Even with zero violence, yeah, I'd want to get rid of handguns. They're only useful in the context of violence.
Except that you'll never get rid of violence. Even assuming you get rid of the human-on-human variety, handguns are much more convenient and easy to carry for use against wildlife, and there are some that have more than enough power to drop some of the more dangerous critters that those who live more than a mile from a Starbuck's might run into.
Maybe that second bit should start "especially assuming you get rid of the human-on-human variety."
The fact that you would want to get rid of handguns even if you could get rid of handgun crime entirely, though, betrays you as somebody who is probably not even worth discussing the subject with.
And so angry about it, too. I can certainly see why you'd want guns as far away as possible from people like yourself. Lucky for the world in general, there are still a few people who aren't that way, either in their frothing fear of inanimate objects, or their strong desire to enforce their own choices upon everyone else.
Even with zero violence, yeah, I'd want to get rid of handguns. They're only useful in the context of violence.
And yet millions of them get used every day (even in America where we're stupider than everyone else) for purposes other than violence. I would think they'd be completely useless when not putting gaping holes in living flesh. Sounds like a serious design flaw. I blame the corporations.
Even with zero violence, yeah, I'd want to get rid of handguns. They're only useful in the context of violence.
Except that you'll never get rid of violence. Even assuming you get rid of the human-on-human variety, handguns are much more convenient and easy to carry for use against wildlife, and there are some that have more than enough power to drop some of the more dangerous critters that those who live more than a mile from a Starbuck's might run into.
Maybe that second bit should start "especially assuming you get rid of the human-on-human variety."
The fact that you would want to get rid of handguns even if you could get rid of handgun crime entirely, though, betrays you as somebody who is probably not even worth discussing the subject with.
You're naming exceptions whereas I'm just talking about the general civilian population. In a world of zero violence, very, very few people would ever need a pistol. Exceptions could be made, sure, where the need is actually present, but that need would be incredibly rare.
But you asked the question about a non-violent world, not me. Trust me, I know it's a moot point. But I still think it's in society's best interests to get rid of handguns if they're the predominate firearm used in gun violence, which they are, and if 60% of gun violence is commited with weapons stolen from legal owners and outlets, which seems to be true. It's a net benefit since these weapons are used more often for offensive, criminal behavior than defensive behavior.
Even with zero violence, yeah, I'd want to get rid of handguns. They're only useful in the context of violence.
This is a bad argument because it's incomplete to the point of being naive. All guns are only useful in the context of violence. Killing things is violent. Being able to eat what you shoot is a secondary benefit. Being able to shoot paper is a secondary benefit.
Those benefits can be attained with handguns, by the way... I'm quite capable of hunting with a handgun and of target-shooting with a handgun. Rifles are just easier to use for that.
I understand the argument of getting rid of guns because all they're good for is killing. I understand the argument of getting rid of pistols because they're concealable. The argument to get rid of pistols because rifles are "better" is just odd.
Even with zero violence, yeah, I'd want to get rid of handguns. They're only useful in the context of violence.
This is a bad argument because it's incomplete to the point of being naive. All guns are only useful in the context of violence. Killing things is violent. Being able to eat what you shoot is a secondary benefit. Being able to shoot paper is a secondary benefit.
Those benefits can be attained with handguns, by the way... I'm quite capable of hunting with a handgun and of target-shooting with a handgun. Rifles are just easier to use for that.
I understand the argument of getting rid of guns because all they're good for is killing. I understand the argument of getting rid of pistols because they're concealable. The argument to get rid of pistols because rifles are "better" is just odd.
Where the fuck did I say that rifles are better? I'm just more concerned with handguns because they're much more useful for criminal activity.
Even with zero violence, yeah, I'd want to get rid of handguns. They're only useful in the context of violence.
This is a bad argument because it's incomplete to the point of being naive. All guns are only useful in the context of violence. Killing things is violent. Being able to eat what you shoot is a secondary benefit. Being able to shoot paper is a secondary benefit.
Those benefits can be attained with handguns, by the way... I'm quite capable of hunting with a handgun and of target-shooting with a handgun. Rifles are just easier to use for that.
