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
 

Ultratwinkie:

Jonluw:

Ultratwinkie:

Oh great the "but-but Europe" excuse.

Europe is not the world. Europe has a history of restricting weapons to the government since guns were first invented. Contrary to what you may believe, once you step outside Europe, it stops being Europe.

Since when does the UK deal with the Cartels on any actual level? If they did, their cops would look like Americans cops. If they were stupid enough not to, the cartels would send the entire country's police force back in caskets.

Cartels make all your points irrelevant. Cartels steal from government armories, sell the drugs, and deal the guns. America is in a different socio-econimic climate entirely. Cartels are the supply AND the demand. Any gun control laws while they are near would fall flat on its face.

I am sick and tired of hearing this fallacious excuse. Take some time to learn the political climate.

... and they call Americans disconnected with the world.

I was not talking about your point about cartels, was I?
I was pointing out why it's fallacious to think a prohibition of guns would inherently have the same effects as drug prohibition.
In either case have I never been advocating completely banning guns.

The differences between Europe and the US is exactly the reason why I've been making a point to say that gun control must be implemented gradually.

Cartels are a problem though. You could of course defuse them by lifting the drug prohibition, but everyone knows that's not going to happen.
A simpler idea might be to place more focus on stopping firearms that may be crossing the border, and perhaps create a buffer zone near the border where gun laws differ from the rest of the country.
Specifically, what I'm thinking about is keeping armouries and weapon factories away from the border states, implementing extremely strict gun control in these states (perhaps even a ban entirely), and keeping an armed police force supplemented in part from the rest of the country.

Cartels have gone beyond drugs. They are now into sex trafficking, rackets, and other crimes. They are massive, and diversified. There is no way we can stop them now outside of an actual war.

The time when pot legalization would harm them is long gone. Especially since they have all the other drugs to make.

America has a litigious and drug culture. Do you seriously think that drugs beyond pot would be allowed? It would be a legal nightmare for both consumers and companies who produce them.

Not to mention companies are allowed to "cut" their product in America. Its the same reason cigarettes are so toxic, because companies added chemicals. So all the drugs would just end up like cigarettes. Even food and drinks are cut, and they aren't even drugs.

On top of all of this, there are many government armories. National guard, Naval, army, Marine, etc. California alone has plenty of them, numbering at 25. Not to mention the military bases have armories, and those bases are used for extensive testing. Most of the military bases in California are Naval bases, which effects half of America's navy.

So with taking away the armories, you take away military bases and take away America's largest testing ground for military objects, and effects America's naval effectiveness on one side.

Its much more complicated than most people want to deal with. So they just keep drugs illegal, and allow guns to the citizens but have them regulated.

The Cartel problem would require America or Mexico to step in. Both are too scared of the Cartels to do anything. If Mexico steps in, it looks at civil war. If America steps in, its military will face another Vietnam, but with more sadistic enemies.

I didn't mean legalizing just pot.
Legalize all the drugs is my stance. For several reasons that I don't think are necessary to outline here right now. I'm running short on time anyways.
But in any case, it would take a lot of profit out of the cartels' hands.
Of course legalization would be quite... turmoil-ous?... while it's being implemented, but a transitional period is almost unavoidable.
What I think might have been a good idea is if they started out legalizing soft drugs like cannabis and LSD, and introducing legal heroin treatment for addicts, from there easing into full legalization.
It's a pipe dream though.

And the whole 'cutting' thing... You really should do something about that regardless of whether you legalize drugs or not. Like, at the very least make it mandatory to clearly state on the packaging or something that the product is cut.

I'm of course not advocating taking away all armouries. Just either securing them more tightly, or moving them further away from the border. For example, California is a very oblong state. It wouldn't be necessary to move armouries all the way out of the state to create the kind of buffer-zone I'm proposing. Just northwards a bit, making sure to secure the southernmost ones extensively.

In the situation the US is currently in, if one were to implement strict gun control, this would have to happen on a federal level, and it would require a unified and focused effort, for a while easing up on other issues like illegal immigration perhaps, to free up some resources. Redirecting military spendings a wee bit maybe to go towards firearm restriction in the border area.

In any case, I'm going to have to cut this debate short around here. Need to go to my driving lessons.

Jonluw:

Ultratwinkie:

Jonluw:
I was not talking about your point about cartels, was I?
I was pointing out why it's fallacious to think a prohibition of guns would inherently have the same effects as drug prohibition.
In either case have I never been advocating completely banning guns.

The differences between Europe and the US is exactly the reason why I've been making a point to say that gun control must be implemented gradually.

Cartels are a problem though. You could of course defuse them by lifting the drug prohibition, but everyone knows that's not going to happen.
A simpler idea might be to place more focus on stopping firearms that may be crossing the border, and perhaps create a buffer zone near the border where gun laws differ from the rest of the country.
Specifically, what I'm thinking about is keeping armouries and weapon factories away from the border states, implementing extremely strict gun control in these states (perhaps even a ban entirely), and keeping an armed police force supplemented in part from the rest of the country.

Cartels have gone beyond drugs. They are now into sex trafficking, rackets, and other crimes. They are massive, and diversified. There is no way we can stop them now outside of an actual war.

The time when pot legalization would harm them is long gone. Especially since they have all the other drugs to make.

America has a litigious and drug culture. Do you seriously think that drugs beyond pot would be allowed? It would be a legal nightmare for both consumers and companies who produce them.

Not to mention companies are allowed to "cut" their product in America. Its the same reason cigarettes are so toxic, because companies added chemicals. So all the drugs would just end up like cigarettes. Even food and drinks are cut, and they aren't even drugs.

On top of all of this, there are many government armories. National guard, Naval, army, Marine, etc. California alone has plenty of them, numbering at 25. Not to mention the military bases have armories, and those bases are used for extensive testing. Most of the military bases in California are Naval bases, which effects half of America's navy.

So with taking away the armories, you take away military bases and take away America's largest testing ground for military objects, and effects America's naval effectiveness on one side.

Its much more complicated than most people want to deal with. So they just keep drugs illegal, and allow guns to the citizens but have them regulated.

The Cartel problem would require America or Mexico to step in. Both are too scared of the Cartels to do anything. If Mexico steps in, it looks at civil war. If America steps in, its military will face another Vietnam, but with more sadistic enemies.

I didn't mean legalizing just pot.
Legalize all the drugs is my stance. For several reasons that I don't think are necessary to outline here right now. I'm running short on time anyways.
But in any case, it would take a lot of profit out of the cartels' hands.
Of course legalization would be quite... turmoil-ous?... while it's being implemented, but a transitional period is almost unavoidable.
What I think might have been a good idea is if they started out legalizing soft drugs like cannabis and LSD, and introducing legal heroin treatment for addicts, from there easing into full legalization.
It's a pipe dream though.

And the whole 'cutting' thing... You really should do something about that regardless of whether you legalize drugs or not. Like, at the very least make it mandatory to clearly state on the packaging or something that the product is cut.

I'm of course not advocating taking away all armouries. Just either securing them more tightly, or moving them further away from the border. For example, California is a very oblong state. It wouldn't be necessary to move armouries all the way out of the state to create the kind of buffer-zone I'm proposing. Just northwards a bit, making sure to secure the southernmost ones extensively.

In the situation the US is currently in, if one were to implement strict gun control, this would have to happen on a federal level, and it would require a unified and focused effort, for a while easing up on other issues like illegal immigration perhaps, to free up some resources. Redirecting military spendings a wee bit maybe to go towards firearm restriction in the border area.

In any case, I'm going to have to cut this debate short around here. Need to go to my driving lessons.

The problem is American law means clear by having anything that means the ingredients, no matter how obscure.

Sugar? renamed that glucose.

Dye made from squashed bugs? Red dye number 5.

So instead of something simple, you always get the scientific names for it.

Its legal, because the litigious culture America has. Its bad for both sides.

Sue-happy petty consumers mean companies require teams of lawyers. The fear of consumers grow until the lawyers find ways to pen them in through any way possible. So you get companies that actively seek out neutering consumers so they will be safe in the litigious culture.

Mathurin:
And I suggest its a power to great to be limited to the elites

What does that even mean? I am arguing for state control over fire arms. That would mean that elected officials (that means your representatives) decide that there has to be rules in place so that the only people allowed to have such arms are responsible, sane, rational people who needs them, and that we have a regestry of who these people are. If that means that only "the elite" will have guns then that's surely a good idea, no?

PrinceFortinbras:

May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners?

You did not answer this question. Did you mean that the point of licences should be education, rules of operation etc.? I think that some of the reasoning behind such licences is that we want to know who own firearms, and if the list is not complete it's usefulness as such is very limited. And I don't see how the police knowing that you own a gun is more of a threat to your privacy then they knowing that you own a car.

Mathurin:
I cant imagine why a gun license should be hard to get, I have been handling firearms safely and responsibly since I was younger than 12, I cant imagine why an average 18 year old would have difficulty understanding firearms function and safety, especially since they are simpler and easier to understand and operate than a car, which most 16 year olds are allowed to operate.
The only reason why would be a prejudice against guns/owners, or an intent to limit firearms ownership.

The whole point of my reasoning is that I want to limit firearms ownership. That is what I have been arguing for all this time. And I think I have made my reasons for wanting that quite clear.

Mathurin:
The primary thing to realize is that the 2nd ammendment was not created to allow hunting, it was created because a persistent democratic nation requires the people to be capable of taking on the nations military, with a chance of being something other than slaughtered.

But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.

Mathurin:
The only reason free speech and free press have been proven neccesary is because government overstepped itself.

That is part of the reason but far from the only reason. Free speech is for spreading ideas, discussing and reaching for the truth. That truth might be completly irrelavant to the government.

Mathurin:
In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?

You don't have a better system in place if that happens? Even so, what good would your guns really be if he did do that?

lets all ban dying, that'll work

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

Genuine question: Who deserves to have that power over another individual? Does this mean we should all have guns? Wouldn't it be safer for us all to not have guns unless we're, say, a jewellery shop owner or a bank manager who are more likely to encounter the unfair power-balance?

Guns are fine for personal defence against life-threatening situations, but how many times do these situations occur and how many are caused by guns acquired legally in the first place?

I'm not saying "ban guns everywhere" or "give everyone a gun", I'm saying they should be much more regulated. Only trained individuals who pass regular annual firearm checks - in a position when it would do them well to have a lethal weapon for protection, recreation or business, where the weapons is properly managed - should be allowed guns.

And there are non-lethal weapons useful for incapacitation against malevolent gun-wielders. I could buy that pistol as a PDW and stuff it under my bed, or keep it in my inside jacket pocket in case I ever end up in a life-threatening situation where that power is required - or I could buy a taser, or a can of pepper spray, or a number of other non-lethal defensive measures, to overpower an individual with a gun.

There are safer alternatives that are just as effective, whilst reducing the number of guns in the wrong hands on the streets.

Mathurin:

NightHawk21:

Mathurin:

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.

It doesnt have to mean anything to you, until it means nothing to 2/3rd to 3/4 of the US, it has force of law.

I think you'd find if you managed to run an unbiased survey of all the people in America a lot of them would agree that banning all non-hunting weapons would be better for the country than not. Problem is that the media no doubt would run this up as some sort of government vs the people situation and soon after taking your guns they'll take your children, other freedoms, or other nonsense.

Mathurin:

NightHawk21:

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.

Are you suggesting that using military arms to hunt greatly harms the environment, as opposed to 'civilian' weapons

I think you are trying to suggest that military arms cause great harm to other human beings. Except you would hopefully have states for that.
So, tell me, how many assault rifles, or rifles of any type, are used in homicides on a yearly basis.

Statistics or stats, but not states. No I don't have that kind of information, because as you can imagine there really isn't a classification system in the US that distinguishes a hunting rifle from a military rifle, and the kind of information that you are asking for is not easy to come by. I can say that if we look at the average between 1976-2004 about 1/3 of all homicides were committed by firearms other than handguns. I suspect that if you excluded all regular homicides and only examined mass homicides you'd see that number grow even higher.

Kinguendo:

scw55:

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.

Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.

ravenshrike:

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.

Denying that Japan's gun control laws have anything to do with the lack of guns there seems farfetched, but I suspect from your comments that you aren't an expert on Japan, or gun control, or logic for that matter.

Mathurin:

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

What's the big problem with controlling something dangerous? The restrictions I have mentioned allow the owner to have a weapon in which to defend themselves in their own home and I personally can't see what else you'd want the gun in your home for. I don't think shooting Coke cans on a fence is a responsible use of a weapon. I also don't believe that placing a restriction on something is inherently bad when it is designed only to end life. You cannot compare a gun to any other object in your home because no other object in your home was specifically manufactured for the express purpose of causing bodily damage. I personally don't think those belong in civilian hands, and if they are to be they should be under heavy regulation.

Mathurin:

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.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I want to do. No sarcasm, no joke: I want the use of lethal weapons to be something you shit yourself over. It shouldn't be casual, it should be worrying, stressful, and something you can't do on the spur of the moment. Again, personal differences, but I'd rather make obtaining a gun and using it an absolute nightmare so less people are likely to come home drunk and stupid and even consider that they could use their gun without someone noticing.

Mathurin:

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?

Did it? You'll have to educate me further on the topic.

What I do doubt, however, is that the many people purchasing firearms in the US are currently doing it in case of some sort of Orwellian crackdown. I also doubt you have purchased weapons for this reason too. Further, I doubt that concealed handguns are capable of toppling an evil government with access to such things as bodyguards with automatic weapons, missiles, and an army to use them.

Taking this into account, would you say the next sensible step is to allow citizens to purchase military-grade weapons? I'm no being rhetorical here - the argument that we need to defend ourselves from our government, to me, begs the question of how much do we empower the public.

Mathurin:

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.

No, I wouldn't consider a utility knife to be a problem either. However, I've yet to see someone shoot open a packaged container.

Again, my idea is indeed to pretty much make it awkward as shit to own a gun. I'm fine with that. Personally I think the problem lies in American attitudes to weapons, not the weapons. However, seeing as that viewpoint isn't going to change overnight I'd want to make it awkward, if not impossible, for individuals to get weapons until attitudes change. I wouldn't give children guns and then begin teaching them to use them responsibly.

Also, again my point is that 'criminals' can get bigger and bagger guns than you can legally purchase - surely the next logical step from your standpoint is to allow civilians to get these bigger and badder guns?

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
And I suggest its a power to great to be limited to the elites

What does that even mean? I am arguing for state control over fire arms. That would mean that elected officials (that means your representatives) decide that there has to be rules in place so that the only people allowed to have such arms are responsible, sane, rational people who needs them, and that we have a regestry of who these people are. If that means that only "the elite" will have guns then that's surely a good idea, no?

The government is usually composed of the elites, even my elected representatives are usually from the elite class, only their wealth allows them to run for office, with few. I am no happier allowing these people control of arms or speech than I am a king of old, thats the point of a constitution, limiting their power.

PrinceFortinbras:

PrinceFortinbras:

May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners?

You did not answer this question. Did you mean that the point of licences should be education, rules of operation etc.? I think that some of the reasoning behind such licences is that we want to know who own firearms, and if the list is not complete it's usefulness as such is very limited. And I don't see how the police knowing that you own a gun is more of a threat to your privacy then they knowing that you own a car.

Yes, meant to say the point of licensing drivers is to educate them, not to create a list of drivers or car owners.

I know you want make a list of those who own firearms, why dont I want the police to know I have a gun.
2 reasons

first, cops are jerks, letting them now I have a gun before they knock on my door can turn routine questioning into an exercise in suspicion.

second, because one excellent reason for creating such a list is to later be able to round up all the guns.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
I cant imagine why a gun license should be hard to get, I have been handling firearms safely and responsibly since I was younger than 12, I cant imagine why an average 18 year old would have difficulty understanding firearms function and safety, especially since they are simpler and easier to understand and operate than a car, which most 16 year olds are allowed to operate.
The only reason why would be a prejudice against guns/owners, or an intent to limit firearms ownership.

The whole point of my reasoning is that I want to limit firearms ownership. That is what I have been arguing for all this time. And I think I have made my reasons for wanting that quite clear.

But if you ensure proper education then what further need would you have for limiting firearms ownership.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
The primary thing to realize is that the 2nd ammendment was not created to allow hunting, it was created because a persistent democratic nation requires the people to be capable of taking on the nations military, with a chance of being something other than slaughtered.

But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.

Yep, its powerful, but its also tiny. And like all miliataries fighting insurgencies, they will have a hard time finding targets, and their own people will defect rather than fire.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
The only reason free speech and free press have been proven neccesary is because government overstepped itself.

That is part of the reason but far from the only reason. Free speech is for spreading ideas, discussing and reaching for the truth. That truth might be completly irrelavant to the government.

And if the government really wants to shut down that speech, all your laws will do nothing.

PrinceFortinbras:

Mathurin:
In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?

You don't have a better system in place if that happens? Even so, what good would your guns really be if he did do that?

Nobody has a better system in place if this happens, if enough congressmen die then congress cannot reach a plurality and it is dissolved, new elections take time and effort, effort which might wel be blocked by the new 'king'
Thats the issue, how much trust do you have in your democratically elected leaders to act in the populations best interest and against their own personal best interest.
I have none. I dont know about your nation, but in mine election cycles are filled with unsavory practices all in the search for power.
Obama might give it up, in time, but Bush would hold onto power for as long as he could.

Guns would allow us to attempt to fight. Citizens would have an option other than being peacefully slaughtered or silently enslaved.

I dont mind if you want to be disarmed, subject to the government rule even when its wrong, but why does it bother you that I dont.

AngloDoom:

Mathurin:

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

What's the big problem with controlling something dangerous? The restrictions I have mentioned allow the owner to have a weapon in which to defend themselves in their own home and I personally can't see what else you'd want the gun in your home for. I don't think shooting Coke cans on a fence is a responsible use of a weapon. I also don't believe that placing a restriction on something is inherently bad when it is designed only to end life. You cannot compare a gun to any other object in your home because no other object in your home was specifically manufactured for the express purpose of causing bodily damage. I personally don't think those belong in civilian hands, and if they are to be they should be under heavy regulation.

Humans are dangerous, guns are just tools.

Very few modern firearms are designed to inflict bodily damage, well the ones in civilian hands anyway, they are designed to target shoot

Shooting cans is actually very good target practice btw.

AngloDoom:

Mathurin:

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.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I want to do. No sarcasm, no joke: I want the use of lethal weapons to be something you shit yourself over. It shouldn't be casual, it should be worrying, stressful, and something you can't do on the spur of the moment. Again, personal differences, but I'd rather make obtaining a gun and using it an absolute nightmare so less people are likely to come home drunk and stupid and even consider that they could use their gun without someone noticing.

You have shown yourself sir.
You arent interested in crime, you know gun crime will still occur, and probably in similar quantity, all you want to do is punish a segment of society. Not for a rational reason, because you are scared.

AngloDoom:

Mathurin:

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?

Did it? You'll have to educate me further on the topic.

What I do doubt, however, is that the many people purchasing firearms in the US are currently doing it in case of some sort of Orwellian crackdown. I also doubt you have purchased weapons for this reason too. Further, I doubt that concealed handguns are capable of toppling an evil government with access to such things as bodyguards with automatic weapons, missiles, and an army to use them.

No, I havent had to purchase weapons for this, I already have them.

I am not concerned with your doubts, success is never certain.

AngloDoom:

Taking this into account, would you say the next sensible step is to allow citizens to purchase military-grade weapons? I'm no being rhetorical here - the argument that we need to defend ourselves from our government, to me, begs the question of how much do we empower the public.

To an extent actualy, a somewhat modified version of the standard assault rifle issued to US troops is available for purchase in most gun stores, thats enough for me.
The Free Syrian army has AKs against tanks and helicopters, and while its too early to say they are winning, they are definitely doing something.

AngloDoom:

Mathurin:

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.

No, I wouldn't consider a utility knife to be a problem either. However, I've yet to see someone shoot open a packaged container.

Its not a utility knife, its big black scary military style knife (still a folding knife though). I use it as a utility knife.

AngloDoom:

Again, my idea is indeed to pretty much make it awkward as shit to own a gun. I'm fine with that. Personally I think the problem lies in American attitudes to weapons, not the weapons. However, seeing as that viewpoint isn't going to change overnight I'd want to make it awkward, if not impossible, for individuals to get weapons until attitudes change. I wouldn't give children guns and then begin teaching them to use them responsibly.

Ah, comparison of the citizens of a nation to children, how revealingly patronizing.
Its sad really that our big daddy government hasnt taken all our guns and said "no, you are collectively not responsible enough for that"

AngloDoom:

Also, again my point is that 'criminals' can get bigger and bagger guns than you can legally purchase - surely the next logical step from your standpoint is to allow civilians to get these bigger and badder guns?

Actually crime is generally committed with pistols, the criminal arms race you speak of is limited by concealment, so they can access them, but they rarely if ever use them.

We should ban people from wearing clothing that doesn't fit them. See "People of Walmart" for some examples. Sometimes, the visuals can traumatize a person. *shudders*

Leadfinger:

ravenshrike:

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.

Denying that Japan's gun control laws have anything to do with the lack of guns there seems farfetched, but I suspect from your comments that you aren't an expert on Japan, or gun control, or logic for that matter.

Of course, if I gave a shit about the number of an item vs the number of culturally dictated suicides and homicides, you might have a point. Not to mention the vastly increased presence of organized crime in Japan means the criminal organizations themselves have a vested interest in keeping guns from flooding Japan.

Oh, fun fact, while guns are officially banned for most Chinese, with less than 680,000 registered to citizens legally, most of whom are almost certainly mid to high ranking Party members, there are over 40,000,000 illegal guns. And this is in a place where guns have been illegal since before the 2nd world war.

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.

Interestingly, I was discussing this with my dad just the other day, and we came up with a system just like this. Seems to be what the smart money is on; let's see if it sticks, eh? (:

scw55:

Kinguendo:

scw55:

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.

Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.

You put WHAT up your mouse?!

Samantha Burt:

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.

Interestingly, I was discussing this with my dad just the other day, and we came up with a system just like this. Seems to be what the smart money is on; let's see if it sticks, eh? (:

And this plan is exactly why statements such as "we dont want to ban guns, just control them alittle" and other calls for 'reasonable gun control' mean absolutely nothing to american gun owners, and this is why they fight even the most minor gun control laws you can think up, they know its a softly softly approach with the end result of them being disarmed.

Thanks for supporting my point

PrinceFortinbras:

But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.

You are making a rather large assumption. You are assuming that the US military would remain intact if the federal government declared war against the states. That really depends on the state. I am sure there are more than a few people in my state (NY) who would gladly volunteer to flatten our state capitol building if the government demanded it because we are disenfranchised with our state government.

Go down south and a war between the federal government and the states is literally the doomsday scenario they have been dreading for decades, especially since people down there are more loyal to the state than their northern brethren on average.

So it is entirely possible for whole units or divisions of the military to switch sides if a civil war between te states and the government broke out, ESPECIALLY the national guard.

In order to keep the peace and prevent any more "tragic" accidents (stabbings, shootings, lynchings etc.), I say Xbox Live bans children under the age of 15 from playing anything with a mic. This, my research suggests, shall significantly decrease the number of homicides, both intentional and accidental.

It is time for Microsoft to protect it's customers from further abuse and pain...

Oh and I think Facebook should be forced to implement a stupid censor. It could block all the idiotic things people post and maybe even permanently ban them for posting really stupid shit.

And while we're in the business of banning shit, let's ban Nicki Minaj from life.

How about you? Can we ban you? Things would definitely be better without your stupid shit around here.

Mathurin:

Humans are dangerous, guns are just tools.

Very few modern firearms are designed to inflict bodily damage, well the ones in civilian hands anyway, they are designed to target shoot

Shooting cans is actually very good target practice btw.

I don't understand the whole "humans are dangerous" part of your argument: you could use that to justify absolutely anything.

Fair enough to target shooting, if you have your own land large enough to fire at a target without accidentally harming someone then I don't see a reason why not. I personally would not be able to fire a gun in my garden, since if I missed I'd fire straight into someone else's window. Still wouldn't make me want people carrying guns around town, though.

Mathurin:

You have shown yourself sir.
You arent interested in crime, you know gun crime will still occur, and probably in similar quantity, all you want to do is punish a segment of society. Not for a rational reason, because you are scared.

I am interesting in crime, yet you yourself have said there is no law that can prevent someone unlawfully obtaining guns. I'd arguing making it a pain in the neck to acquire guns helps reduce this (since illegally sold guns don't magic out of nowhere) but my main concern is the idea that a random civilian has access to weapons that allows them to dole out justice in the same way as a police officer.

And yes, the idea does scare me. People do stupid things in a rush and in a high point of emotion, and I've had people attack me in ways that could have left me with lasting damage or death as a result of stupid things which nowhere-near warranted the aggression: if that person was armed with a gun I may well have ended up being shot. My 'rational reason', if you so want to call it, for wanting harsher restrictions on guns is that I see no reason for police when your average citizen is just as capable of obtaining the same equipment as the police and using them how they like, lawfully or otherwise.

I've made no attempt to hide my fear of guns: I think anybody who owns a gun should still be scared of it to some degree just as how you should be owning a dangerous animal or the responsible caution you would have in having an open fireplace in your livingroom. I also understand that my culture and upbringing will naturally colour my views on such matters, but I still don't understand why it is necessary for anyone to walk around with a concealed weapon on them. To me, that's bonkers.

Mathurin:

No, I havent had to purchase weapons for this, I already have them.

I am not concerned with your doubts, success is never certain.

I don't understand this section, if I'm honest. You just seem to brush my doubts aside as if they are so trivial as to not answer them. If I am mistaken I would enjoy being enlightened on the subject as I prefer to be proven wrong than to remain ignorant. However, I still don't understand how allowing members of the public to carry pistols on their person in any way prevents an evil dictatorship. I don't think legally purchased guns have toppled governments - I imagine it is always circuits of illegal gun ownership. England doesn't have many guns in it, yet our government isn't sentencing people to die for public meetings or protesting.

Mathurin:

To an extent actualy, a somewhat modified version of the standard assault rifle issued to US troops is available for purchase in most gun stores, thats enough for me.
The Free Syrian army has AKs against tanks and helicopters, and while its too early to say they are winning, they are definitely doing something.

But why not weapons on-par with military weapons? If your viewpoint is that humans are dangerous and not weapons, and that civilians need to have weapons capable of defending themselves from an evil dictatorship, why have any limits at all? There's no boundaries or clear lines in your view - do you believe I should be able to legally purchase a tank? If so, or if not, why?

Mathurin:

Its not a utility knife, its big black scary military style knife (still a folding knife though). I use it as a utility knife.

May I ask why wouldn't a utility knife be sufficient, if you are only using it for utility? Unless you are a part of the military and just happen to have a knife issued to you, I can only imagine it would be because it looks cool.

Which is fine as an answer, but I still don't understand the argument presented here since guns cannot be used for anything but shooting things, and I've yet to see someone use a gun for DIY.

Mathurin:

Ah, comparison of the citizens of a nation to children, how revealingly patronizing.
Its sad really that our big daddy government hasnt taken all our guns and said "no, you are collectively not responsible enough for that"

Considering the fact that are more heavily armed nations out there with lower rates of gun-related crime, I wouldn't say calling general American views on firearms "immature" as too much of a stretch. Also, I still don't see what's so bad about the government drawing lines in the sand about what we can or can't do - otherwise what's the point of them? Every argument you've presented so far just seems to promote anarchy: we should all be as armed as one-another and no-one should be able to tell anyone else what to do!

That is why I used a comparison between children, because to me your view is coming across as childish I'm sorry to say.

Mathurin:

Actually crime is generally committed with pistols, the criminal arms race you speak of is limited by concealment, so they can access them, but they rarely if ever use them.

So what's the answer to this? If someone has a weapon concealed on them, how will you owning a gun prevent them from doing anything to you with it?

I don't like the idea that the only reason nobody is going around shooting everyone in the local vicinity is because they might get shot back, and I certainly don't buy that as a reason to keep guns: because it relies on the same stereotypes of the United States of America as you rightfully criticised me for earlier.

((Double post))

Kinguendo:

scw55:

Kinguendo:

snip

Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.

You put WHAT up your mouse?!

*mouth

I like how everyone is discussing gun politics (as if there's even worth 2 sides to the argument.) and we're talking about Kinder Eggs :D The world would be a Kinder place if everyone got a Kinder egg everyday. No need for pseudo logic to defend owning a gun as no one would be in the mood to kill anyone.

No need to ban guns, just limit the possibilities of ownership and the type of weapon. Requiring firearm safety courses befor being allowed to purchase a weapon is a good start. I also think limiting the ammo capacity of long guns is a logical step too. You don't need a 30 round magazine to go hunting, a five shot limit is pretty reasonable and more than enough for self-defense or recreation.

It won't magically stop mass shootings from happening, but it will limit the damage they can do. A fine example is a shooting we had here in Montreal a few years back, even fully armed the shooter only caused one death, injuring others.

I'm pro-gun ownership, but within reasonable limits and with certain restrictions. I guess I'm very Canadian in that way.

Mathurin:

In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?

Well, that would depend on which side the army takes, ultimately. If the soldiers have no problem shooting at the people any kind of a revolution is bound to be a short-lived one.

Hazy992:

I'm not saying we should ban guns (in fact I think it should depend on the country) but you're going to need a better argument that.

My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice. The fact that rifles like the AR15 are always the focus of ban proponents is proof of this. They want to ban big scary rifles, despite the fact that handguns are the majority tool in homicides involving guns(in the US anyway). Rifles are part of the "other guns" line, which also includes bolt-actions and shotguns. The number of deaths from that combined category is about even with knives. Knives.

It proves to me that most supporters aren't even remotely aware of the facts and reacting off of their fear of rifles(usually from movies, where a rifle shot to non-vital organs is instant death). That or they know the facts, they just don't care. IMO, a focus on rifles removes any credibility from the argument a ban supporter may have.

It all stinks of a power-grab, like how most of the anti-gun, anti-concealed carry license politicians here in California have handguns and concealed carry licenses.

Back on topic! We must ban sharp and heavy rocks!!! I fear for my life just knowing some rock-carrying psycho might be just around the next bend! While we're at it, ban smooth stones and slings! You heard the bible story, David killed a giant with those things! A giant! Imagine how little a chance we regular-sized people stand!

Deimateos:

My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice.

Nice generalization. Right back atcha. If I had a cent for every time a pro-gun person went on about how they need it to defend themselves from the government if it decides to go tyrannical and how they need to sleep with their gun in their nightstand in case someone breaks into their house to kill them. I say, if someone's out for your blood they're going to find a less risky way to go about it.

Vegosiux:

Deimateos:

My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice.

Nice generalization.blah blah snip

I could explain to you how the statement "rarely" infers that the ones who want to ban guns for logical reasons are in the vocal minority or that my post is clearly voicing my problem with anti-gun proponents who focus on rifles instead of handguns, even though the facts show that handguns are the real problem area in gun killings (while rifles and shotguns combined account for near the same deaths as knives), not all gun ban proponents.

I could even tell you how while I own exactly zero guns, I understand their role in this country's formation (defense against a government, among other things), as well as the power terrorist groups like the Klan gained from removing the right to bear arms from black citizens like my family and I.

I could do all those things, but I'm sure you'll disregard all those facts and focus instead on whatever I say that gets you butt-hurt next.

Raven's Nest:
All those in favour of banning hyperbole say aye!

I will go further to banning the use of that Hyperbole and a Half meme X all the things. It has several times almost driven me to kill from being so overused and that''s a danger that must be stopped.

Deimateos:

I could do all those things, but I'm sure you'll disregard all those facts and focus instead on whatever I say that gets you butt-hurt next.

Are you my advocate? No? Then please, quit saying what I will or will not do. If I need representation, I'll ask for it. I'm perfectly capable of choosing my course of action myself. Plus, this is nothing other than a cop-out and you know it. It's akin to a person saying, for example "I refuse to call my opponent -insert insult here-".

Bottom line is, you "could" do those things. So, do them instead of talking about how you could. You might be surprised at my reaction and maybe the discussion will take an interesting turn.

Or, you can keep sitting atop your high horse of smug supreiority and go "talk to the hand" at me because you, with your powers of clairvoyance, have seen the future and know exactly how I will react and thus deemed me unworthy of your time.

In which case, I of course sincerely apologize for wasting that time, and for presuming that you have nothing better to do than act smug on the internet. Either way, it's up to you if you actually want to make your points or not - but do not expect to "make" them and expect me to take them at face value.

In before you going "Haha I was right about butthurt" by the way.

But you know what, my butt is perfectly fine. Now excuse me I'm going to take a water slide.[1]

[1] Cookies for anyone who gets the reference

Cars and baseball bats are just as deadly as firearms. . .but no on is trying to stop you from driving to a ball game.

Also

Vegosiux:
Cookies for anyone who gets the reference

XKCD

Hazy992:

Knobody13:

That last fact is the one I find the most compelling. Many of the above statistics will be dismissed as irrelevant, because they are "self inflicted." Also, many people say that guns are different because they are only useful for killing.

Yeah you're absolutely right there. Accidental death and death caused by illness is not even remotely comparable with deaths caused by something designed specifically to kill and wound.

I'm not saying we should ban guns (in fact I think it should depend on the country) but you're going to need a better argument that.

How exactly does one's nationality come into play?

_________________________________________

Banning or highly restricting fire arms will not stop murders. You take away their guns then the average street thug will either get smarter and use chemicals or insanely clever ways of killing their victims such as fire bombs, timed bombs, gas bombs and other assorted, terrible and devious ways of killing their victims. Or if they don't want the labor they can use a brick. You ban bricks and they'll use sticks. You ban sticks and they'll use their fists.

My point is that if there is a will, there is a way. The only true way to prevent crime is better education, better law enforcement and a easier way for people to discuss problems without the threat of violence. Right now, that doesn't seem to be anyones master plans.

How about cars, we should ban cars. Those things go so fast and can hit someone and kill them or crash and blow up thus killing people inside the vehicle. Fuck anything that isn't a giant safety bubble has a potential to be deadly. What we drink could be poisoned and what we eat could have a deadly virus in it.

Life is dangerous, check your worries about banning shit at the door.

Aprilgold:
How exactly does one's nationality come into play?

I don't really want to get into this discussion so I'm just going to quote what I said in an earlier thread on the subject. Sums up my feelings on this:

Hazy992:
The US and the UK are two very different places. America has a large gun culture and has always had access to them so the argument that 'if we outlaw guns only the criminals will have them' makes sense there. Everyone has guns, you suddenly try take them away and only the people who have them are those who are ignoring the law anyway.

The UK however has almost no gun culture. Hardly anybody has a gun in this country and if we suddenly had access to them we wouldn't know what we were doing and it could get pretty dangerous. Gun control makes sense for the UK.

In short what I'm saying is what works for the UK doesn't necessarily work for the US and vice versa.

Other than guns? How about large numbers of bullets and high capacity magazines...
Oh wait "dellusion of safety". In that case, not having a gun.

I'm not saying getting rid of military-grade weaponry in the civilian population will fix all murders, but they'll make the premediated ones harder. Not to mention the possibility of early identification of shooters, so they can be stopped and helped before they become mass-murders. If you think I'm wrong (and you live in America) start Google searching things like "how to make bombs" and "route of the president's motor-cave." If you keep at it long enough the FBI will show up with a couple questions.

And to put your statistics into perspective roughly 14,000 Americans die in fire-arm related incidents a year, as opposed to most other first world countries who's death count can be tallied on your fingers and those of some of your closest friends.

But all your statistics are indictive of problems America has and should work toward comprehensive solutions for. Most of which I feel many Americans have had the wrong mentality about. According to a Mother Jones poll, 42% of Americans are against the phrase "gun control", but 88% of Americans are in favor of a gun registry--something that would be marked as 'gun control' by (arguably) the most powerful interest group in the country, the NRA. We haven't even had anyone at the head of the ATF for three years to inforce compliance with what we do have, because Congress won't pass the president's nominee.

(TL,DR)In conculsion, I understand your sentaments over guns equal power and the sense of security, but ultimately it doesn't work. Too many people die. The US averages about one mass shooting (more than 4 dead) a year, and I consider those, for the most part, preventable.
We should limit bullet stockpiling, ban military weapons in civilian hands, form a gun registry so weapon stockpiling can be flagged, and hopefully potential shooters will be stopped and helped. There's no reason to look at those stats and think, "well fuck that's a problem, too bad" and there's no reason why we shouldn't at least try to make mass-murders harder. That's just my opinion, though.

Vegosiux:

Deimateos:

I could do all those things, but I'm sure you'll disregard all those facts and focus instead on whatever I say that gets you butt-hurt next.

Are you my advocate? No? Then please, quit saying what I will or will not do.

Interesting, seeing as you originally tried to be mine. Oh, but trying to tenuously tie the easily dismissed views of anti-government nuts to my original post doesn't count, right? You can claim that your specific replying to my post with some good old, pre-fab "gun nut" visuals wasn't an attempt at demagoguery, but good luck getting anyone to believe that.

First I'm a gun nut, now I'm a smug, clairvoyant ass (upgrade)? Address the real issues I presented, or kick rocks, ad hominem troll.

Vegosiux:
In which case, I of course sincerely apologize for wasting that time, and for presuming that you have nothing better to do than act smug on the internet.

I also fully accept this heartfelt apology.

scw55:

Kinguendo:

scw55:

Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.

You put WHAT up your mouse?!

*mouth

I like how everyone is discussing gun politics (as if there's even worth 2 sides to the argument.) and we're talking about Kinder Eggs :D The world would be a Kinder place if everyone got a Kinder egg everyday. No need for pseudo logic to defend owning a gun as no one would be in the mood to kill anyone.

Depends on what sort of toy. If you got a really awesome toy, and I got a really crappy one, I might be in the mood to kill...

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked