HalfTangible: "As soon as your prove YOU can keep them safer than I can."
Who do you mean by "YOU"? Do you mean the government? What do you think they'd do with confiscated weapons? Just throw them in a dump somewhere?
That was basically a very childish way of saying "If a government can't keep track of guns they SET OUT WITH THE GOAL OF TRACKING why should I believe they can handle keeping my gun - which no one has even ATTEMPTED to steal, by the way - out of the wrong hands?" You ever heard of the Fast and Furious incident? Because it's just the most relevant example of the US government fucking up everything it tries to get it's hands in.
Besides, people owning guns isn't the issue. The issue is A) that you can walk into your local Wal-mart and buy a hand pistol over the counter and walk out within a few minutes. WHY?!
B) That when a person commits mass murder, they become a national sensation FOR BEING A TOTAL SCUMBAG. Seriously, what is wrong with the news media?! Handle the deaths of human beings with an ounce of good taste, that's all I ask...
I get the feeling you are channeling your immense anger without a well-defined target. Caps lock makes you harder to take seriously, first of all. It helps reinforce the idea that those in favor of guns are irrational, loud, and reckless. You don't want to reinforce stereotypes, do you? Of course not. Now calm the fuck down, analyze the things you've said, and ask yourself questions like, "when I say the government, what do I mean exactly?" If I want to steal guns from you, I'd go to your house. That's a pain, though, because it's easier to get one legally from a shop, as you pointed out. Or illegally from the black market. It would probably be less inconvenient than stealing them from a government-owned facility as well.
To clarify my first, if snarky, post, I'm wondering why anyone thinks that this is happening because people think gun-owners get their guns stolen from them by insane individuals. I personally think it has to do with impulse, other people (professionals in that field, i.e. no one in this forum) probably have more light to shed on the subject. I could give the Cornell suicide example, but that will take longer and I don't think you'll give it a fair listen anyway, and would be predisposed to disagree with any analogy I'd make at this point.
Regarding the semi-hilarious fast and furious incident, I imagine whoever was in charge got hell for that. I also think it's the only example you gave, and that you need to at least give three before you start saying the government fucks everything up, and they have to all be relevant to the issue.
With regards to issue B, that's an argument you're having with other people. I neither brought up nor referred to the mass murder incident. Handle those arguments with an ounce of good taste. With someone else.
Who do you mean by "YOU"? Do you mean the government? What do you think they'd do with confiscated weapons? Just throw them in a dump somewhere?
That was basically a very childish way of saying "If a government can't keep track of guns they SET OUT WITH THE GOAL OF TRACKING why should I believe they can handle keeping my gun - which no one has even ATTEMPTED to steal, by the way - out of the wrong hands?" You ever heard of the Fast and Furious incident? Because it's just the most relevant example of the US government fucking up everything it tries to get it's hands in.
Besides, people owning guns isn't the issue. The issue is A) that you can walk into your local Wal-mart and buy a hand pistol over the counter and walk out within a few minutes. WHY?!
B) That when a person commits mass murder, they become a national sensation FOR BEING A TOTAL SCUMBAG. Seriously, what is wrong with the news media?! Handle the deaths of human beings with an ounce of good taste, that's all I ask...
I get the feeling you are channeling your immense anger without a well-defined target.
Story of my life, really.
Caps lock makes you harder to take seriously, first of all. It helps reinforce the idea that those in favor of guns are irrational, loud, and reckless. You don't want to reinforce stereotypes, do you? Of course not. Now calm the fuck down, analyze the things you've said, and ask yourself questions like, "when I say the government, what do I mean exactly? If someone were to steal guns from 'the government', where would they go, geographically? Where would the government keep guns?" If I want to steal guns from you, I'd go to your house. That's a pain, though, because it's easier to get one legally from a shop, as you pointed out. Or illegally from the black market. It would probably be less inconvenient than stealing them from a government-owned facility as well.
I use caps locks for emphasis. Ctrl+I brings up my bookmark menu (something i find head-scratching at best) and for some reason there's no italics button here. Call me crazy, but hitting one button to make this look like THIS is easier to do than three times to start and four times to end this.
