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
 

We should totally ban cars. Cars can drive into crowds of people at any moment in time and kill people by the dozens. Imagine if a bus crashed into a pedestrian mall?
Knives
Forks
Pointy sticks
all dangerous chemicals
public transportation, trains can crash and planes/boats too. Everyone should have to ride bikes or pull wagons. Or use oxen to plow fields, but the plows have to be dull because sharp plows can hurt people.

Mathurin:

Bhaalspawn:

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.

Not sure why you need to muddle the issue, because a high total homicide count is still going to be high when you do the per 100,000 thing regardless of how big the population is. But if you want to see it.

Challenge Accepted:

Firearms related homicides per 100,000 people.

United States, 4.14
Canada 0.78
United Kingdom:
England .07
Ireland .03
Scotland .19
China 1.1

If done the way you suggest it to be done, the U.S. still leads homicides compared to the rest of the world. How bad does it make us look compared to China, who has a billion people and we still get 4 homicides per one of theirs?

Before you think it, the statistics do not control for drug related issues. This is a straight up look at firearms deaths per 100,000 people. The only reason, it seems, to bring up the drug connection is to add unnecessary qualifiers to the data.

Statistics provided by the UNODC 2000-2002, Krug 1998, and OAS 2011.

JWAN:
We should totally ban cars. Cars can drive into crowds of people at any moment in time and kill people by the dozens. Imagine if a bus crashed into a pedestrian mall?
Knives
Forks
Pointy sticks
all dangerous chemicals
public transportation, trains can crash and planes/boats too. Everyone should have to ride bikes or pull wagons. Or use oxen to plow fields, but the plows have to be dull because sharp plows can hurt people.

Slippery slope much?

ElPatron:

Twilight_guy:
By that logic, assume that law abiding citizens are the kind of people who won't shoot up a place anyways. Then why do we even have gun laws. Hell, if law abiding citizens do the right thing anyways, why have laws at all, there are always going to law breakers. We might as well just have anarchy because we can't control people. I really hate the defeatist attitude that 'all laws do is restrict people who follow them'. I'm sure the people in jail right now would really agree with you that when they broke laws it had absolutely no repercussion. Making laws does have an impact. It might not be complete, it might not be the best, but it something. If you think gun laws do nothing to stop people willing to break the law then I refer you to every single person every arrest for illegal possession of a firearm. You can argue that its pitifully ineffective, but don't try to argue that it does nothing.

In Portugal, 10 years after the decriminalization of drugs, the drug abuse dropped 50%. What have drug laws in the US accomplished? They wasted the taxpayers's money and are giving more power to drug cartels.

Funny that you mentioned prison. My point is that laws were made to prevent things, but end up punishing them. If there are people in jail, it was because the law was not able to stop them. It did not stop them from stealing, killing or even drinking before driving.

About illegal possession of firearm: you can't say they were planning on murdering someone, or even use it in legitimate self-defense. Good that they were caught, but you can't say that it prevented deaths.

Look, "door locks only keep honest people out". I am not against laws. I am against the idea that making up new laws will make criminals change their mind.

Law are not proactive. You can't arrest a guy because he is going to murder someone in the future but currently doesn't know the guy yet. They are reactionary. In a sense, all they can do is punish someone for what they did. There are certain laws designed to try and prevent future crimes, such as if they can prove a guy had a detailed plan to kill someone they can arrest the guy for it, but it will never guarantee he was going to carry out that plan and actually do anything. You can't blame laws for acting as a 'punishment' and not stopping people from doing something. It would be a far worst state where the police arrest you for the action you were probably going to commit in the next 5 minutes. Laws can't prevent crime because people are going to do what they want, they can only do there best to try and deter it and to try and provide justice when a crime is committed. The only way to prevent crime at all is to create a police state and kill all civil liberties. The effectiveness of laws aside from that is debatable and even more of a quagmire then the debate about guns in general. I still think laws prevent crimes, but I'm not going to try and argue it.

However, it still boils my blood when someone thinks that decriminalizing something makes everything better, I don't believe this shit line about the mystique of things, and it still makes me mad when people think that having a gun is a good form of self defense. It boils down to cold war ideology. The world is perfectly safe so long as we can both kill each other, unless one of us actually makes a move in which case we're all dead. I think a world where no one has guns is safer then a world where everyone has guns. I'm not going to try and argue that either since that's another quagmire and I have better things to do with my life then an internet argument over that.

If you say "yeah well you can't prove he was going to shoot someone" I can just as easily say "yeah well you can't prove that he wasn't". That's not a good line of reasoning.

I find it ironic that the exact same logic drives the idea 'If I have a gun, I can defend myself' as 'If they have laws against guns, it will prevent gun crime'. Both of it is wishing thinking and hoping and both can go horribly wrong. The other guy can have a bigger gun, or you could shot someone who posed no threat, and criminals can still illegally buy guns. Both sides are scared and looking to try and defend themselves somehow. Maybe we should be trying for a world without a reason to fear instead of one where we have to try and defend ourselves against that fear.

malestrithe:

JWAN:
We should totally ban cars. Cars can drive into crowds of people at any moment in time and kill people by the dozens. Imagine if a bus crashed into a pedestrian mall?
Knives
Forks
Pointy sticks
all dangerous chemicals
public transportation, trains can crash and planes/boats too. Everyone should have to ride bikes or pull wagons. Or use oxen to plow fields, but the plows have to be dull because sharp plows can hurt people.

Slippery slope much?

Nonsense! Humans are stupid and the government must control everything to ensure that they cannot harm themselves or others!
What could possibly go wrong!?
I forgot education. Education is dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Giant monsters. Why because they don't exist...yet.

malestrithe:

Not sure why you need to muddle the issue, because a high total homicide count is still going to be high when you do the per 100,000 thing regardless of how big the population is. But if you want to see it.

Challenge Accepted:

Firearms related homicides per 100,000 people.

United States, 4.14
Canada 0.78
United Kingdom:
England .07
Ireland .03
Scotland .19
China 1.1

You are comparing statistics from different years? Besides the fact that they are outright wrong, that is bad juju(the US hasn't seen anything close to 4.0 in decades!):

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_gun_homicide/10,26,40,49,57,280,65,66,69,71,81,86,88,91,125,136,148,149,153,281,172,177,178,192,190

Now these are statistics! Also, this, firearm ownership rates for all above countries:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_civilian_firearm_possession/10,26,40,49,57,280,65,66,69,71,81,86,88,91,125,136,148,149,153,281,172,177,178,192,190

Behold, the complete lack of correlation!

All stats are from 2009*

malestrithe:
If done the way you suggest it to be done, the U.S. still leads homicides compared to the rest of the world. How bad does it make us look compared to China, who has a billion people and we still get 4 homicides per one of theirs?

Nonono, see you are comparing firearm homicide, not actual homicide. Here are the actual homicide rates:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_homicide_any_method/10,26,40,49,57,280,65,66,69,71,81,86,88,91,125,136,148,149,153,281,172,177,178,192,190

Yet again, no correlation!

Twilight_guy:
snip

So basically you are disagreeing with me... By agreeing.

I am against the concept of a "police state" and Minority Report style thought police. Which is why I don't like the idea of licenses and registration of firearms.

Like I said... I am not against laws. Making guns illegal in certain places works, in others it doesn't. In the US there are hundreds of millions of guns that could just disappear into black markets as soon as the owners watched them being banned.

You compare guns to the Cold War... Kinda pointless, because the Cold War did prevent nuclear war, but anyway... I don't believe that.

Any gun is a gun. A gun is a gun is a gun is a gun. Sorry for the circular logic, but a gun is, indeed, a gun.

Doesn't matter if an assailant has a "baby-murderer-cop-killer-armor-piercing-high-capacity-incendiary-heat-seeking-.50cal-assault-weapon".

A .22LR will bring him down despite not being the appropriate ammunition to use on humans.

Shooting someone posing no threat? I'm sorry, but that is kind of hard to happen unless you're shooting at American paper-thin walls like a madman with no regard for your family or neighbors.

I just love firearms for what they are, I love engineering. If they allow me to defend myself, it's the cherry on top.

malestrithe:

Slippery slope much?

It's not so much a slippery slope... when cars actually kill loads of people, and knives can only be purchased by adults in England.

Look, this argument was addressed in the "4 fallacious arguments about gun control blah blah blah" cracked article someone made a thread about earlier, and I'm sure people have mentioned it ITT, but i'll say it anyway. Guns are designed to kill. That is their only purpose.
Most of the things mentioned in this thread are possible lethal objects, but none are specifically designed to take life away from something.
Would you ban someone's shoelaces because they tripped up and died on the sidewalk? No, because shoelaces are not designed to kill people.
But, banning guns because someone is shot by a gun and killed is a much more valid argument.

I won't make any more points than that, I won't even come to a conclusion so as to avoid a long debate, but I just wanted to point out how OP's point is fallacious.

sethisjimmy:
snip

Look two posts above you please, there is no correlation between gun ownership rate, and gun crime rate. That is the only counter-argument needed to disprove a gun ban, but I have others I would be willing to copy paste from my previous posts if you would like?

Elementlmage:

sethisjimmy:
snip

Look two posts above you please, there is no correlation between gun ownership rate, and gun crime rate. That is the only counter-argument needed to disprove a gun ban, but I have others I would be willing to copy paste from my previous posts if you would like?

I did not say I was for or against gun control, and thought I made it clear that I would not like to address any other points than the OPs, but I guess not.

Your gun ownership and crime rate evidence is probably great and all, but I don't really care about gun control or no gun control because I don't think I've ever touched a gun in my life, or ever been threatened by one.

I just wanted to say, in all the arguments against gun control, OP's is the least valid.

ElPatron:

Twilight_guy:
snip

So basically you are disagreeing with me... By agreeing.

I am against the concept of a "police state" and Minority Report style thought police. Which is why I don't like the idea of licenses and registration of firearms.

Like I said... I am not against laws. Making guns illegal in certain places works, in others it doesn't. In the US there are hundreds of millions of guns that could just disappear into black markets as soon as the owners watched them being banned.

You compare guns to the Cold War... Kinda pointless, because the Cold War did prevent nuclear war, but anyway... I don't believe that.

Any gun is a gun. A gun is a gun is a gun is a gun. Sorry for the circular logic, but a gun is, indeed, a gun.

Doesn't matter if an assailant has a "baby-murderer-cop-killer-armor-piercing-high-capacity-incendiary-heat-seeking-.50cal-assault-weapon".

A .22LR will bring him down despite not being the appropriate ammunition to use on humans.

Shooting someone posing no threat? I'm sorry, but that is kind of hard to happen unless you're shooting at American paper-thin walls like a madman with no regard for your family or neighbors.

I just love firearms for what they are, I love engineering. If they allow me to defend myself, it's the cherry on top.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'm summing up my thoughts and trying to decide what I believe in. I thought that was the point of having arguments.

Also, if you don't see the cold war mindset, its really about the intention. The idea of that equal deadly means can end conflict yet during the cold war the world very nearly enter an armed conflict multiple times and people were in constant fear of their lives. There was no war but things could have quickly gone south and the fear people had was not a plus to living conditions.

Twilight_guy:
Also, if you don't see the cold war mindset, its really about the intention. The idea of that equal deadly means can end conflict yet during the cold war the world very nearly enter an armed conflict multiple times and people were in constant fear of their lives. There was no war but things could have quickly gone south and the fear people had was not a plus to living conditions.

Nuclear weapons have that pesky feature of being able to be fired in retaliation in case someone makes the first strike.

Shooting an assailant will not make any gun automatically target you.

I don't get how the concept of escalation and mutually assured destruction can ever relate to firearms outside the John Woo standoffs. Like I said, a gun is a gun is a gun. Doesn't matter which one you're wielding as long as you use it well, and I couldn't care less about what kind of weapons criminals have.

I fear crime and being treated by a criminal by the government. But I don't fear the lumps of metal they chose to carry.

puncturedrectum:

Ultratwinkie:

puncturedrectum:
T

So you legalize and regulate all drugs, as well as prostitution. Nobody would ever buy pot from some street dealer that might short them or sneak in some ultra addictive shit, when they could go to the CVS and buy eighth of some fine-ass cannabis for 35 dollars. The same is true with prostitution, why would you go to some sketchy whore that might rob you, when you can go to a secure brothel where the whores all have medical information at hand? You wouldn't because the latter option for both scenarios are fucking awesome! This would take two of the largest trades off the table, leaving the cartels, street gangs, and other criminal organizations to either adapt or die, or get different jobs.

The problem is that not all drugs are safe nor are they commercially viable or able to be regulated.

Pot can be legalized because its the least dangerous. Maybe Opium, but that was made obsolete by Heroin. Doubt Opium legalization will do anything to the Cartels.

Cartels don't dabble in regular prostitution, they dabble in sex trafficking.

Who cares if they aren't safe? There are only improvements to be made if legitimate businesspeople take over the drug trade. As for hard drugs' ability to regulated, you just do what we do with tobacco, warning the potential buyer that, upon using heroin, you greatly risk becoming a withered husk of your former self, or a warning that upon using cocaine you risk feeling awesome. As for the commercial viability of heroin, meth, and my White Mistress, you do raise a decent point, while I doubt if cocaine was legal I'd see 5-packs of new Marlboro Blow at the Flash Foods, I'd bet that the hard drugs would fall back into the dark, but regulated, corners of the internet.

Legally, it does need to be on the same level as pot, alcohol, or smoking.

A dangerous product is a legal nightmare for both consumers and companies. All you get are precedents that say "fuck consumer safety, pump more chemicals into that shit."

The FDA isn't exactly in good shape right now, so it can't really do its job to protect consumers even if it wanted too. The Budgets cuts the FDA are deep.

Even the "cutting" problem wont be fixed in America, because "cutting" a product is legal in America. Food companies do it all the time.

Buretsu:

Leadfinger:
Japan. Only 22 killings involving firearms in 2007. 22 for the entire country. See, strict gun control laws do work.

Japan existed for centuries before guns. America exists because of guns. Add in the severe differences between cultures, and you'll see why this statistic means exactly jack squat.

Don't forget they live on an island. Its easy keeping contraband off of an island.

malestrithe:

Mathurin:

Bhaalspawn:

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.

Not sure why you need to muddle the issue, because a high total homicide count is still going to be high when you do the per 100,000 thing regardless of how big the population is. But if you want to see it.

Challenge Accepted:

Firearms related homicides per 100,000 people.

United States, 4.14
Canada 0.78
United Kingdom:
England .07
Ireland .03
Scotland .19
China 1.1

If done the way you suggest it to be done, the U.S. still leads homicides compared to the rest of the world. How bad does it make us look compared to China, who has a billion people and we still get 4 homicides per one of theirs?

Before you think it, the statistics do not control for drug related issues. This is a straight up look at firearms deaths per 100,000 people. The only reason, it seems, to bring up the drug connection is to add unnecessary qualifiers to the data.

Statistics provided by the UNODC 2000-2002, Krug 1998, and OAS 2011.

After checking wikipedia the stats are a little higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The most interesting point that I saw is that Canada has a gun ownership almost as high as the United States and less then half the homicide rate per 100k. In Canada, handguns are highly regulated and assault weapons are restricted to police and military. So this is a solid argument towards tightening control over handguns and, well, guns that are only intended to kill people.

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

Well if you live in a cold climate, dogs can actually get pretty cold on long walks. We have special boots for our dog because after about 10 minutes without them, she just stops walking and alternates lifting each foot off the ground to try and keep them away from the snow. I think of the fir as their sweater and the actual sweater as their winter jacket.

It's totally not alright in warm climates though.

captcha: exercise more. Shut up! I literally just got home from a 12 hour hike going up and down a mountain.

Knobody13:
*Snip*

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

Your two claims in this last paragraph can't coexist.

- "A person with a gun will always have power over a person without"

- "The power should rest with all of us equally"

These two statements conflict UNLESS you say that Everyone should have a gun OR NO ONE should have a gun. Otherwise, the power is necessarily not distributed equally according to your own claim. So, which is it? Do we all have the power, or do some of us get unequal power?

Also, I think that conflating guns with power is one of the worst things you can do, ever. In doing this, you fail to see where other power comes from. Perhaps you even deny that power can come from anywhere but physical violence. Or the threat thereof.

Should guns be banned? No. I don't think so.

Should we address this problem as though it actually is a problem and stopping trying to compare it with other things (like falling off a ladder)? Yes.

Knowing if someone broke into my house that I have the ability to put two slugs in their legs then call 911 while drinking a Mikes Hard Lemonade isn't the delusion of safety, its the definition of it.

Green lasers (and every other laser with a higher energy rate). The last few nights people have been shot with green lasers in the town I live in (Landskrona, Sweden) and one person became blind a few years ago after being shot in the eyes with one. There's nothing (except blinding people more effectively) that green lasers can do that red lasers can't.

Nimzabaat:
The most interesting point that I saw is that Canada has a gun ownership almost as high as the United States and less then half the homicide rate per 100k. In Canada, handguns are highly regulated and assault weapons are restricted to police and military. So this is a solid argument towards tightening control over handguns and, well, guns that are only intended to kill people.

Yes, lets ignore the fact that Canada is a country high higher standards of living and less poverty.

Assault weapons are only used in about 1% of the crime in the US. Their restriction in Canada is a moot point.

Besides, in Canada it is possible to own assault weapons such as AR15 or the VZ58 even if you're not in the police.

Leadfinger:
Japan. Only 22 killings involving firearms in 2007. 22 for the entire country. See, strict gun control laws do work.

Japan is also the country where a woman was killed because criminals modified an airsoft gun.

Japan is also a country with a shit-ton of suicides.

How about not comparing totally different countries and cultures while pretending that a metric ton of other factors are irrelevant?

JWAN:
Don't forget they live on an island. Its easy keeping contraband off of an island.

No it's not. Busy ports can have millions of containers moving around every year. It would be impossible to check more than a few of them.

Woah woah woah. Who's talking about banning anything? The way I see it, people are merely asking for more responsible gun laws.

FallenMessiah88:
responsible gun laws.

The dreaded term.

You can't pass "responsible"/"sensible" gun laws. Those terms have been used for what... two decades? And it has been used by the Brady Campaign, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. The hypocrites, the fat cats that want your "cheddar" and the emotionally damaged people who despise guns because a murderer used one to kill a relative instead of any other weapon.

What do you think would allow for "responsible gun laws"?

>can't ban anything that is legal now
>cannot infringe the second amendment

Heck, if you can actually think of a law that is actually effective and simple enough to prevent bureaucracy you might be on to something big.

ElPatron:

Nimzabaat:
The most interesting point that I saw is that Canada has a gun ownership almost as high as the United States and less then half the homicide rate per 100k. In Canada, handguns are highly regulated and assault weapons are restricted to police and military. So this is a solid argument towards tightening control over handguns and, well, guns that are only intended to kill people.

Yes, lets ignore the fact that Canada is a country high higher standards of living and less poverty.

Assault weapons are only used in about 1% of the crime in the US. Their restriction in Canada is a moot point.

Besides, in Canada it is possible to own assault weapons such as AR15 or the VZ58 even if you're not in the police.

Leadfinger:
Japan. Only 22 killings involving firearms in 2007. 22 for the entire country. See, strict gun control laws do work.

Japan is also the country where a woman was killed because criminals modified an airsoft gun.

Japan is also a country with a shit-ton of suicides.

How about not comparing totally different countries and cultures while pretending that a metric ton of other factors are irrelevant?

JWAN:
Don't forget they live on an island. Its easy keeping contraband off of an island.

No it's not. Busy ports can have millions of containers moving around every year. It would be impossible to check more than a few of them.

Its actually easier to monitor ports than it was even 3 years ago. Every shipping container is marked from where it came from, what ship it got on and where it got off to the exact second it got on the ship, off the ship and stacked. My cousin works for the port authority in NY and they can tell what is in every bin because its monitored thoroughly from the load up to the offload to when it leaves the facility. Japan has a similar system in place. Most of the contraband that comes into the US comes across the US-Mexico border, in Japan they have to watch their water routes and they do a damn good job at that with China being awkward next-door neighbors.

ElPatron:

FallenMessiah88:
responsible gun laws.

The dreaded term.

You can't pass "responsible"/"sensible" gun laws. Those terms have been used for what... two decades? And it has been used by the Brady Campaign, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. The hypocrites, the fat cats that want your "cheddar" and the emotionally damaged people who despise guns because a murderer used one to kill a relative instead of any other weapon.

What do you think would allow for "responsible gun laws"?

>can't ban anything that is legal now
>cannot infringe the second amendment

Heck, if you can actually think of a law that is actually effective and simple enough to prevent bureaucracy you might be on to something big.

I dunno, I haven't really been following this whole pro guns/anti guns thing, so nope, sorry can't help you. I don't know enough about this subject to even attempt to make any kind of statement about it.

However, I did stumble upon an interesting article just recently which I think may shed some light on why did whole debate seem to have reached a deadlock.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control_p2/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

JWAN:
We should totally ban cars. Cars can drive into crowds of people at any moment in time and kill people by the dozens. Imagine if a bus crashed into a pedestrian mall?
Knives
Forks
Pointy sticks
all dangerous chemicals
public transportation, trains can crash and planes/boats too. Everyone should have to ride bikes or pull wagons. Or use oxen to plow fields, but the plows have to be dull because sharp plows can hurt people.

So, in all the above examples you can use those items for docile purposes, cars can drive you around, knives can cut food, forks hold it for cutting, pointy sticks make charming fences, dangerous chemicals can make scientific advances, public transport gets you around

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

You can weaponise normal things you can't de-weaponise something who's only purpose is to injure or kill people.

You got any other arguments?

CaptainMarvelous:

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

Shoot inanimate targets for fun/points. Deter crime without even firing a shot, just with their mere presence.

I'm not at all for banning guns, but.. yeah, stupid argument is stupid.

I will give you one point OP... if we ban all guns they will not go away but just live in the black market.

But banning guns in general will never happen... that whole 2nd amendment in the US and what not. (Yes I am making the assumption here that this is directed at the US). With that being said I do believe that putting some additional restrictions would prove to be beneficial to society. Maybe making it way more difficult to get guns... since about 40% of gun sales don't require any background checks. These are legal gun sales. There are ways to make it more difficult for the crazies of the world to get guns. Also there is really no other use for an assault rifle for anything else other than to kill people... which begs the question... why allow them to be sold to the general public at all?

As someone who has nearly died in a car accident I am under no illusion that I am ever truly 100% safe, but I will not live my life in fear of being killed by random incidents and let that run my life. I believe in controlling the things I can control about my health but in the end random shit happens. We have some control on guns as a people and it is our responsibility to do something about it. It will not stop all disasters but if it just stops 1 it's worth it.

Buretsu:

CaptainMarvelous:

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

Shoot inanimate targets for fun/points. Deter crime without even firing a shot, just with their mere presence.

First one is valid-ish, in the same way a Bow and Arrow are fun for shooting targets with, but both functions are solely weaponised functions. Not getting into the deterrent side of things because that's not the point of what I was saying.

No-one's asking for "Stricter knife control" (though in some places there already is strict knife control) because knives are used for preparing food, whittling wood, a range of things, guns are used for shooting things and that's all they do. Even as a deterrent the deterrent is "I will kill you", do guns serve any purpose other than the use of/threat of lethal force?

Lawyers and Prosecutors
All of them
People should speak for themselves
Or fight 1on1 in Thunderdome
Depends on their IQ

CaptainMarvelous:

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

Helps to fight carnivores and pests?

CaptainMarvelous:

Buretsu:

CaptainMarvelous:

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

Shoot inanimate targets for fun/points. Deter crime without even firing a shot, just with their mere presence.

First one is valid-ish, in the same way a Bow and Arrow are fun for shooting targets with, but both functions are solely weaponised functions. Not getting into the deterrent side of things because that's not the point of what I was saying.

No-one's asking for "Stricter knife control" (though in some places there already is strict knife control) because knives are used for preparing food, whittling wood, a range of things, guns are used for shooting things and that's all they do. Even as a deterrent the deterrent is "I will kill you", do guns serve any purpose other than the use of/threat of lethal force?

Do they need to?

Buretsu:

CaptainMarvelous:

First one is valid-ish, in the same way a Bow and Arrow are fun for shooting targets with, but both functions are solely weaponised functions. Not getting into the deterrent side of things because that's not the point of what I was saying.

No-one's asking for "Stricter knife control" (though in some places there already is strict knife control) because knives are used for preparing food, whittling wood, a range of things, guns are used for shooting things and that's all they do. Even as a deterrent the deterrent is "I will kill you", do guns serve any purpose other than the use of/threat of lethal force?

Do they need to?

O.o Do you remember the first post I quoted? The bit you editted out where someone was advocating banning cars and sticks because they could be dangerous? That's the point I was making, people may want stricter gun control because guns are only used for shooting things, the other things they listed all served useful purposes besides that. That was the argument. People may want stricter gun control because guns don't have an innocuous usage.

Personally I believe we should ban the use of walls, I mean one could come falling down and crush you at any moment without warning. Plus you can stub your toes on them and that kinda hurts.

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.

well americans love money more than anything, i suppose the government could buy back the guns, kind of like recycling cans... then again the government is broke so i guess a corporation could do it for long lasting tax cuts, sort of a reward program for the corp that gets the most guns out of civilian hands.

or the government could go retro and make a new contra scheme, where all the bought back guns are sold to the worlds rebellious militant factions

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked