difficulty if cars were gone.

Nail-bombs and medieval cannons kill less per year than cars, that doesn't mean we should legalise them and let average Joe have them in his home: trivialising the argument like this doesn't assist anybody.

I was simply searching for a piece of your property to control.

AngloDoom:

AngloDoom:

Buretsu:

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

You just contact whichever authority the gun is linked to, when the guns needs to be serviced (two per annum, once per annum, whatever it may be) and basically make an appointment to service your gun. You are given six hours in which to service that gun before it must be returned to the safe. If it is not returned to the safe within six hours then alert the shitstorm brigade. If any gun related crimes occur in that area around the time, you now potentially have a much smaller list of potential suspects.

Captcha: that's it

Perfect, except for all the unregistered firearms out there, there will be no end to them since the US has such long and unsecured borders.

Agreed, something I have previous addressed in my previous post about this topic. However, I'm talking about the rings home-owners should jump through to use a gun, not street-gangs and criminals. If you want to play the game of Keeping Up with the Joneses with criminals then you always be out-gunned; I'm sure automatic weapons are not legal in all states of America, but I'm sure some street-gangs have automatic weapons, should we then legalise automatic guns because criminals have them?

No, of course not. You don't legalise something because criminals use it to their advantage - quite the opposite. If everyone has a gun, doesn't it just devalue the usefulness of the police?

I was talking about the list of potential suspects statement, you seemed to be assuming that the only guns in existence will be the ones locked in boxes.

Since you indicate thats not true then all you want to do is harrass gun owners with excessive regulation.

AngloDoom:

AngloDoom:

Again, this is clearly from someone who has no idea about guns so you'll have to tell me if I'm clearly missing points - such as the whole servicing thing.

6 months is about right if you never do anything with your firearm but clean and reload it.

The most important thing to learn about gun owners is that we consider the owning of arms to be a right, second only to a right to free speech.

Unfortunately I can't understand that ideal at all, as a result of not being a part of your culture. I don't understand why having a weapon should be anywhere near the same class as protecting your right to voice your opinion and be an active member of your society.
Personally, I think claiming them to be anywhere near the same degree of right is an insult to those rights.

Its very simple, the modern right to speech came about through use of arms. Without them it wouldnt exist, and in many nations it still doesnt. So dont take it as granted.
For centuries nobles had suppressed the popuation by having all the arms.
You may be satisfied that those days are gone, but I'm not, and until the population of the united states votes to remove the 2nd ammendment from the constitution, then it still has force of law.

Would you support ignoring part of your nations constitution?

AngloDoom:

I understand, however, this view isn't shared by everyone and I come from a place where if I hear a bump in the night the worst I expect is a man with a knife.

I just think a society where people feel the need to constantly carry a lethal weapon to feel safe a bit paranoid.

I dont feel the need to constantly carry a lethal weapon.
Well, I suppose technically I do carry a knife, which qualifies as a lethal weapon, but I carry it for utility, cutting open stuff, so I dont count it.
Speaking of carry though, its interesting to find the statistics coming out of the concealed carry programs, you know, the ones showing that concealed carry license holders rarely even get citations, much less shoot people.
Meaning your intent to control legal gun owners wont end up doing anything but harassing them.

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).

My Mom insists on putting a sweater on my dog. We live in the fucking desert.

OT: Marijau- uh....

Lightning.

PrinceFortinbras:
It seems we agree on a lot of things. The gang problem in America is obviously the product of a lot of complex causes (the war on drugs, urban poverty etc.) not just the lack of gun control, and we do have similar problems in Europe.

Yes, the gun crime we have just just a symptom, we need to find a solution instead of a band-aid

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
So comparison to drugs is not valid but comparison to nukes is?

I think the comparison is valid. Like guns nukes are made to directly harm other people, and drugs are not.

Yet nukes and explosive of all kinds are area of effect weapons, they are inherently pointed at everyone nearby, they must be carefully stored and maintained. They react to external changes and are complex.
Meanwhiles, guns are relatively inert, do not go off on their own (no matter what TV tells you) and only go off through intent or rank neglect.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
Guns are tools, destructive tools yes, but just like an axe, destruction used correctly is extremely important, without firearms we would still be under the heel of feudal lords.

This is a far too simplified view of history. Handguns began to be common in Europe about 1500 AD. It took almost half a millenia for demcracies to develop.

Guns on the battlefield dramatically reduced the power of the nobles, where before only highly trained (expensive) archers could penetrate their armor, now a peasant with a days training could do so.

The US split off into a democracy in the 1770s, though it could be claimed they had already been a democracy for about a century before then, since they mostly ran themselves on a local level.

The time was needed to improve the firearms technology, and for men to realize it was possible, things moved a lot slower back then.
It is actually interesting to see the old balance of power returning, with the kevlar body armor and vehicles of the wealthy nations nearly negating the equalizing power of the firearm.

Daveman:

Knobody13:
I believe that a gun is the ultimate symbol of power. A person with a gun will always have power over a person without, and to make laws that ban people from having guns is to make laws that ban civilians from having power. The United States is a country founded for the people by the people. The power should rest with all of us equally

So somebody with a tank will always have power over somebody without a tank. Guns are hardly the ultimate symbol of power. I can hire a bunch of goons and buy them guns and then I'll still have power over other people with a gun. Would it not be truer then to say that, if we followed your idea, people with the most money should have power over everyone else. A cynic would say that's already the case.

People have no right to power.

And just because we can never prevent every bad thing from happening doesn't mean we should give up and just let it happen. We responded to the threat of terrorism with increased airport security measures. Learning from our mistakes is the only way to make any sort of progress, not cling to outrageously outdated ideals.

I have no problem with a civilian owning a tank; well no more problem than i have with the government owning tanks.

Knobody13:
snip

Let me make a point that nobody seems to realize.

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN BANNING GUNS

Gun control refers to more strict regulations on guns. You know, that device who's sole purpose is to cause injury and death to a human being?

Gun control puts license and registration laws in place for people who want to own deadly weapons. You know most people like to argue that cars are more dangerous than firearms? Well you need a license to operate a car, and it has to be registered with the department of motor vehicles, AND it has to be insured.

A gun, a WEAPON, can and SHOULD have the same regulation. Because you can KILL someone with it. A gun is the only weapon in history that requires no training, skill, or even two functioning eyeballs to use properly.

They are highly dangerous. These are not toys. Someone can bang on about the right to bear arms all they want, but a gun is dangerous, and deserves respect.

No other country has this problem.

in 2007 12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide
118,021 people died from random accidents(like slipping off a ladder)

How's this for ya?

In 2007, 12,632 people in the US were killed by guns via homicide.
In 2007, 14 people in Canada were killed by guns via homicide.
66 in the UK.
140 in the EU.
77 in China.

Yeah, more people die from random accidents than outright homicide. Does that make the issue any less serious? Do we write off the deaths of over 12,000 people simply because more people died from other problems?

12,632 people died from gun violence. That's 12,632 more than there should be.

Do you think weapons are fun? That you just get to have one to play with? No. These are fucking weapons. Yeah, criminals can still get guns but it will at least be harder for them. Just because they still can we should just make it easier for them?

America too obsessed with their guns. They need to grow the fuck up and realize that weapons deserve respect. And Americans have no respect for their weapons. People who write off murder just because it's a lower statistic than accidents are defined by one word.

Prick.

thaluikhain:
You know, there are one or two other threads you could demonise people wanting gun restrictions in.

Yeah, but one of the main arguments for gun restriction is demonizing the other side. Alcohol is dangerous a crap for everyone, should be banned, because responsibility is not the answer.(/Sarcasm)

Loonyyy:
Well, just to point out what should be mind-numbingly obvious: Gun deaths don't have to happen. Unlike heart attacks or strokes, gun deaths caused by legal licensed firearms can be stopped. (I'm not going to touch the issue of whether they should be with a ten foot pole).

Why not compare it to some other things we've banned: Drink or drugged driving, Assault, leaving children in cars without windows open? Some things are preventable and can be stopped. It's nothing to do with a "delusion", it's a fact. Having less guns, makes it less likely to be shot by a legally owned firearm. End of story. Whatever points you have on whether guns are good or bad, it's got nothing to do with this: Pro-gun people think that the risk is more than justified by their arguments (Which, before someone points it out in an annoying quote because they didn't read my second sentence, includes the defense against illegally owned guns and criminals), and Anti-gun people think that the risk is not justified. These arguments have merits and failings. Strawmanning everyone is just stupid.

Now, there's plenty of things in the same boat: Drugs can be dangerous, and whether they should be used or sold is an issue of a similar nature. In the end, the question is, is the risk too great, that we must sacrifice a freedom, or is the benefit worth the risk?

Strawmanning people you disagree with as wrong because you've got a bigger issue you can point to is a non-sequitur. A red herring. A straw man. A failure to understand statistics. It's just an epic fail. So I'd ask OP: What rhetorical questions we should ask to give ourselves the delusion of a valid logical or rational opinion?

Well, to start off with, my original question was rhetorical. I don't think that anything I listed should be banned. My first intention was to put how GIANT of an issue gun violence was in perspective. Everyone says that its such an epidemic in this county and its barely a fraction of the deaths that happen on a yearly basis. My second intent was to compare alcohol with guns; both are equally pointless in society and auto accidents caused by drunk people make alcohol different than most drugs. The alcohol is causing people other than the user to lose their lives. Is there any sort of outcry to ban alcohol? Does anyone think banning alcohol would be a good idea? Prohibition worked out soooooo well.

Secondly . . .
Yes drunk driving is illegal, but drinking and owning a car are not.
Yes locking your child in the car is illegal, but owning a car and a child are not.
Yes assault is illegal but having fists is not.
Because of this, the human race can go on with its babies, cars, fists, and alcohol. The people that don't do the above crimes are not punished by preventing criminals the means to access the ingredients for those crimes.

And if you could be so kind, Mr. Logic Teacher, what exactly was my strawman argument and how exactly do i fail at statistics?

Bhaalspawn:

Prick.

Well that is quite offensive. It is indeed fucking tragic when someone dies. 1 death is terrible and affects countless peoples live forever. However is it less sad when someone kills themselves from a shitty diet. Is it less sad when you watch your dad collapse in front of you from a heart attack? Are you going to ban fast food? What about when an alcoholic T-bones a minivan full of kids? Are you going to ban alcohol? I agree that 12,000 people killed by another human being is a terrible terrible thing, and if I in anyway devalued them by quantifying them I'm sorry. But you can't make that number 0. You just can't man. You can't ban everything that kills people. We're all going to die. Whether from a heart attack, a slip off a ladder, or a bullet.

It's for society to decide. Gun ownership doesn't have moral side, if it is made illegal it is part of the social contract similarly to driving on one side of the road. Society trades liberties for increased function, safety or prosperity. Society clearly prefers to drink beer then not have the problems associated with it. Also prohibition doesn't work that well.

Guns are an integral part of American culture. Besides, have any of you ever actually fired a gun? They're great! They're really, really, loud!

If a few hundred people have to die senslessly to have them then I don't think that is too high a price to pay.

OT: The illusion of safety? I'm going to go ahead and say that we should ban ear protection in factories and also ban claims for industrial deafness. That way we can all just be like "fuck it, deafness is inevitable" and get on with our lives.

Ban people from discussing gun laws. They might get so worked up that they die while raging.

aba1:

Knobody13:
Everyone's so up in arms about this whole gun crime thing, so i decided to put some things in perspective for you guys.

in 2007 12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide
118,021 people died from random accidents(like slipping off a ladder)
68,705 died from diabetes
137,353 died from respiratory disease
567,628 died from cancer
128,842 died from a stroke
599,413 died from hear attack
25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol related accidents

I have to ask where are these statistics applied? They seem a bit small to be world wide statistics. I hate that people just always assume we know where they are from.

Must be American, you can tell cos they tend to forget that other countries exist. I'm English and once when I was visiting the 'States a yank asked me "England, eh? Say, what language do you speak over there?"

My jaw dropped and I changed the subject. Quickly.

Gun regulation and ownership is all about attitude as our Norwegian friend said. Unfortunately, the current popular misconception in America is that crime and violent crime are higher and more common than they've ever been (the reverse is true) and in response gun sales are higher than ever. Let's face it a scared populace are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later....or abuse that fear as an excuse to go around killing people they don't like the look of. *cough*standyourground*cough*

Mathurin:
Yet nukes and explosive of all kinds are area of effect weapons, they are inherently pointed at everyone nearby, they must be carefully stored and maintained. They react to external changes and are complex.
Meanwhiles, guns are relatively inert, do not go off on their own (no matter what TV tells you) and only go off through intent or rank neglect.

Exactly! There are really more similarities then differences. Guns are a bit (not quite) like nukes on a micro level. Dangerous to individuals in the same way that nukes are dangerous to groups. We would not sell a nuke to an unstable state, and we should not sell a gun to just anyone who wants them. Ergo we need regulation.

Mathurin:
Guns on the battlefield dramatically reduced the power of the nobles

... and very often put it in the hands of absolutist kings. And it is not true that the nobles lost power after the advent of gunpowder. England arguable remained an aristocracy until the parlamentary reform of 1832, maybe even longer. The United Provinces (The Netherlands)was ruled by a noble republic for 200 years. And thats only Europe! Asian states had guns, but most of them didn't turn democratic until very recently and some haven't yet. No, democracy is very much a product of ideological and socio-economic conditions. It does not just come down to whether or not "the people" has guns.

motor-vehicles? (cars / motorbikes etc) XD
then make the public transport so shitty people have to walk / bike everywhere

We should ban cancer!

In fact, one the most common form of cancer is breast cancer.

We should ban all the females!

Knobody13:

in 2007

12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide
118,021 people died from random accidents(like slipping off a ladder)
68,705 died from diabetes
137,353 died from respiratory disease
567,628 died from cancer
128,842 died from a stroke
599,413 died from hear attack
25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol related accidents

Here's a fun fact for you. We treat all of those things. All of them except the guns one. Society in general has been working HARD for about a hundred years to cure and prevent EVERY SINGLE ONE of those things. Drinking is heavily discouraged and regulated. Cancer strokes and heart attacks are at the forefront of medical research as are diabetes and respiratory disease. Its our aim and dream to reduce those numbers by trying new things again and again and again until they are wiped out forever. Whatever it takes. Safety measures on equipment, better medical research and such.

Youve kind of shot yourself in the foot a little here (pun intended). Youve named a big list of killers society is desperately trying to stamp out with all its might and then said "guns kill some people too but we dont try and stamp those out". Ironically this makes a very strong point for the anti guns brigade by implying we should try and stamp those out as well.

Bhaalspawn:

Knobody13:
snip

Let me make a point that nobody seems to realize.

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN BANNING GUNS

Gun control refers to more strict regulations on guns. You know, that device who's sole purpose is to cause injury and death to a human being?

Gun control puts license and registration laws in place for people who want to own deadly weapons. You know most people like to argue that cars are more dangerous than firearms? Well you need a license to operate a car, and it has to be registered with the department of motor vehicles, AND it has to be insured.

A gun, a WEAPON, can and SHOULD have the same regulation. Because you can KILL someone with it. A gun is the only weapon in history that requires no training, skill, or even two functioning eyeballs to use properly.

They are highly dangerous. These are not toys. Someone can bang on about the right to bear arms all they want, but a gun is dangerous, and deserves respect.

No other country has this problem.

in 2007 12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide
118,021 people died from random accidents(like slipping off a ladder)

How's this for ya?

In 2007, 12,632 people in the US were killed by guns via homicide.
In 2007, 14 people in Canada were killed by guns via homicide.
66 in the UK.
140 in the EU.
77 in China.

Yeah, more people die from random accidents than outright homicide. Does that make the issue any less serious? Do we write off the deaths of over 12,000 people simply because more people died from other problems?

12,632 people died from gun violence. That's 12,632 more than there should be.

Do you think weapons are fun? That you just get to have one to play with? No. These are fucking weapons. Yeah, criminals can still get guns but it will at least be harder for them. Just because they still can we should just make it easier for them?

America too obsessed with their guns. They need to grow the fuck up and realize that weapons deserve respect. And Americans have no respect for their weapons. People who write off murder just because it's a lower statistic than accidents are defined by one word.

Also this. Bless you.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked