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.
I've seen you post around this site, and while I don't normally agree with you, I have to tip my hat to you on this one.
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.
Congratulations on completely missing the point. The point, should you actually care, is that you're suggesting power is bought and that that is a healthy system.
Jonluw: 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.
I agree with you completely. I was just saying that just requiring a gun locker in the states wouldn't really be a good solution IMO. I'm in favour of gun control though, but I don't know how you can even approach implementing it in the states without the conservative right thinking the government is going to murder them all in their sleep.
Shouldn't the question really be: What things should we allow to give ourselves the delusion of safety?
;)
Captcha: draw a blank
:D
Edit: The thing is, if you live in a paranoid culture, you of course will think that you MUST have guns, you can't POSSIBLY survive without them. The reality is most people are not as scary as you think they are - they ARE NOT out to get you. Fact: I have never even seen a real gun that isn't on TV/Cinema/Video Games because, where I come from, we don't live in (as much as) a "climate of fear" as the US.
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.
Um no, there are not more similarities than differences, the only similarity is "they both kill people"
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.
Im not arguing that, the people had to be willing to demand democracy, much like the arab spring. Yet guns were a vital part of it, were the american revolution fought without guns, with armor and the handweapons prior to firearms, the americans would have lost.
thaluikhain: You know, there are one or two other threads you could demonise people wanting gun restrictions in.
Pretty much this. I mean, for a new thread, one could at least come up with something new...this is a "heard it a million times" thing.
While I don't have a strong opinion on the issue one way or another and dislike repeat threads as much as the next guy, I think it's fair to bring it up again.
Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.
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.
Oh, so all you want to do is license and register, gee, that seems fine. Except thats all that New York, Washington DC and Chicago claimed they wanted to do, just license and register guns and owners, then they changed their mind and refused to register entire classes of firearms. Turns out politicians lie.
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.
False, I own several cars that I used to spare parts, nobody required me to tag or insure them, I dont need to register them or even possess a title.
You need to tag and insure a car to drive it on public roads, you need a license to drive on public roads.
You may drive unlicensed and untagged vehicles without a drivers license all you wish on private property, which is also, coincidentally, where people use firearms.
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.
It requires minimal training, I wouldnt say no training. Regardless, you are right, they are far simpler than cars, which is part of the reason we dont need a government license.
Still, I am willing to find a meeting point on training, I have long thought that we needed a basic firearms safety course as a part of high school, a basic one wouldnt even take 2 hours.
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.
Someone can bang on about their right to free speech, but white supremacists are dangerous.
See, I can disrespect rights too, isnt it fun? Suffice to say, the 2nd ammendment is part and parcel of our constitution, until that changes we DO have a right to bear arms in the US, enshrined in law. Unless you recommend we ignore an inconvenient part of our constitution, that could never lead to bad things.
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.
Your comparison is absurd, the nations do not have the same populations, and as you like to point out, the single vector you are measuring is controlled.
Look at rates per 100k for total homicides if you dont want to be laughed out of the internet statisticians meetings.
Also, most of those deaths are drug gang related, you are using a symptom to suggest control is needed, we need to stop fighting symptoms.
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.
Guns are worthy of a great deal of respect, but that does not mean they require government control. I respect firearms greatly, and I have never had an unintended discharge, I follow the 3 rules and they work.
The citizens of developed nations have become too reliant on their government to control everything in their lives. When anyone is controlled everyone is controlled, and the more control there is the less free we all are. This is why I want to legalize drugs, and not control guns, among a much larger platform of things I want government to stop doing.
Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.
And "I need my guns in case the government decides to go tyrannical and murder us in our sleep" or "I need my guns on an off chance someone breaks into my house to murder me" isn't paranoid?
Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.
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?
see post about cord in safe etc.
2) You know very little about guns, correct? Guns are not generalist devices, they tend to be very specialized for their tasks,
tell me, what exactly are the different purposes of a gun other than killing things? like i said, if you are in an urban environment, a gun in your apartment to fend of potential robbers is understandable. out in the rural areas, a gun for hunting and a gun for defense is all you need.
collectors dont collect just for kicks.
and neither do zoos, but the common man is not allowed to keep multitudes of exotic and/or dangerous animals in their homes. if its simply collection you want, then perhaps there could be a separate collectors license: removes the limit of guns, or at least raises it, but does not allow purchase of ammo.
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.
i suppose i am, but you honestly need it if you are telling young, impressionable children that it is a good idea to have tool whose only function is killing things. i've no problem with teaching children how to defend themselves, but if you are leaving a gun within a child's reach its no better than leaving an open bottle of bleach or rat killer. its simply a way to ensure irresponsible parents aren't the cause of their child's untimely death.
4) Excellent area for a backdoor ban, just make the tests too hard to pass,
a valid point, but i feel it is necessary. guns should be owned by those who NEED them. not WANT them, NEED them. as in, you live in a part of the city that sees daily muggings bellow your window, or that hunting deer, birds, and squirrels is a significant part of your diet. if one just wants a collection big loud bang-device to make up for one's tiny dick, one should not have one. the test is there so that A) all persons with a legal firearm know every inch of their device and the consequences for using it incorrectly and B) to deter anyone who, as before said, does not strictly NEED a firearm.
also, literacy tests have already made a precedent in the US, you may not test someone before they are allowed to access a right.
and it is my opinion that a gun is a PRIVILEGE as is a car and driver's licence: something potentially dangerous, but a necessary danger in the hands of the capable who need them.
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.
while those are good, and a high-school course in firearms is not exactly terrible, i would find it better if it was done the same way drivers ed. is: not exactly mandatory, but anyone who has any intention of using it will take it. i enjoy archery, and when you are just using a bow to hunt or target shoot, its fine with me, and the same thing goes for guns. the difference is, most people that own bows know a good deal about their use, and use them only for the purpose of target shooting or hunting game. far too many people in the U.S. own guns that really don't need to for reasons ranging from lack of self-confidence to right wing delusion (i.e. "da gubbmint be takn muh gurns, dey be takn muh raits!" sort of nonsense).
To clear out prison space I suggest we legalize drugs and prostitution, which will also deprive gangs of their income.
that is completely irrelevant, but i wholeheartedly agree.
NightHawk21: Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.
You dont see why?
Here is a hint, the 2nd ammendment was not created to protect the right to hunt.
Its more than that though, I prefer military firearm designs over civilian ones, even for hunting. They are stronger and better suited to rough treatment, they are easier to breakdown and clean. Parts, ammunition and accessories are cheap and easy to find.
I dont understand why people choose 'civilian' firearms over military surplus or those heavily based on military design.
Civilian is in quotes because the dividing line between civilian and military firearms is much harder to pinpoint than you might think.
Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.
And "I need my guns in case the government decides to go tyrannical and murder us in our sleep" or "I need my guns on an off chance someone breaks into my house to murder me" isn't paranoid?
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 love how you're comparing homicides to things that do not happen via malicious intent, but accusing people of opting for a "delusion of safety."
Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.
And "I need my guns in case the government decides to go tyrannical and murder us in our sleep" or "I need my guns on an off chance someone breaks into my house to murder me" isn't paranoid?
It is, but I wasn't making that argument, was I?
True. It's just an argument I run into in R&P on a pretty much daily basis.
Oh and just randomness for everyone: In Slovenia, yes, we have shooting ranges. But, human shilhouette targets are prohibited. I would quite wonder what people would say about that.
NightHawk21: Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.
You dont see why?
Here is a hint, the 2nd ammendment was not created to protect the right to hunt.
Its more than that though, I prefer military firearm designs over civilian ones, even for hunting. They are stronger and better suited to rough treatment, they are easier to breakdown and clean. Parts, ammunition and accessories are cheap and easy to find.
I dont understand why people choose 'civilian' firearms over military surplus or those heavily based on military design.
Civilian is in quotes because the dividing line between civilian and military firearms is much harder to pinpoint than you might think.
As a non-American let me be honest when I say the second amendment means jack shit to me. This is not the 19th century anymore, times have changed and proposals of the past that made sense then might not make sense now.
As for the point you raised about hunting; just because something is easier and more suited to the job does not mean that it is what everyone should be using. There are some methods that have the potential to cause great harm (whether to the environment or something else), when they provide a very small benefit over the safer product.
Having a gun by your bed might make you feel more safe and control over the situation if someone breaks in but: A gun easily kill more than say, a Baseball bat. A gun is only urgent if say the robbers have guns themselves. Killing a criminal is still murder, man-slaughter if you're lucky. You can still be prosecuted for seriously hurting an intruder. You can also seriously hurt yourself defending yourself against an intruder. You're best of getting somewhere safe and phoning the police or COPS.
A gun is a tool for death. You can kill someone with many things. But at the end of the day, a gun is only used as a weapon. You can't justify a civilian owning a gun without a licence.
A gun can be used to hunt with, to kill game.
You can shoot a gun at a firing range. But why do you have to own a gun to shoot there. When you go bowling you don't normally take bowling shoe with you. You rent them.
The stats you listed had 'tragic' 'unavoidable' deaths. Gun deaths are avoidable (as are alcohol accident deaths). Saying that guns are the "second most reason people die due to human intervention" isn't a good defence. It just highlights how stupid it is to legally allow people to have guns. If you ban guns, people with guns without a licence can be arrested before they hurt anyone. Police officers will have to use other means of policing other than waving guns around. The only weapons you'll have to worry about will be blades, which you can also ban. I don't know why I even bothered replying. Waste of my time. I hope someone reads this and gain clarity.
Your null-points for stating why it's good to have guns reminds me of that PETA article about why you should be vegan/vegetarian.
Lumber Barber: Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine. Thought you'd like to know.
You can kill a man by forcing him to stick half a plastic capsule down their throat.
I don't think its exactly fair to discount non-homicide related deaths from fire-arms (including suicide) and then compare it to other personal decisions done to the self that can lead to death. The actual number for 2007 is then ~33,000
Likewise all of the other things you listed besides alcohol have a natural occurrence. In some cases this natural occurrence is higher than gun control in and of itself. Cancer for example is bound to happen to everyone who lives long enough. Heart Disease is also prevalent whether or not you eat healthily. You could cut these numbers down, but the base rate would still likely be higher than gun related death. As opposed to an outright ban on guns which could (in a perfect world) lead to a 100% decrease in gun related deaths.
That said I agree with the spirit of your post. People will find a way to kill other people regardless. A person could potentially build an explosive and plant it to kill far more people than they could even with guns. This has been demonstrated in the past and will likely happen in the future. It also is much harder to catch the person who does so. Banning guns out right may help the issue, but it isn't an answer the the problem. Gun control as it stands is fine IMO.
Leadfinger: Japan. Only 22 killings involving firearms in 2007. 22 for the entire country. See, strict gun control laws do work.
And yet, higher suicide rate than America. Not to mention small island with pathological hierarchy issues. Saying that gun control has any major bearing on it is idiotic.
Jonluw: Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug. The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.
However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.
Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime. The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them. I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that. Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort. Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.
Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.
Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.
Jonluw: Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug. The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.
However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.
Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime. The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them. I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that. Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort. Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.
Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.
Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.
I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US. Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right. Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.
Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.
To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.
And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns. Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.
Lumber Barber: Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine. Thought you'd like to know.
Kinder Eggs are illegal because there are laws that says you're not allowed to put something inedible inside something edible, so you don't get little kids choking to death, turning a normal Kinder Surprise into a fatal one.
The more you know, hopefully the less you'll use inane arguments.
Jonluw: Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug. The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.
However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.
Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime. The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them. I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that. Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort. Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.
Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.
Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.
I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US. Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right. Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.
Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.
To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.
And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns. Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.
Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.
Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.
The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.
Lumber Barber: Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine. Thought you'd like to know.
Kinder Eggs are illegal because there are laws that says you're not allowed to put something inedible inside something edible, so you don't get little kids choking to death, turning a normal Kinder Surprise into a fatal one.
The more you know, hopefully the less you'll use inane arguments.
I wasn't arguing, wise guy. I'm not against banning of guns from civilians. And I think you greatly underestimate the intelligence of kids if you think they will just swallow the fucking thing whole if you tell them that it's dangerous one time.
Bhaalspawn: GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN BANNING GUNS
No, but the people saying we should ban guns certainly 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?
Or an animal. Because, you know, hunting. Also, the sole purpose of a sword is to cause injury and death to a human being, but you don't see people calling for a ban on fantasy sword collections.
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.
I'd have to agree that REASONABLE restrictions should be put in place.
A gun is the only weapon in history that requires no training, skill, or even two functioning eyeballs to use properly.
I wasn't aware one needed training, skill, or even two functioning eyeballs to stab someone with a knife.
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.
Yes, and a responsible gun owner will tell you the exact same thing. Contrary to popular opinion, not everybody who owns guns will wave them around, randomly shoot them off, and generally act stupid. The first thing a responsible gun owner learns is the rules of handling for their weapon, and rule Number 1 is "Never point a gun at anything you don't want dead"
Do you think weapons are fun? That you just get to have one to play with? No.
Of course not. That would be dumb.
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?
No, but it would be foolish to think that most limitations placed on legal ownership would trickle down and actively reduce illegal activity with 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.
You harm your cause by resorting to crass generalizations. Not all Americans treat guns as 'cool toys to play around with and bang bang bang', and those of us who treat guns with the respect they deserve as dangerous tools to honor and respect are as unloving of those who do not as you are.
Your comparison is absurd, the nations do not have the same populations, and as you like to point out, the single vector you are measuring is controlled.
I can do this for you, as a citizen of the UK I know we have a population of roughly 66 million. 66 gun related homicides is 1/1,000,000... Now unless the population of the US is 12,000,000,000 (which it isnt) I think you might have just undone your own argument.
Lumber Barber: Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine. Thought you'd like to know.
Kinder Eggs are illegal because there are laws that says you're not allowed to put something inedible inside something edible, so you don't get little kids choking to death, turning a normal Kinder Surprise into a fatal one.
The more you know, hopefully the less you'll use inane arguments.
We have Kinder Eggs in Britain... surprisingly minimal Kinder-related deaths. Though I didnt know about that Kinder Egg thing, that will be incredibly useful the next time some right-wing 'Merican claims I am not "free"... as though they know what that is.
Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.
Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.
The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.
Tunnel under? Are you bordering the Nation of the Molepeople? That sounds like some serious bullshit, how paranoid do you have to be to think people need to burrow under a... what? 1400 mile border? Come on!
Also, what an excuse... ban weed so we can please the paper corporations AND we can let guns flow freely thus pleasing the weapons manufacturers, lest those Drug Cartels start selling them $5 baggies of 9mm's. No one said it had to be over night, but you do have to do something about your gun problem... its not just going to stop some day. You are going to have to weaken the Cartels first... AKA legalizing marijuana, the most popular recreational drug on the planet. Then you can start controlling your bloody guns, the longer you leave it the worse it is going to get and the longer it will take to solve.
Lumber Barber: Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine. Thought you'd like to know.
You can kill a man by forcing him to stick half a plastic capsule down their throat.
I think they are more afraid of the toy you have to build yourself... there could be anything in that tiny capsule! It may look like a dinosaur but when you look at that small instruction manual it is clearly telling you how to make copious amounts of Mustard Gas with household materials.
I had plenty of Kinder Eggs when I was a child, as a result I died many times.
Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.
Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.
The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.
Tunnel under? Are you bordering the Nation of the Molepeople? That sounds like some serious bullshit, how paranoid do you have to be to think people need to burrow under a... what? 1400 mile border? Come on!
Also, what an excuse... ban weed so we can please the paper corporations AND we can let guns flow freely thus pleasing the weapons manufacturers, lest those Drug Cartels start selling them $5 baggies of 9mm's. No one said it had to be over night, but you do have to do something about your gun problem... its not just going to stop some day. You are going to have to weaken the Cartels first... AKA legalizing marijuana, the most popular recreational drug on the planet. Then you can start controlling your bloody guns, the longer you leave it the worse it is going to get and the longer it will take to solve.
Banning Cancer is known as Curing Cancer.