I don't need to define everything I'm saying, this isn't a serious discussion on the issue of gun control. The question posed was what I would do if such a law were passed and someone came to my door for my guns. The answer: be a snarky dick and make fun of them.
(Also, I don't think caps locks makes someone look like an idiot until they start doing so with entire sentences and posts)
To clarify my first, if snarky, post, I'm wondering why anyone thinks that this is happening because people think gun-owners get their guns stolen from them by insane individuals. I personally think it has to do with impulse, other people (professionals in that field, i.e. no one in this forum) probably have more light to shed on the subject. I could give the Cornell suicide example, but that will take longer and I don't think you'll give it a fair listen anyway, and would be predisposed to disagree with any analogy I'd make at this point.
Total gun control implies that someone, somewhere thinks that guns should not be had by anybody, either because a high percentage of people with guns go on crazy rampages (unlikely - there's just too many people with guns for the percentage to ever be high) or because guns get stolen. It doesn't make any sense, but this is a hypothetical scenario that doesn't make sense anyway =p
Regarding the semi-hilarious fast and furious incident, I imagine whoever was in charge got hell for that. I also think it's the only example you gave, and that you need to at least give three before you start saying the government fucks everything up, and they have to all be relevant to the issue.
Considering I said 'everything' and didn't say 'everything related to gun control'... no, i really wouldn't. DMV, bridges to nowhere, tax laws. Done. =p
With regards to issue B, that's an argument you're having with other people. I neither brought up nor referred to the mass murder incident. Handle those arguments with an ounce of good taste. With someone else.
No need for comparison. The fact stands for itself. GunsmithKitten has been talking as though her gun prevents her from being assaulted. It does not.
I can't believe you just used "stonecold... fact" and "psycho armed with a crowbar" in the same argument. When, praytell, was the last time you encountered a "psycho armed with a crowbar"?
I'd even take good odds that you've never encountered a violent psychopath of any kind in your life.
never been shot at either (in NY or alabama), according to your argument guns are not a problem then. glad that we agree.
Yeah, that's such an absurd argument, frankly it embarrasses me that you thought it would fly. Let's just pretend that you were drunk when you wrote it so we can move forward in this conversation with a little dignity, shall we?
so, you making an absurd statement = totally okay
me making an equally absurd statement using your absurd statement = villianry
/slowclap
the hypocrisy is astounding. That you have the gall to try to claim the moral high ground while using deceitful tactics is disappointing. You focused on the psycho part, when it was the "the police cannot protect you" that was the important part of my statement. But of course you know this, and intentionally tried to deflect and spin the conversation anyway you can in what can only be called desperation by focusing on the LEAST important aspect of that statement. The fact that there are psychos in this world is not groundshattering information. that the police can not protect you or are required to is something that law enforcement, politicians, and even the courts have commented on. That is the crux of the issue involving home/self defense and gun ownership.
that i might be attacked by a psycho is not the problem. The problem is that i might be attacked by a psycho AND THE POLICE WONT BE ABLE TO HELP ME is the problem. Stop trying to spin this conversation in an attempt to prevent any intellectual dialogue.
Removing a tool simply because it can not solve a problem by itself is folly.
Would you agree that removing a tool that is working not as intended and does significant damage to the mechanism it is applied to is a good thing? if so, by your own definition you agree on restricting access to weapons.
You would have to prove that. Which would be difficult seeing how the tool is working as intended.
Considering that it's now a felony offense to enforce any kind of gun ban in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming (probably with more to follow), it would spark a civil war.
alandavidson: Considering that it's now a felony offense to enforce any kind of gun ban in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming (probably with more to follow), it would spark a civil war.
meh arent those measures (technically) illegal/unconstitutional and they only use them to tie up the courts? While the courts are tied up the federal government can not enforce the law until a decision is made, or something like it?
Think of it like a bunch of children complaining about their toys being taken away.
HNNNGNNGNGNGNGNGNGN oh god the ignorance of that statement...
Oh god the uselessness of that statement.
Okay, lets go through the reasons for gun ownership.
> Hunting - Unnecessary. > Sports/recreation/shooting range/etc - Unnecessary. > Hobbyists/collections - Unnecessary. > "It's my constitutional right!" - Unnecessary. > To intimidate the government - Laughable and unnecessary. > Self-defence - Arguably unnecessary. Should be the job of qualified and trained law enforcement, not everyday civilians.
Given how guns are mostly unnecessary, and how you don't hear citizens of other first-world countries, with extremely strict gun control, complaining about how they're "missing out", then yes, it seems to me, to be just like a bunch of childish people complaining about their toys being taken away.
Think of it like a bunch of children complaining about their toys being taken away.
HNNNGNNGNGNGNGNGNGN oh god the ignorance of that statement...
Oh god the uselessness of that statement.
Okay, lets go through the reasons for gun ownership.
> Hunting - Unnecessary. > Sports/recreation/shooting range/etc - Unnecessary. > Hobbyists/collections - Unnecessary. > "It's my constitutional right!" - Unnecessary. > To intimidate the government - Laughable and unnecessary. > Self-defence - Arguably unnecessary. Should be the job of qualified and trained law enforcement, not everyday civilians.
Given how guns are mostly unnecessary, and how you don't hear citizens of other first-world countries, with extremely strict gun control, complaining about how they're "missing out", then yes, it seems like just a bunch of childish people complaining about their toys being taken away.
So why not ban sports cars?, you don't need to go that fast on the road, why not ban large dogs, you don't NEED them and they could hurt people.
launchpadmcqwak: So why not ban sports cars?, you don't need to go that fast on the road, why not ban large dogs, you don't NEED them and they could hurt people.
When was the last time you saw someone use a sports car or large dog to going on a killing spree in a movie theater, school, etc?
Protip: You're using the slippery-slope and false equivalence fallacies.
never been shot at either (in NY or alabama), according to your argument guns are not a problem then. glad that we agree.
Yeah, that's such an absurd argument, frankly it embarrasses me that you thought it would fly. Let's just pretend that you were drunk when you wrote it so we can move forward in this conversation with a little dignity, shall we?
so, you making an absurd statement = totally okay
me making an equally absurd statement using your absurd statement = villianry
/slowclap
You might have a point if you could supply evidence that psychopaths with crowbars are equivalent to the number of murder sprees in the US. But you don't have that information, so your post consists of nothing more than fishing for a point.
The problem is that i might be attacked by a psycho AND THE POLICE WONT BE ABLE TO HELP ME is the problem.
Your point would be worth my time if you could provide evidence that the police won't be able to help you, but since you haven't bothered to provide a shred of evidence all you've done is waste all of our time.
launchpadmcqwak: HNNNGNNGNGNGNGNGNGN oh god the ignorance of that statement...
Oh god the uselessness of that statement.
Okay, lets go through the reasons for gun ownership.
> Hunting - Unnecessary. > Sports/recreation/shooting range/etc - Unnecessary. > Hobbyists/collections - Unnecessary. > "It's my constitutional right!" - Unnecessary. > To intimidate the government - Laughable and unnecessary. > Self-defence - Arguably unnecessary. Should be the job of qualified and trained law enforcement, not everyday civilians.
Given how guns are mostly unnecessary, and how you don't hear citizens of other first-world countries, with extremely strict gun control, complaining about how they're "missing out", then yes, it seems like just a bunch of childish people complaining about their toys being taken away.
So why not ban sports cars?, you don't need to go that fast on the road, why not ban large dogs, you don't NEED them and they could hurt people.
When unhinged or irresponsible people have multiple incidents per year of murdering tens of innocent bystanders in a single event with their sports cars, you will have a point. Unfortunately...
Well sure, recreational hunting, it's unnecessary.
On the other hand, defending against bears or any other dangerous animals that may threaten a town. There are qualified and trained animal control officers for that.
So even though I am from Australia where guns are illegal (unless you have a license) then it wouldn't affect me. However, yanks love their guns (speaking stereo-typically here of course) so if they were banned in the USA then there would definitely be a lot of people angry and not willing to hand up their guns (even if they were generously compensated).
In Australia we had a show (got cancelled due to one skit stepping over the line) called The Chaser's War on Everything. They had this one guy who reported from America and the differences between our countries. One of those was on guns...it is pretty funny and from this video alone I can determine that a total firearm ban in the USA would be a big mistake.
The only REAL way I can see this happening would be to gradually ban guns. Starting with banning fully/semi automatic machine guns and high caliber sniper rifles and working their way down to handguns years down the track.
my household was actually confronted by this issue once, after the massacre here certain guns were made illegal and a couple of guns that were in the house that my grand father owned were turned in with no fuss during the amnesty.i havent even thought about it to be honest until reading this thread.
suprisingly mongol hordes havent descended to raid households looting and pillaging as they go since the law changes
pearcinator: So even though I am from Australia where guns are illegal (unless you have a license) then it wouldn't affect me. However, yanks love their guns (speaking stereo-typically here of course) so if they were banned in the USA then there would definitely be a lot of people angry and not willing to hand up their guns (even if they were generously compensated).
In Australia we had a show (got cancelled due to one skit stepping over the line) called The Chaser's War on Everything. They had this one guy who reported from America and the differences between our countries. One of those was on guns...it is pretty funny and from this video alone I can determine that a total firearm ban in the USA would be a big mistake.
The only REAL way I can see this happening would be to gradually ban guns. Starting with banning fully/semi automatic machine guns and high caliber sniper rifles and working their way down to handguns years down the track.
america scares me with the obbsession with guns. all this yelling about home defence and their god given constitutional right to bare arms yet i havent heard any of the nra lot say "you only need x for home defence" as far as i can tell they would be happiest with zero restrictions on what firepower an american household could have.
i guess the difference between us and the americans if we dont have a whole cultural mythology based totally around the gun and we dont glorify them. weirdly we have a history of pioneers, a history of violent uprising, glorification of criminals like ned kelly, etc but yeah its never focussed on the gun
Try to make my guns sentient and have them see me as their parental figure. As the officers take them away they will scream "Why are you taking me away from my daddy?" It would be hilarious.
Removing a tool simply because it can not solve a problem by itself is folly.
Would you agree that removing a tool that is working not as intended and does significant damage to the mechanism it is applied to is a good thing? if so, by your own definition you agree on restricting access to weapons.
You would have to prove that. Which would be difficult seeing how the tool is working as intended.
So giving easy acess to easily controlable weapons of high power to both the criminals and mentally unstable is working as intended?
launchpadmcqwak: So why not ban sports cars?, you don't need to go that fast on the road, why not ban large dogs, you don't NEED them and they could hurt people.
I am not against banning sports cars. Large dogs, or rather, certain dog species that are known to be agressive and little-minded are banned and/or strictly regulated in some countries. yet in america such dog species are now suddenly "Their inheritance" even though barely anyone knew of their existence 50 years ago. As for cars, americans like to ride in their 20l engine hummers instead, not only doing more damage in crashes than any sportscar but also creating polution and eating up oil.
Its not that the other items arent bad, its that americans are obsessed with "big power agressive" things.
You wanna take my AR-15's, go right ahead. In England, I don't think even the patrol cops carry guns. The rate of gun deaths there is drastically lower than in the US, and I think there's certainly a connection.
Okay, lets go through the reasons for gun ownership.
> Hunting - Unnecessary. > Sports/recreation/shooting range/etc - Unnecessary. > Hobbyists/collections - Unnecessary. > "It's my constitutional right!" - Unnecessary. > To intimidate the government - Laughable and unnecessary. > Self-defence - Arguably unnecessary. Should be the job of qualified and trained law enforcement, not everyday civilians.
Given how guns are mostly unnecessary, and how you don't hear citizens of other first-world countries, with extremely strict gun control, complaining about how they're "missing out", then yes, it seems to me, to be just like a bunch of childish people complaining about their toys being taken away.
Hunting is a nessessary economic and cultural facet of many rural communities. Just because you city/suburb-folk live in a fairy-tale land of plenty does not mean it is the case throughout the country. Many people here in Canada use hunting as their primary means of food and/or income. Who is going to pay for their livelihood when their firearms are taken away?
Furthermore, our Department of Natural Resources relies heavily on civilian firearm owners to enforce ecological culls (eg. coyote population grows too large and threatens the local prey populations, hunters are given $20 per coyote pelt). Who is going to pay for hiring all these new Forestry Officers when the local population cannot help out?
Many people in my community feel safer traveling in the woods with a firearm. The threat of being attacked by a bear or cougar (recently coyotes have actually started attacking people too) is very real. Should these people be deprived of the wonders of nature / the resources of their own land (eg. logging) simply becasue they have no effective means to defend themselves against an attack? Again, who is going to pay for hiring the legion of Forestry Officers required to counteract the loss of civilian firearm ownership?
Lastly, here is a story for you. Several years ago, my step-father woke up in the middle of the night with chest pain. This persisted for several minutes, so my mother decided to call 911. We live in a rural area approximately 15 mins from the closest hospital. It took 35 mins from when the call was made for the paramedics to find our house (civic address is clearly marked) collect their equipment and start assessing/treating my step-dad. Turns out he was not having any sort of cardiac issue, but if he was the damage to his myocardial tissue would have been permanent due to the long interval of time before he recieved definitive care (thrombolytics for a real heart attack) at a hospital.
Anyways, my point is the government cannot protect every citizen at all times. If a someone broke into our house with intentions to do us harm, it would be at least 15 mins before a police officer could make it on scene. If armed, the intruder could murder us, arrange our corpses around the breakfst table and still have time to dash off into the woods before the cops arrive. Why should my family be defenseless? It is unlikely that this situation would occur, but still very possible. Quite frankly, I really don't give a shit about mass shootings or violent crime elsewhere in the country if the solution puts MY loved ones at risk of a violent death..and guess what a hell of a lot of other firearm owners feel the same way.
Your whole post reeks of the sort of prejudiced uninformed anti-rural attitude that comes from many gun control advocates. Hunting and the shooting sports form a significant part of our communities, it would be a great slight against us to have these activities banned. My country has no constiutional right to bear arms so I cannot comment, but I really see nothing wrong with an armed citzenry provided that proper education is put in place.
wombat_of_war: america scares me with the obbsession with guns. all this yelling about home defence and their god given constitutional right to bare arms yet i havent heard any of the nra lot say "you only need x for home defence" as far as i can tell they would be happiest with zero restrictions on what firepower an american household could have.
i guess the difference between us and the americans if we dont have a whole cultural mythology based totally around the gun and we dont glorify them. weirdly we have a history of pioneers, a history of violent uprising, glorification of criminals like ned kelly, etc but yeah its never focussed on the gun
Right back at those of you outside the States that fantasize about rewriting our Constitution (I don't suppose you'd like Americans to take a red marker to your own) and want our rights revoked. Is that not scary?
Regarding bans, I'd say the difference between people like you and free people is that one group doesn't think up ways to impose and oppress the other. There's no mythology about shooting and gun ownership, either, it used to be a time-honored tradition and respected tool. Urban development has changed that and gave rise to the ignorance of today.
TopazFusion: On the other hand, defending against bears or any other dangerous animals that may threaten a town. There are qualified and trained animal control officers for that.
There are qualified and trained officers to deal with humans who threaten a town, they're called cops. I live in a suburb of more than 50,000 people and there are only so many responders. This is why people need to be allowed to have a gun in the hand rather than a cop on the phone (if they can).
Insanely Asinine: Try to make my guns sentient and have them see me as their parental figure. As the officers take them away they will scream "Why are you taking me away from my daddy?" It would be hilarious.
wombat_of_war: america scares me with the obbsession with guns. all this yelling about home defence and their god given constitutional right to bare arms yet i havent heard any of the nra lot say "you only need x for home defence" as far as i can tell they would be happiest with zero restrictions on what firepower an american household could have.
i guess the difference between us and the americans if we dont have a whole cultural mythology based totally around the gun and we dont glorify them. weirdly we have a history of pioneers, a history of violent uprising, glorification of criminals like ned kelly, etc but yeah its never focussed on the gun
Right back at those of you outside the States that fantasize about rewriting our Constitution (I don't suppose you'd like Americans to take a red marker to your own) and want our rights revoked. Is that not scary?
