I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because practically no one would hand in their weapons to comply with a ban. I definitely wouldn't. In fact, if such a ban were implemented, I'd probably drive to Mexico and smuggle some weapons in as soon as I could manage it.
I absolutely would not hand over any of my firearms in compliance with a national ban. Sorry officer, they were all stolen by criminals when they heard you were going to start banning guns.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
I'm of the opinion that most of them should not. They should be paid out of the general fund. More so when they interfere with rights (such as the right to travel), which is why I specifically mention drivers licenses and passports.
I also admitted that I'm an outlier on this issue.
Either way, free drivers licenses do not equal free cars, so syphonblue is still a goose.
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
I bolded the relevant part
Oh ok, well. I mean I have a driver's license. I don't have a car because a car costs money I don't have...
Do you imagine that I could take my hypothetical license down to the local gun shop and demand a free gun?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
And beyond that, the license WOULDN'T be free for the exact reasons I specified.
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
But on the registration point, do you feel it fair that gun owners should register the carry piece with the police, and why would you not support this being generally true of every firearm sold?
I don't oppose State registration for all gun purchases, as long as there are appropriate controls in place to prevent abuse. I do oppose a national registry.
This is what I would like to hear more about - can you elaborate on why you favor that distinction?
I don't believe the Federal government has any compelling interest in extending its power to track Constitutionally protected ownership. If the FBI needs to know about a gun, it can ask the States about that specific gun. There's no reason to track purchasers on a national level that cannot be accomplished at the State level, so why do it at all?
This is really going to come down to a states' rights debate, because my natural response to this is one out of fear of uncooperative states that run interference with the feds any time the investigation goes federal. There's also the argument in favor of simplicity and standardization that goes with making a single, unified system.
What I'm looking for is the demonstrable harm in the government keeping such records that does not involve a nearly-apocalyptic scenario of total gun confiscation, which, let's be honest, is really pretty damned unlikely. Let's say the law creating the database says something to the effect of this: without an open criminal investigation, those files are not to be opened. This law would not actively restrict ownership, and would not automatically invite surveillance beyond the government having a copy of your receipt, more or less. So what's the harm?
Our standard isn't "what's the harm", it's "does the government have some compelling justification to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the citizen". I don't think a national gun registry meets that standard, even if it was never Used For Evil. So to me it's irrelevant that the infringement seems harmless. The suggestion that a national registry would make things convenient for the feds isn't compelling to me in the least when weighed against a Constitutional right.
If there were no States and no other entity registering firearms, the 'battle lines' would be drawn differently. I might even be convinced by an argument for eliminating all State registry in favor of a national one, but adding a new registry to the existing regime is redundant and efficiency doesn't rise to the level of a Constitutionally justifiable infringement.
I'm favoring an elimination of state registries (or, as Nexus suggests, a complete standardization of all 50), and the compelling reason has already gone around a few times - the enormous difficulty in tracing guns that escape legal sale and are subsequently used for crime. A better database solution would allow law enforcement an invaluable tool for stopping the illegal flow of guns and investigating the violence they cause while, as far as I've been convinced so far, doing no observable harm to anyone's constitutional rights. So I suppose the next question is, looking to the content of my posts and Nexus's posts, why do you feel the "compelling" standard still has not been met?
A national registry of People Who Pled the 5th would also probably end up being pretty useful in stopping illegal activity, but that isn't a good enough reason to do so. "It'd be easier for the cops" is rarely ever good enough as a reason to infringe on a Constitutional right. Certainly an additional registry on top of the current regime would be an infringement, just as a national registry of people who applied for a permit to protest something, or a requirement that all persons crossing State lines possess a national ID card, would be infringements of the 1st Amendment.
The cops will just have to work a little harder I guess.
But this is where we're going to keep going around: how exactly does it infringe on this constitutional right? Which rights do we trade or compromise in order for police to have more power in this one respect? If I can still buy many guns (provided I am eligible to do so), and I can use them according to the current standards of lawfulness, where does the second amendment take a hit?
I'm proposing a situation in which the only meaningful difference for the average gun owner is that law enforcement officials know you own that particular firearm, but cannot make any use of this information unless it is missing, stolen, or used to shoot at a person.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
I'm of the opinion that most of them should not. They should be paid out of the general fund. More so when they interfere with rights (such as the right to travel), which is why I specifically mention drivers licenses and passports.
I also admitted that I'm an outlier on this issue.
Either way, free drivers licenses do not equal free cars, so syphonblue is still a goose.
California has a handgun safety certificate you must get before you can buy a handgun.
It's set up exactly the wrong way: it's a 25 dollar fee and a test that I could get 100% on without reading the guide.
It should be free and the test should be brutal in making sure you understand how serious you should take gun safety.
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
See my first post here - and the history of gun control in the UK (who had the right to own guns until the early 20th century, when a ban was initially put on pistols before being extended to other weapons a few decades later with 'self defence' not being regarded as suitable reason for ownership).
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
Tastyfish on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
So, we can't change anything in this country because it would be hard?
The reason that we can't have gun control in this country because Americans have a history with guns is a complete bullshit reason. What exactly is our history with guns that makes us so unique from England or France? Cause those countries didn't always have gun control laws, either.
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
American exceptionalism preventing conversations on everything from gun control to healthcare. "We can't do that, we're merica!"
Nice strawman you got there, preacher. Be a shame if someone shot it with a SAW.
That's exactly what you are saying "we have a history, we're too big, we have too many guns." These are silly things to bring to an argument, also I don't think anyone really believes america would ban all guns, but sadly I also know that America will never have new national gun laws despite the country needing them desperately because of the very arguments you are making.
We're too big, we like guns too much, it won't do anything anyway, the GUBMINT WILL TAKE MA GUNS! These are all arguments against everything from gun safes/gunlocks, to standard gun laws or banning guns from certain institutions. America is gun crazy.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
So, we can't change anything in this country because it would be hard?
The reason that we can't have gun control in this country because Americans have a history with guns is a complete bullshit reason. What exactly is our history with guns that makes us so unique from England or France? Cause those countries didn't always have gun control laws, either.
They also didn't have more guns than people.
I mean, it is hard work being this much of a goose. We need better regulation, smarter regulation. BAN ALL THE GUNS is fucking retarded and you're a goose for supporting it.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
I'm of the opinion that most of them should not. They should be paid out of the general fund. More so when they interfere with rights (such as the right to travel), which is why I specifically mention drivers licenses and passports.
I also admitted that I'm an outlier on this issue.
Either way, free drivers licenses do not equal free cars, so syphonblue is still a goose.
California has a handgun safety certificate you must get before you can buy a handgun.
It's set up exactly the wrong way: it's a 25 dollar fee and a test that I could get 100% on without reading the guide.
It should be free and the test should be brutal in making sure you understand how serious you should take gun safety.
Indeed. Instead of using the fee to discourage people the test and license should actually mean something.
Same way I know people who don't bother to go to Canada, because they can't be bothered to pay the fee for a passport or EID. That's fucked up.
And then you get into things like voter ID laws, where even if you make the ID card free, the birth certificate from the state (which could be another state altogether) probably isn't.
These things should not cost money. They should be paid out of taxes. Place some kind of restrictions if abuse becomes an issue, I guess. But I shouldn't have to drop thirty dollars for the document I need to prove I exist.
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
Its more the other way around, we have programs that in theory address poverty, we have very little programs that address gun violence in a preventative way. I was going to say because we don't have a party advocating for poverty like we do one for no gun control, but with the modern gop thats not true anymore.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
American exceptionalism preventing conversations on everything from gun control to healthcare. "We can't do that, we're merica!"
Nice strawman you got there, preacher. Be a shame if someone shot it with a SAW.
That's exactly what you are saying "we have a history, we're too big, we have too many guns." These are silly things to bring to an argument, also I don't think anyone really believes america would ban all guns, but sadly I also know that America will never have new national gun laws despite the country needing them desperately because of the very arguments you are making.
We're too big, we like guns too much, it won't do anything anyway, the GUBMINT WILL TAKE MA GUNS! These are all arguments against everything from gun safes/gunlocks, to standard gun laws or banning guns from certain institutions. America is gun crazy.
Well, no, Preacher. Contrary to how illiterate this thread is being, I have said several times we need better and smarter regulation to deal with our insane relationship with guns.
Are most spree shooters not exhibiting signs that don't allow them to have guns?
I feel like spree shootings might be one of the few things that would be reduced by greater regulation. Like, ten round mags for everyone seems more reasonable than a lot of other things.
They would be reduced as shootings, and their lethality might be reduced similarly.
But the point is generally this: whoever decides to do this will plan for maximum effect. As some people have noted, they can do so with knives and cars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
Reducing the lethality was my rationale for the ten round restriction.
I find ten round mag restrictions kind of annoying. Like speed limits. That's pretty much my exact attitude on them, really.
Reducing the lethality kind of sounds like a solution to homicide.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
But it's so much easier to just harp about guns! Why can't we just do that!
We should also ban all cars to solve global warming and ban sodas of a certain size from being sold in restaurants to end childhood obesity.
American exceptionalism preventing conversations on everything from gun control to healthcare. "We can't do that, we're merica!"
Nice strawman you got there, preacher. Be a shame if someone shot it with a SAW.
That's exactly what you are saying "we have a history, we're too big, we have too many guns." These are silly things to bring to an argument, also I don't think anyone really believes america would ban all guns, but sadly I also know that America will never have new national gun laws despite the country needing them desperately because of the very arguments you are making.
We're too big, we like guns too much, it won't do anything anyway, the GUBMINT WILL TAKE MA GUNS! These are all arguments against everything from gun safes/gunlocks, to standard gun laws or banning guns from certain institutions. America is gun crazy.
Well, no, Preacher. Contrary to how illiterate this thread is being, I have said several times we need better and smarter regulation to deal with our insane relationship with guns.
But you are not the only participant in this thread, and people are talking past each other. Or just making points in general, AMFE stop being carly simon the thread is not about just you.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
American exceptionalism preventing conversations on everything from gun control to healthcare. "We can't do that, we're merica!"
Nice strawman you got there, preacher. Be a shame if someone shot it with a SAW.
That's exactly what you are saying "we have a history, we're too big, we have too many guns." These are silly things to bring to an argument, also I don't think anyone really believes america would ban all guns, but sadly I also know that America will never have new national gun laws despite the country needing them desperately because of the very arguments you are making.
We're too big, we like guns too much, it won't do anything anyway, the GUBMINT WILL TAKE MA GUNS! These are all arguments against everything from gun safes/gunlocks, to standard gun laws or banning guns from certain institutions. America is gun crazy.
Well, no, Preacher. Contrary to how illiterate this thread is being, I have said several times we need better and smarter regulation to deal with our insane relationship with guns.
But you are not the only participant in this thread, and people are talking past each other. Or just making points in general, AMFE stop being carly simon the thread is not about just you.
EVERY THREAD IS JUST ABOUT ME.
You'll find I was responding to the post saying I was arguing something I wasn't.
I also have read the thread, and the crazies saying we have to leave gun law alone seem to have been taken back to their rooms by the nurses a couple pages ago.
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
Its more the other way around, we have programs that in theory address poverty, we have very little programs that address gun violence in a preventative way. I was going to say because we don't have a party advocating for poverty like we do one for no gun control, but with the modern gop thats not true anymore.
I'd argue that our existing background checks are precisely as effective at preventing gun violence as our social safety net is at addressing poverty.
Which is to say not.
Edit: or rather which is to say "in theory," right?
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
So, we can't change anything in this country because it would be hard?
The reason that we can't have gun control in this country because Americans have a history with guns is a complete bullshit reason. What exactly is our history with guns that makes us so unique from England or France? Cause those countries didn't always have gun control laws, either.
They also didn't have more guns than people.
I mean, it is hard work being this much of a goose. We need better regulation, smarter regulation. BAN ALL THE GUNS is fucking retarded and you're a goose for supporting it.
Calm down there, son. You are incredibly hostile over a simple disagreement in policy.
I don't understand how wanting to ban firearms makes me a goose but you know, different strokes I guess.
I see madmen going on rampages literally every month and want to take away their ability to do so, but I guess I'm just too simple minded to understand that America has a history, man.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Pistol shootings are the most common firearm related homicide in Canada. We have extremely restrictive laws concerning the ownership of pistols. So why all the pistol violence?
The vast majority of firearm homicides in Canada are gang related. Almost all gang shootings are done with a pistol and most of those are done with illegally obtained pistols, with smuggling from the US being the most common method. Theft and then use of a firearm in a homicide is a lot more rare.
Further, the Canadian government enacted a new host of gun laws in 1995, particularly the long gun registry (Which was just dismantled, incidentally). There was no discernible effect on violent crime rates that can be traced to those laws. Violent crime in Canada has been on the decline and that decline started well before 1995 and then continued after with no significant change to the rate of decrease.
Availability of weapons may have a correlation with violent crime, but it is not a causative effect.
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
Why does it matter where we started? And don't get me wrong, I grasp the straw you are grasping for saying we have "always" had guns. But that is moot to the issue of a gun ban, it once again is meaningless like the car analogy. It boils down to the same as saying "we have always had murder, so we can't ban it now". The fact the we have always had guns is a major factor in how a gun ban would be designed in the USA, but it is in no way a relevant argument against having a ban.
Most of the stuff I've been suggesting would have zilch effect on almost every gun owner. I don't think targeting the grey gun market needs to be a massive civil rights infringement if done smartly. Right now it'd just ridiculously easy to move illegal guns around. As evidenced by how cheap an illegal gun can be had in almost any major city. take some of the profit motivation out ofit and make it most likely to getcaught and guns might get a little harder to get illegally. Whats wrong with that
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
Its more the other way around, we have programs that in theory address poverty, we have very little programs that address gun violence in a preventative way. I was going to say because we don't have a party advocating for poverty like we do one for no gun control, but with the modern gop thats not true anymore.
I'd argue that our existing background checks are precisely as effective at preventing gun violence as our social safety net is at addressing poverty.
Which is to say not.
Edit: or rather which is to say "in theory," right?
You don't think the social safety net helps americans in poverty? Ok, apparently we exist in completely different americas.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
So, we can't change anything in this country because it would be hard?
The reason that we can't have gun control in this country because Americans have a history with guns is a complete bullshit reason. What exactly is our history with guns that makes us so unique from England or France? Cause those countries didn't always have gun control laws, either.
They also didn't have more guns than people.
I mean, it is hard work being this much of a goose. We need better regulation, smarter regulation. BAN ALL THE GUNS is fucking retarded and you're a goose for supporting it.
Calm down there, son. You are incredibly hostile over a simple disagreement in policy.
I don't understand how wanting to ban firearms makes me a goose but you know, different strokes I guess.
I see madmen going on rampages literally every month and want to take away their ability to do so, but I guess I'm just too simple minded to understand that America has a history, man.
Seriously?
I want to stop gun violence, too. But guess what? Your proposition wouldn't do it and I've been giving you the reasons why. But instead you've crafted this narrative where people who disagree with you are against better regulation and are oh-so-dumb.
Ban All The Guns isn't a real solution to this problem.
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
How would you go about de-glorifying violence without tackling the prevalence of guns or the perceived need for them to ensure safety? I think that'd take far longer than a ban on firearms licenses for self defence (exceptions for hunting, work and those used by the national guard/militia).
You can certainly go some way to fixing poverty, but hand in hand with that is also different view on crime and punishment. Gun ownership primarily being for self defence stands directly in the way in seeing crime as a symptom of poverty, instead painting criminals as violent offenders who are a direct threat to your life. People don't care about those who they think are trying to kill them - armed robber is considered very different from a thief.
The thing is a lot of the stuff we could do to decrease gun crime(outside of gun-control) will also get the Left of the US in a fucking tizzy. Stuff like the UKs stop and search, would probably be a very effective program since most of the crime in the US is concentrated in urban centers, and in small areas within those centers specifically. But the UK is having racial bias issues with that program, in America? good fucking luck.
That imo was those only useful part of the Chicago/DC handgun bans. They basically gave the police an easy excuse to arrest gang members, and throw them in jail for years, if they were caught with a gun.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
I'm of the opinion that most of them should not. They should be paid out of the general fund. More so when they interfere with rights (such as the right to travel), which is why I specifically mention drivers licenses and passports.
I also admitted that I'm an outlier on this issue.
Either way, free drivers licenses do not equal free cars, so syphonblue is still a goose.
California has a handgun safety certificate you must get before you can buy a handgun.
It's set up exactly the wrong way: it's a 25 dollar fee and a test that I could get 100% on without reading the guide.
It should be free and the test should be brutal in making sure you understand how serious you should take gun safety.
Indeed. Instead of using the fee to discourage people the test and license should actually mean something.
Same way I know people who don't bother to go to Canada, because they can't be bothered to pay the fee for a passport or EID. That's fucked up.
And then you get into things like voter ID laws, where even if you make the ID card free, the birth certificate from the state (which could be another state altogether) probably isn't.
These things should not cost money. They should be paid out of taxes. Place some kind of restrictions if abuse becomes an issue, I guess. But I shouldn't have to drop thirty dollars for the document I need to prove I exist.
It's not to discourage people - handguns are expensive! The license is a drop in the bucket comparatively - even the cheapest used ones are going to be at least double it. It's a blatant cost-grabbing measure.
The state's doing something similar with antique gun laws, incidentally. In order to get the benefits of a C&R license (which involves a federal background check, among other things, so it's clear that you're not a psychopath), California is soon going to be demanding you have a Certificate of Eligibility. Which is like a hundred dollars and has to be renewed (at reduced cost) every two or three years.
Guess who gets the money for the C&R license application? It's the feds.
Guess who gets the CoE money?
Money and laws don't mix well.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
Its more the other way around, we have programs that in theory address poverty, we have very little programs that address gun violence in a preventative way. I was going to say because we don't have a party advocating for poverty like we do one for no gun control, but with the modern gop thats not true anymore.
I think the "in theory" part is the problem. We pretend to address poverty, but we don't. Unless we address that, everything we do for violence is a band-aid.
It's arguable that "where we started" matters if for no other reason than the fact that direct comparisons of homocide rates need to account for rates prior to regulations.
I mean, if you want to argue that the gun bans or rates of ownership are a factor.
Since there are so many other variables to crime, and all. Anybody trying to wave at homicide rates in the US versus the UK (or any other country) and suggest ANY single factor causes it (guns or no) is demonstrably stupid. Or dishonest. Take your pick.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
Why does it matter where we started? And don't get me wrong, I grasp the straw you are grasping for saying we have "always" had guns. But that is moot to the issue of a gun ban, it once again is meaningless like the car analogy. It boils down to the same as saying "we have always had murder, so we can't ban it now". The fact the we have always had guns is a major factor in how a gun ban would be designed in the USA, but it is in no way a relevant argument against having a ban.
Have you ever heard the phrase "you can't put a genie back in the bottle". There are more guns in this country than people, trying to ban and seize them isn't going to do a damn thing.
Instead we should try to improve people's lives; working to fight poverty, providing better mental healthcare so that we can catch people likely to snap and go on shooting sprees before they become a danger to themselves and others, making it so that joining a gang isn't the best option for inner city kids, and yes making it so that the people who own guns are smarter and better able to handle them.
You can't just ban all the guns and pretend that this solves the problem. It doesn't. And you can't actually do it. It's a red herring and not worth talking about if you're actually interested in working to solve the problem.
The Government has been on a war on drugs for decades...there is not a noticible lack of drugs in america.
Why exactly would you think the Government would be any better at eradicating guns if they were deemed illegal?
I don't want to ban guns, but, to respond to your question, try making guns in your basement and see how it compares to the (relative) ease of making meth or growing pot. This isn't a useful comparison.
The thing is a lot of the stuff we could do to decrease gun crime(outside of gun-control) will also get the Left of the US in a fucking tizzy. Stuff like the UKs stop and search, would probably be a very effective program since most of the crime in the US is concentrated in urban centers, and in small areas within those centers specifically. But the UK is having racial bias issues with that program, in America? good fucking luck.
That imo was those only useful part of the Chicago/DC handgun bans. They basically gave the police an easy excuse to arrest gang members, and throw them in jail for years, if they were caught with a gun.
As the left should be up in arms at expanding stop and search laws. Have you not seen what Arizona did with their papers please bullshit? See thats a real extension of the police state, and one I would oppose.
I'm saying gun registries, saftey courses, not fucking giving the police a license to toss people in jail that could easily be abused.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I mean, it is hard work being this much of a goose. We need better regulation, smarter regulation. BAN ALL THE GUNS is fucking retarded and you're a goose for supporting it.
Calm down there, son. You are incredibly hostile over a simple disagreement in policy.
I don't understand how wanting to ban firearms makes me a goose but you know, different strokes I guess.
I see madmen going on rampages literally every month and want to take away their ability to do so, but I guess I'm just too simple minded to understand that America has a history, man.
Seriously?
I want to stop gun violence, too. But guess what? Your proposition wouldn't do it and I've been giving you the reasons why. But instead you've crafted this narrative where people who disagree with you are against better regulation and are oh-so-dumb.
Ban All The Guns isn't a real solution to this problem.
You actually haven't given any reasons why this wouldn't help solve gun violence at all. Your reasons have been that the US is too big and diverse and that we have a history with guns. Both of which are giant cop-outs to get away with not actually doing anything.
Have you ever heard the phrase "you can't put a genie back in the bottle". There are more guns in this country than people, trying to ban and seize them isn't going to do a damn thing.
Instead we should try to improve people's lives; working to fight poverty, providing better mental healthcare so that we can catch people likely to snap and go on shooting sprees before they become a danger to themselves and others, making it so that joining a gang isn't the best option for inner city kids, and yes making it so that the people who own guns are smarter and better able to handle them.
You can't just ban all the guns and pretend that this solves the problem. It doesn't. And you can't actually do it. It's a red herring and not worth talking about if you're actually interested in working to solve the problem.
Yeah, fear of the government trying to ban and confiscate all guns is pretty much the exact reason people own so many guns. It would be like Ruby Ridge on a national scale.
Posts
Because practically no one would hand in their weapons to comply with a ban. I definitely wouldn't. In fact, if such a ban were implemented, I'd probably drive to Mexico and smuggle some weapons in as soon as I could manage it.
I absolutely would not hand over any of my firearms in compliance with a national ban. Sorry officer, they were all stolen by criminals when they heard you were going to start banning guns.
I'm of the opinion that most of them should not. They should be paid out of the general fund. More so when they interfere with rights (such as the right to travel), which is why I specifically mention drivers licenses and passports.
I also admitted that I'm an outlier on this issue.
Either way, free drivers licenses do not equal free cars, so syphonblue is still a goose.
This is because major cities do not exist in a vacuum.
Well you could continue to be wrong and a silly goose, or you could recognize that none of the countries that have gun bans now started from the position we're in.
Which is why you can't really compare the two, even beyond the fact that they're entirely different countries with entirely different problems.
Oh ok, well. I mean I have a driver's license. I don't have a car because a car costs money I don't have...
Do you imagine that I could take my hypothetical license down to the local gun shop and demand a free gun?
But this is where we're going to keep going around: how exactly does it infringe on this constitutional right? Which rights do we trade or compromise in order for police to have more power in this one respect? If I can still buy many guns (provided I am eligible to do so), and I can use them according to the current standards of lawfulness, where does the second amendment take a hit?
I'm proposing a situation in which the only meaningful difference for the average gun owner is that law enforcement officials know you own that particular firearm, but cannot make any use of this information unless it is missing, stolen, or used to shoot at a person.
pleasepaypreacher.net
California has a handgun safety certificate you must get before you can buy a handgun.
It's set up exactly the wrong way: it's a 25 dollar fee and a test that I could get 100% on without reading the guide.
It should be free and the test should be brutal in making sure you understand how serious you should take gun safety.
See my first post here - and the history of gun control in the UK (who had the right to own guns until the early 20th century, when a ban was initially put on pistols before being extended to other weapons a few decades later with 'self defence' not being regarded as suitable reason for ownership).
You can't address the problem with violence in the culture and even really start seriously fixing poverty until you can do away with the idea that you need a gun to stay safe.
Nice strawman you got there, preacher. Be a shame if someone shot it with a SAW.
So, we can't change anything in this country because it would be hard?
The reason that we can't have gun control in this country because Americans have a history with guns is a complete bullshit reason. What exactly is our history with guns that makes us so unique from England or France? Cause those countries didn't always have gun control laws, either.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I disagree entirely. I think we can and should fix poverty and try to deglorify violence before and independent of the gun thing. I think that'll follow.
Also I think that if we wait for gun stuff we're never going to start on poverty >.>
That's exactly what you are saying "we have a history, we're too big, we have too many guns." These are silly things to bring to an argument, also I don't think anyone really believes america would ban all guns, but sadly I also know that America will never have new national gun laws despite the country needing them desperately because of the very arguments you are making.
We're too big, we like guns too much, it won't do anything anyway, the GUBMINT WILL TAKE MA GUNS! These are all arguments against everything from gun safes/gunlocks, to standard gun laws or banning guns from certain institutions. America is gun crazy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
They also didn't have more guns than people.
I mean, it is hard work being this much of a goose. We need better regulation, smarter regulation. BAN ALL THE GUNS is fucking retarded and you're a goose for supporting it.
Indeed. Instead of using the fee to discourage people the test and license should actually mean something.
Same way I know people who don't bother to go to Canada, because they can't be bothered to pay the fee for a passport or EID. That's fucked up.
And then you get into things like voter ID laws, where even if you make the ID card free, the birth certificate from the state (which could be another state altogether) probably isn't.
These things should not cost money. They should be paid out of taxes. Place some kind of restrictions if abuse becomes an issue, I guess. But I shouldn't have to drop thirty dollars for the document I need to prove I exist.
Its more the other way around, we have programs that in theory address poverty, we have very little programs that address gun violence in a preventative way. I was going to say because we don't have a party advocating for poverty like we do one for no gun control, but with the modern gop thats not true anymore.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, no, Preacher. Contrary to how illiterate this thread is being, I have said several times we need better and smarter regulation to deal with our insane relationship with guns.
Reducing the lethality kind of sounds like a solution to homicide.
But it's so much easier to just harp about guns! Why can't we just do that!
We should also ban all cars to solve global warming and ban sodas of a certain size from being sold in restaurants to end childhood obesity.
But you are not the only participant in this thread, and people are talking past each other. Or just making points in general, AMFE stop being carly simon the thread is not about just you.
pleasepaypreacher.net
EVERY THREAD IS JUST ABOUT ME.
You'll find I was responding to the post saying I was arguing something I wasn't.
I also have read the thread, and the crazies saying we have to leave gun law alone seem to have been taken back to their rooms by the nurses a couple pages ago.
The Government has been on a war on drugs for decades...there is not a noticible lack of drugs in america.
Why exactly would you think the Government would be any better at eradicating guns if they were deemed illegal?
I'd argue that our existing background checks are precisely as effective at preventing gun violence as our social safety net is at addressing poverty.
Which is to say not.
Edit: or rather which is to say "in theory," right?
I don't understand how wanting to ban firearms makes me a goose but you know, different strokes I guess.
I see madmen going on rampages literally every month and want to take away their ability to do so, but I guess I'm just too simple minded to understand that America has a history, man.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
The vast majority of firearm homicides in Canada are gang related. Almost all gang shootings are done with a pistol and most of those are done with illegally obtained pistols, with smuggling from the US being the most common method. Theft and then use of a firearm in a homicide is a lot more rare.
Further, the Canadian government enacted a new host of gun laws in 1995, particularly the long gun registry (Which was just dismantled, incidentally). There was no discernible effect on violent crime rates that can be traced to those laws. Violent crime in Canada has been on the decline and that decline started well before 1995 and then continued after with no significant change to the rate of decrease.
Availability of weapons may have a correlation with violent crime, but it is not a causative effect.
Why does it matter where we started? And don't get me wrong, I grasp the straw you are grasping for saying we have "always" had guns. But that is moot to the issue of a gun ban, it once again is meaningless like the car analogy. It boils down to the same as saying "we have always had murder, so we can't ban it now". The fact the we have always had guns is a major factor in how a gun ban would be designed in the USA, but it is in no way a relevant argument against having a ban.
You don't think the social safety net helps americans in poverty? Ok, apparently we exist in completely different americas.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Seriously?
I want to stop gun violence, too. But guess what? Your proposition wouldn't do it and I've been giving you the reasons why. But instead you've crafted this narrative where people who disagree with you are against better regulation and are oh-so-dumb.
Ban All The Guns isn't a real solution to this problem.
How would you go about de-glorifying violence without tackling the prevalence of guns or the perceived need for them to ensure safety? I think that'd take far longer than a ban on firearms licenses for self defence (exceptions for hunting, work and those used by the national guard/militia).
You can certainly go some way to fixing poverty, but hand in hand with that is also different view on crime and punishment. Gun ownership primarily being for self defence stands directly in the way in seeing crime as a symptom of poverty, instead painting criminals as violent offenders who are a direct threat to your life. People don't care about those who they think are trying to kill them - armed robber is considered very different from a thief.
That imo was those only useful part of the Chicago/DC handgun bans. They basically gave the police an easy excuse to arrest gang members, and throw them in jail for years, if they were caught with a gun.
It's not to discourage people - handguns are expensive! The license is a drop in the bucket comparatively - even the cheapest used ones are going to be at least double it. It's a blatant cost-grabbing measure.
The state's doing something similar with antique gun laws, incidentally. In order to get the benefits of a C&R license (which involves a federal background check, among other things, so it's clear that you're not a psychopath), California is soon going to be demanding you have a Certificate of Eligibility. Which is like a hundred dollars and has to be renewed (at reduced cost) every two or three years.
Guess who gets the money for the C&R license application? It's the feds.
Guess who gets the CoE money?
Money and laws don't mix well.
I think the "in theory" part is the problem. We pretend to address poverty, but we don't. Unless we address that, everything we do for violence is a band-aid.
I mean, if you want to argue that the gun bans or rates of ownership are a factor.
Since there are so many other variables to crime, and all. Anybody trying to wave at homicide rates in the US versus the UK (or any other country) and suggest ANY single factor causes it (guns or no) is demonstrably stupid. Or dishonest. Take your pick.
Have you ever heard the phrase "you can't put a genie back in the bottle". There are more guns in this country than people, trying to ban and seize them isn't going to do a damn thing.
Instead we should try to improve people's lives; working to fight poverty, providing better mental healthcare so that we can catch people likely to snap and go on shooting sprees before they become a danger to themselves and others, making it so that joining a gang isn't the best option for inner city kids, and yes making it so that the people who own guns are smarter and better able to handle them.
You can't just ban all the guns and pretend that this solves the problem. It doesn't. And you can't actually do it. It's a red herring and not worth talking about if you're actually interested in working to solve the problem.
I don't want to ban guns, but, to respond to your question, try making guns in your basement and see how it compares to the (relative) ease of making meth or growing pot. This isn't a useful comparison.
As the left should be up in arms at expanding stop and search laws. Have you not seen what Arizona did with their papers please bullshit? See thats a real extension of the police state, and one I would oppose.
I'm saying gun registries, saftey courses, not fucking giving the police a license to toss people in jail that could easily be abused.
pleasepaypreacher.net
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yeah, fear of the government trying to ban and confiscate all guns is pretty much the exact reason people own so many guns. It would be like Ruby Ridge on a national scale.