Yes, it is. Espcially since there are few credible attempts by non-Americans to alter the American constitution, but there actually is an American-sponsored effort to make gun ownership a right guaranteed in the UN's human rights charter. In other words, there are Americans trying to force other countries to adopt America's self-destructive gun laws.
Regarding bans, I'd say the difference between people like you and free people
I'm going to stop your little fallacy right there. Gun regulation does not make a people stop being free. I've spent most of my life living in a democratic country with heavy gun regulation, and I was far more free there than I am in the US. There I don't have to fear certain neighborhoods, or certain streets, or certain times of night. I can (and did) walk anywhere I want.
wombat_of_war: america scares me with the obbsession with guns. all this yelling about home defence and their god given constitutional right to bare arms yet i havent heard any of the nra lot say "you only need x for home defence" as far as i can tell they would be happiest with zero restrictions on what firepower an american household could have.
i guess the difference between us and the americans if we dont have a whole cultural mythology based totally around the gun and we dont glorify them. weirdly we have a history of pioneers, a history of violent uprising, glorification of criminals like ned kelly, etc but yeah its never focussed on the gun
Right back at those of you outside the States that fantasize about rewriting our Constitution (I don't suppose you'd like Americans to take a red marker to your own) and want our rights revoked. Is that not scary?
Yes, it is. Espcially since there are few credible attempts by non-Americans to alter the American constitution, but there actually is an American-sponsored effort to make gun ownership a right guaranteed in the UN's human rights charter. In other words, there are Americans trying to force other countries to adopt America's self-destructive gun laws.
Regarding bans, I'd say the difference between people like you and free people
I'm going to stop your little fallacy right there. Gun regulation does not make a people stop being free. I've spent most of my life living in a democratic country with heavy gun regulation, and I was far more free there than I am in the US. There I don't have to fear certain neighborhoods, or certain streets, or certain times of night. I can (and did) walk anywhere I want.
Forcing one's culture on another group of people is a fool's game and wrong to begin with, no matter what the subject is. (Unless it's something fundamental like human sacrifices or genital mutilation). Also, have you ever stopped and wondered WHY those areas were unsafe or actually quite dangerous to walk though? I can tell you with 100% certainty it's not because guns are legal.
Right back at those of you outside the States that fantasize about rewriting our Constitution (I don't suppose you'd like Americans to take a red marker to your own) and want our rights revoked. Is that not scary?
Yes, it is. Espcially since there are few credible attempts by non-Americans to alter the American constitution, but there actually is an American-sponsored effort to make gun ownership a right guaranteed in the UN's human rights charter. In other words, there are Americans trying to force other countries to adopt America's self-destructive gun laws.
Regarding bans, I'd say the difference between people like you and free people
I'm going to stop your little fallacy right there. Gun regulation does not make a people stop being free. I've spent most of my life living in a democratic country with heavy gun regulation, and I was far more free there than I am in the US. There I don't have to fear certain neighborhoods, or certain streets, or certain times of night. I can (and did) walk anywhere I want.
Forcing one's culture on another group of people is a fool's game and wrong to begin with, no matter what the subject is. (Unless it's something fundamental like human sacrifices or genital mutilation). Also, have you ever stopped and wondered WHY those areas were unsafe or actually quite dangerous to walk though? I can tell you with 100% certainty it's not because guns are legal.
Oh? I look forward to seeing your evidence that dangerous, crime ridden areas in the US would be equally dangerous if guns were regulated.
The question that never comes up in these topics is "Why don't we ban all gun ownership, police and military included?"
With the police, we could limit the number of guns to a handful of SWAT teams with the rest of the force limited to non-lethal weapons. With the military, scale the machine back dramatically and only allow access to guns during an invasion/attack on our home soil.
But you never hear that. It's always "how do we disarm the populace?"
thepyrethatburns: The question that never comes up in these topics is "Why don't we ban all gun ownership, police and military included?"
With the police, we could limit the number of guns to a handful of SWAT teams with the rest of the force limited to non-lethal weapons. With the military, scale the machine back dramatically and only allow access to guns during an invasion/attack on our home soil.
But you never hear that. It's always "how do we disarm the populace?"
Because for that to work, not only your own population would have to disarm, but all other potential enemies as well.The chances of that happening are non-existant.
Yes, it is. Espcially since there are few credible attempts by non-Americans to alter the American constitution, but there actually is an American-sponsored effort to make gun ownership a right guaranteed in the UN's human rights charter. In other words, there are Americans trying to force other countries to adopt America's self-destructive gun laws.
I'm going to stop your little fallacy right there. Gun regulation does not make a people stop being free. I've spent most of my life living in a democratic country with heavy gun regulation, and I was far more free there than I am in the US. There I don't have to fear certain neighborhoods, or certain streets, or certain times of night. I can (and did) walk anywhere I want.
Forcing one's culture on another group of people is a fool's game and wrong to begin with, no matter what the subject is. (Unless it's something fundamental like human sacrifices or genital mutilation). Also, have you ever stopped and wondered WHY those areas were unsafe or actually quite dangerous to walk though? I can tell you with 100% certainty it's not because guns are legal.
Oh? I look forward to seeing your evidence that dangerous, crime ridden areas in the US would be equally dangerous if guns were regulated.
Easy, because gangs and criminals don't follow the law. Maybe you should actually do something useful, like address the social and economic pressures that force people into gangs or acts of crime, instead of trying to make firearms magically vanish into thin air.
Ever noticed how outside of the media frenzy bonanzas that are mass shootings by white people against other white people in middle class neighborhoods, almost all gun violence is inner-city thugs and gangs? More innocent children died from gang gun related violence in the week following Newton using handguns, but does nobody cry out for them? Does anybody try to help solve the ghettos? No, this rage and fury you gun control people spew is ultimately empty. More aimed at making you feel safe in your little, well-to-do, 1st world problems cocoon then actually solving anything.
Spend your time trying to make peoples lives better instead of trying to take away hunks of metal.
thepyrethatburns: The question that never comes up in these topics is "Why don't we ban all gun ownership, police and military included?"
With the police, we could limit the number of guns to a handful of SWAT teams with the rest of the force limited to non-lethal weapons. With the military, scale the machine back dramatically and only allow access to guns during an invasion/attack on our home soil.
But you never hear that. It's always "how do we disarm the populace?"
Because for that to work, not only your own population would have to disarm, but all other potential enemies as well.The chances of that happening are non-existant.
Take "other nation-states", replace with "criminal elements".
Oh? I look forward to seeing your evidence that dangerous, crime ridden areas in the US would be equally dangerous if guns were regulated.
Easy, because gangs and criminals don't follow the law.
That's not evidence. Try again.
Maybe you should actually do something useful, like address the social and economic pressures that force people into gangs or acts of crime, instead of trying to make firearms magically vanish into thin air.
First of all, I'm not trying to make firearms magically vanish into thin air. Once again, the NRA-style strawman tactics waste our time. Secondly, you have absolutely no idea if I'm doing anything useful or not.
Ever noticed how outside of the media frenzy bonanzas that are mass shootings by white people against other white people in middle class neighborhoods, almost all gun violence is inner-city thugs and gangs?
Evidence needed.
More innocent children died from gang gun related violence in the week following Newton using handguns,
Evidence needed.
but does nobody cry out for them?
Yes, they do. Please do not waste our time with irrelevant distractions.
More aimed at making you feel safe in your little, well-to-do, 1st world problems cocoon then actually solving anything.
LOL, "well-to-do"? Maybe instead of fishing you could actually back up your claims with evidence?
Oh? I look forward to seeing your evidence that dangerous, crime ridden areas in the US would be equally dangerous if guns were regulated.
Easy, because gangs and criminals don't follow the law.
That's not evidence. Try again.
Maybe you should actually do something useful, like address the social and economic pressures that force people into gangs or acts of crime, instead of trying to make firearms magically vanish into thin air.
First of all, I'm not trying to make firearms magically vanish into thin air. Once again, the NRA-style strawman tactics waste our time. Secondly, you have absolutely no idea if I'm doing anything useful or not.
Ever noticed how outside of the media frenzy bonanzas that are mass shootings by white people against other white people in middle class neighborhoods, almost all gun violence is inner-city thugs and gangs?
Evidence needed.
More innocent children died from gang gun related violence in the week following Newton using handguns,
Evidence needed.
but does nobody cry out for them?
Yes, they do. Please do not waste our time with irrelevant distractions.
More aimed at making you feel safe in your little, well-to-do, 1st world problems cocoon then actually solving anything.
LOL, "well-to-do"? Maybe instead of fishing you could actually back up your claims with evidence?
I'm really tired of your omnislashing, it's getting rather boring. But here, just for you.
Oh look, a disproportionate amount of gun deaths are those of minority race, low income and live in the inner cities. Strange...it's almost like guns are merely a symptom of some much larger and pressing issue.
thepyrethatburns: The question that never comes up in these topics is "Why don't we ban all gun ownership, police and military included?"
With the police, we could limit the number of guns to a handful of SWAT teams with the rest of the force limited to non-lethal weapons. With the military, scale the machine back dramatically and only allow access to guns during an invasion/attack on our home soil.
But you never hear that. It's always "how do we disarm the populace?"
Because for that to work, not only your own population would have to disarm, but all other potential enemies as well.The chances of that happening are non-existant.
Congrats on the 800th post of the thread friend! I will grant you with the only response of me, the great and all mighty op.
We can't live without a military, even my dream utopia has a military, because others will want what I have. That Utopia is Star Trek btw :)
Katatori-kun: ...but there actually is an American-sponsored effort to make gun ownership a right guaranteed in the UN's human rights charter. In other words, there are Americans trying to force other countries to adopt America's self-destructive gun laws.
I have no interest or support of petitioning the U.N. to do anything other than get the fuck away from me and my fellow countrymen. It needs to go away along with the entire idea of world government. It's a rotten, foul organization tainted with vermin puppets consolidating power and running roughshod over duly elected governments by people. It's a total usurping of power by unelected madmen.
Katatori-kun: I'm going to stop your little fallacy right there. Gun regulation does not make a people stop being free. I've spent most of my life living in a democratic country with heavy gun regulation, and I was far more free there than I am in the US. There I don't have to fear certain neighborhoods, or certain streets, or certain times of night. I can (and did) walk anywhere I want.
We're not talking about regulation, the thread is about a gun ban. Zip. Zero. You legally have access to nothing. I'm very glad you live in a safe area. You know what? I do too. But that's not the point. The point is people deserve the choice, the option, if they abide. Criminal statistics are measures of violence in society, a deeply-rooted issue, not evidence to be used to advance a political agenda or erroneously appease angry people who don't respond to their community problems.
Katatori-kun: Oh? I look forward to seeing your evidence that dangerous, crime ridden areas in the US would be equally dangerous if guns were regulated.
I get the feeling you are channeling your immense anger without a well-defined target. Caps lock makes you harder to take seriously, first of all. It helps reinforce the idea that those in favor of guns are irrational, loud, and reckless. You don't want to reinforce stereotypes, do you? Of course not. Now calm the fuck down, analyze the things you've said, and ask yourself questions like, "when I say the government, what do I mean exactly?" If I want to steal guns from you, I'd go to your house. That's a pain, though, because it's easier to get one legally from a shop, as you pointed out. Or illegally from the black market. It would probably be less inconvenient than stealing them from a government-owned facility as well.
To clarify my first, if snarky, post, I'm wondering why anyone thinks that this is happening because people think gun-owners get their guns stolen from them by insane individuals. I personally think it has to do with impulse, other people (professionals in that field, i.e. no one in this forum) probably have more light to shed on the subject. I could give the Cornell suicide example, but that will take longer and I don't think you'll give it a fair listen anyway, and would be predisposed to disagree with any analogy I'd make at this point.
Regarding the semi-hilarious fast and furious incident, I imagine whoever was in charge got hell for that. I also think it's the only example you gave, and that you need to at least give three before you start saying the government fucks everything up, and they have to all be relevant to the issue.
With regards to issue B, that's an argument you're having with other people. I neither brought up nor referred to the mass murder incident. Handle those arguments with an ounce of good taste. With someone else.