I understand the argument of getting rid of guns because all they're good for is killing. I understand the argument of getting rid of pistols because they're concealable. The argument to get rid of pistols because rifles are "better" is just odd.
Where the fuck did I say that rifles are better? I'm just more concerned with handguns because they're much more useful for criminal activity.
You said handguns are only useful in the context of violence. This implies that other guns (e.g. rifles, shotguns) are useful in a non-violent context. I disagree. They're all made to be used in a violent context. Now, you can change what you said and say they're more useful for criminal activity, which I don't disagree with, but that's not what you said, so that's not what I responded to.
It's what I meant to say, yes, that handguns were only useful in the context of criminality. So I apologize for my wording failure, but you still stuck words in my mouth when you said I said rifles were better.
But you asked the question about a non-violent world, not me. Trust me, I know it's a moot point. But I still think it's in society's best interests to get rid of handguns if they're the predominate firearm used in gun violence, which they are, and if 60% of gun violence is commited with weapons stolen from legal owners and outlets, which seems to be true. It's a net benefit since these weapons are used more often for offensive, criminal behavior than defensive behavior.
But see, the real world is calculus, not arithmetic. Because at least some portion of those gun crimes and that gun violence will instead become knife crime or bat violence. And another portion will become gun crime with guns smuggled in from out of the country (create the demand, and the supply will come). Assuming that you're not an idiot, and that you consider a dead or maimed person to be just as dead or maimed regardless of the weapon, it's then necessarily to consider just how much of the actual violence will be eliminated, before you can weigh it against defensive uses and other purposes and determine the net effect.
Unless you're actually assuming that the 60% of gun violence committed with weapons stolen from legal owners will instead just not happen.
Of course, this assumes that reducing violence and/or death is actually your desired end, not just getting rid of guns. Which seems like it might not be an entirely valid assumption.
mcdermott on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Look, yeah, I don't think it'd be easy to do. I don't think it'd even really be possible in the current political climate. But do I think it'd be ideal? Fuck yes. If 60% of firearms used in violent crimes are stolen from otherwise lawful sources, if you take away those sources, just what the fuck do you think happens? And once we reduce the number of guns in circulation in America, we reduce the number of guns available to criminals and increase the price, ideally making them prohibitively expensive to obtain. We address the cause, not the fucking symptom.
Yes, because making drugs illegal sure has stemmed the fucking tide. Drug use is more prevalent and wide spread than it's ever been in this country, yet they've been illegal for 35 years, with some amazingly stiff and heavy handed prison sentences attached them. It sure has stopped people from getting them, huh?
This idea that taking hand guns away from people is going to stop hand gun crime is so ludicrous, it fucking hurts. It's like you're living in a fairy land, where you actually think telling people they can't have something stops them from getting it.
The reason 60% of the handguns used in crimes are stolen from legal sources is because that's the path of least resistance. Changing the path doesn't stop people form going down it. To think it would is dumb. It's a complete fucking straw man argument, perpetuated by people who are so obviously in the "GUNS ARE SCARY" camp, they might as well put a blinking neon sign over their head.
I find it funny when people use Virginia Tech as an example of why we shouldn't own guns. Funny, I see that as an example of why every student at VT should have been armed. He would have gotten two shots off before someone else shot him. People act as if handgun legality would have stopped that massacre. Right, sure it would have. Just like methamphetamine illegality stops people from sucking it up their noses, or nearly blowing themselves up to make it, or risking life and limb to bring it in to the country.
The simple fact of the matter is that the firearm Pandora's Box is open. Unless you come up with a magic firearm zapping ray, that just destroys every firearm on the planet, the cat is out of the bag. Taking handguns away from law abiding citizens isn't going to stuff the cat back in the bag, it's just going to create another illegal black market industry.
Individuals owning guns will never ever allow us to prevent the government from enforcing unjust laws. In 1790, when there's no standing army and the peak of warfare technology is simple enough to be available to everyone, then yes.
It's more effective to just stand in between the state and justice and let everyone watch you get beaten up on national television anyway.
Except, as has been noted numerous times, this idea fails. Viet Nam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Any time you've got an armed populace, it fails. Tienemen square? Different story.
Sure, the government could kill everyone if they wanted. Nuke the entire country if they felt it appropriate. But you don't derive power from dead people. An armed populace can't give themselves immortality. But they sure as hell can fight off enslavement.
I find it funny when people use Virginia Tech as an example of why we shouldn't own guns. Funny, I see that as an example of why every student at VT should have been armed. He would have gotten two shots off before someone else shot him. People act as if handgun legality would have stopped that massacre. Right, sure it would have. Just like methamphetamine illegality stops people from sucking it up their noses, or nearly blowing themselves up to make it, or risking life and limb to bring it in to the country.
Please, no, let's not go there. For the love of all that is right and holy. Yes, that is one possible outcome. There are other possible outcomes that would have been worse. We have no way of knowing, and it's largely irrelevant.
Also, a blanket handgun ban probably would have stopped that massacre. It's unlikely that Cho would have gone through or known how to go through the kind of channels that would then have been necessary to get ahold of handguns, so more likely he'd have just wound up just killing himself instead. Though if long guns were still readily available he could probably have still taken a few people with him, particularly if semi-autos with detachable magazines were still available, which likely the would be. Handguns aren't the only guns you can get your school shooting on with, and in fact there have been at least a couple committed with what would be considered "hunting" rifles by the average Joe.
But again, irrelevant. School shootings are uncommon, and the number of deaths caused by them are statistically insignificant.
mcdermott on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I could also walk in to a school and stab 15 people in the neck pretty easily, I don't see any sort of blanket ban on kitchen knives.
I could also walk in to a school and stab 15 people in the neck pretty easily, I don't see any sort of blanket ban on kitchen knives.
Correlation != causation.
You're more easily subdued carrying a knife than you are carrying two handguns (so you can cover your reloads). Much more easily. I think it's reasonable to suggest that, as far as that individual incident goes, a handgun ban may have actually prevented it or at the least lowered the death toll. But looking at a single incident in a vacuum is not the way to craft policy.
Also, did you miss the last thread where we had at least one (IIRC) Brit defending/promoting a blanket ban, or at least very strong restriction, on kitchen knives? Because, after all, only chefs need that deadly pointy tip. Good stuff.
Look, yeah, I don't think it'd be easy to do. I don't think it'd even really be possible in the current political climate. But do I think it'd be ideal? Fuck yes. If 60% of firearms used in violent crimes are stolen from otherwise lawful sources, if you take away those sources, just what the fuck do you think happens? And once we reduce the number of guns in circulation in America, we reduce the number of guns available to criminals and increase the price, ideally making them prohibitively expensive to obtain. We address the cause, not the fucking symptom.
snip
You can't grow 9mm pistols in a god damned window box.
Make them illegal to produce and sell, the price becomes prohibitive almost instantly. They'd be much easier to detect in shipping than drugs, so it'd be much harder to get them across borders, so it'd require much more money to actually obtain one.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Look, yeah, I don't think it'd be easy to do. I don't think it'd even really be possible in the current political climate. But do I think it'd be ideal? Fuck yes. If 60% of firearms used in violent crimes are stolen from otherwise lawful sources, if you take away those sources, just what the fuck do you think happens? And once we reduce the number of guns in circulation in America, we reduce the number of guns available to criminals and increase the price, ideally making them prohibitively expensive to obtain. We address the cause, not the fucking symptom.
snip
You can't grow 9mm pistols in a god damned window box.
Make them illegal to produce and sell, the price becomes prohibitive almost instantly. They'd be much easier to detect in shipping than drugs, so it'd be much harder to get them across borders, so it'd require much more money to actually obtain one.
Nothing personal, but you've obviously never handled something like a Glock. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to build one.
Demand = supply, period. You can take all the legal guns in the country away and bangers will still have them. Why this is even up for debate is shocking to me. If the last 75 years in America have proven anything it's that prohibition, of anything, DOES NOTHING.
e: Also, if you think modern composite firearms aren't easy to smuggle...hahah, you're in for a rude awakening.
I used to be a pretty firm supporter of gun control, but now, not so much.
Mostly what swayed me was statistics. The "guns are bad" argument generally arises because people tend to be killed using guns. Makes sense. From this it follows that if you have fewer guns, you'll have fewer people killed. More guns, more people killed. Sure.
But, this really doesn't stack up if you look at gun ownership rates in other countries. The Swiss are armed to the teeth; not exactly a high murder rate in Switzerland though.
Since more guns does not correlate with higher murders, it must mean that there is something else at play here. I'm not going to disagree to much with gun control, since I'm all for preventing people from killing each other. But be pragmatic about it. If you enact a gun control law, and the murder rate doesn't fall, then you're doing something wrong.
And the argument of owning a gun in order to overthrow a tyrannical government appeals to me, even if it may not be very practical in this day and age.
Individuals owning guns will never ever allow us to prevent the government from enforcing unjust laws. In 1790, when there's no standing army and the peak of warfare technology is simple enough to be available to everyone, then yes.
It's more effective to just stand in between the state and justice and let everyone watch you get beaten up on national television anyway.
Except, as has been noted numerous times, this idea fails. Viet Nam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Any time you've got an armed populace, it fails. Tienemen square? Different story.
You do realize you've listed three cases where foreign governments had invaded a country and were occupying it?
How about these: Whiskey rebellion, Shays rebellion, Confederacy, Utah War, Boxer's Rebellion, Rebellions of 1837, Boer War, or any number of other examples. An armed populace does not protect your liberties.
In fact, let's look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. Each had heavily armed populaces. Each was oppressed by harsh military dictatorships (theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan).
Look, yeah, I don't think it'd be easy to do. I don't think it'd even really be possible in the current political climate. But do I think it'd be ideal? Fuck yes. If 60% of firearms used in violent crimes are stolen from otherwise lawful sources, if you take away those sources, just what the fuck do you think happens? And once we reduce the number of guns in circulation in America, we reduce the number of guns available to criminals and increase the price, ideally making them prohibitively expensive to obtain. We address the cause, not the fucking symptom.
snip
You can't grow 9mm pistols in a god damned window box.
Make them illegal to produce and sell, the price becomes prohibitive almost instantly. They'd be much easier to detect in shipping than drugs, so it'd be much harder to get them across borders, so it'd require much more money to actually obtain one.
Nothing personal, but you've obviously never handled something like a Glock. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to build one.
Demand = supply, period. You can take all the legal guns in the country away and bangers will still have them. Why this is even up for debate is shocking to me. If the last 75 years in America have proven anything it's that prohibition, of anything, DOES NOTHING.
Prohibition has actually increased the cost of illegal drugs quite substantially. It is the same argument with guns. Criminals' demand for guns should be fairly inelastic; if they are so expensive that using them to rob convenience stores ceases to make economic sense, there will be fewer robberies that use guns.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
In some ways, Bowling for Columbine got it right. The problem isn't the prevalence of guns, it's the fucked-up attitude I've noticed in a lot of people, even some of my customers at the places I've worked: violence is just fine, but sex is terrible and something that should be hidden. America has a fucked-up culture.
I have a fucking armory in my attic. Yes, I have handled a Glock. My father's ex-military and made a habit of buying every gun he ever saw. I sincerely doubt somebody could create a viable black market business inside the country making firearms with any sort of profit or output without getting noticed by the government.
It's unlikely that Cho would have gone through or known how to go through the kind of channels that would then have been necessary to get ahold of handguns, so more likely he'd have just wound up just killing himself instead.
Actually, considering the level of his psychosis, he would more likely had the determination to look up how to cook up a home-made bomb. It would take about 20 minutes of searching online to get a materials/assembly list, maybe another half hour to figure out where to go to buy the materials. Add in the fact that most floor plans for university buildings are not kept tightly locked up and he could probably have even figured out where to place the bomb for maximum damage; all without even having to leave his desk.
/tangent off
Judas on
Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver.
Situation excellent. I am attacking.
- General Ferdinand Foch
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I have a fucking armory in my attic. Yes, I have handled a Glock. My father's ex-military and made a habit of buying every gun he ever saw. I sincerely doubt somebody could create a viable black market business inside the country making firearms with any sort of profit or output without getting noticed by the government.
I sincerely doubt somebody could create a viable black market business inside the country (making drugs/distilling alcohol) with any sort of profit or output without getting noticed by the government. (See what I did there?).
The idea of price is sort of laughable too. Do you really think someone who is already highly vested in the criminal world cares if his 9mm cost him an extra grand? Answer: No.
I just find it fascinating that people actually believe banning hand guns would solve our "gun violence problem". I dunno, maybe some of you haven't spent enough time dealing with some of the criminal element in this country (I grew up in a pretty rough neighborhood). You seem to think that they think laws or borders apply to them.
Making a gun is much more complicated, delicate, difficult, and demands much more in the way of resources and investments than growing some weed or distilling white lightning. It's a dumb comparison that has to ignore all the things that actually go into manufacturing firearms.
No one is talking about ending crime, or even gun crime. We're talking about reducing it substantially. Do I think the common "impulse robber" is less likely to commit robbery without a gun? Yes. Do I think that even if he does commit robbery, his not having a gun makes it less likely anyone will be hurt? Yes.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Also, before someone brings the "guns don't grow on trees, drugs do" argument: Actually, methamphetamine doesn't. It's made with what amounts to bomb making chemicals, that are illegal and hard to find. Yet more people are making meth in this country right now than ever did in the pre-prohibition era. The prison sentences are even ludicrous for possessing it now, like attempted murder for possessing a gram of meth. It requires hard to find chemicals, chemists know how and can get you life in jail, but the supply is greater than ever.
Also, before someone brings the "guns don't grow on trees, drugs do" argument: Actually, methamphetamine doesn't. It's made with what amounts to bomb making chemicals, that are illegal and hard to find. Yet more people are making meth in this country right now than ever did in the pre-prohibition era. The prison sentences are even ludicrous for possessing it now, like attempted murder for possessing a gram of meth. It requires hard to find chemicals, chemists know how and can get you life in jail, but the supply is greater than ever.
No one is talking about ending crime, or even gun crime. We're talking about reducing it substantially. Do I think the common "impulse robber" is less likely to commit robbery without a gun? Yes. Do I think that even if he does commit robbery, his not having a gun makes it less likely anyone will be hurt? Yes.
You still are correlating legal guns with robbers. I am not sure how you are making this consistent mistake, but you are.
The guy is still going to rob my house with a gun, I just won't be armed to protect myself. Sounds like a winner.
The idea of price is sort of laughable too. Do you really think someone who is already highly vested in the criminal world cares if his 9mm cost him an extra grand? Answer: No.
Actually, considering that guns are often treated as throwaway items (you don't want to keep one you've actually fired more than once illegally, as it will link you to all the crimes), so price probably is an issue. I don't think the average criminal carries the same gun for years on end. Maybe I'm wrong.
Most people I knew that had illegal handguns didn't pay a grand for them, put it that way. So an extra grand? Yeah, they'd care.
I'm just not sure exactly how much more expensive they'd wind up being. Anybody know what a "hot" handgun runs in the UK nowadays?
mcdermott on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Also, before someone brings the "guns don't grow on trees, drugs do" argument: Actually, methamphetamine doesn't. It's made with what amounts to bomb making chemicals, that are illegal and hard to find. Yet more people are making meth in this country right now than ever did in the pre-prohibition era. The prison sentences are even ludicrous for possessing it now, like attempted murder for possessing a gram of meth. It requires hard to find chemicals, chemists know how and can get you life in jail, but the supply is greater than ever.
Uhh, so because a fake TV show says making meth is easy, that's your argument?
Little background for you: I used to be a meth addict, I've seen my share of meth labs. They aren't fucking chemistry projects. They are complex and dangerous, and some fucking TV show doesn't even tell you half the story. Go back to watching American Idol or something.
I know a guy down the street that will sell me a snub-nosed .38 revolver for $100. He's desperately trying to get rid of that and a few other probably used handguns.
Guns are more difficult to manufacture than illegal drugs. Regardless of how difficult meth is to cook, you can't machine a large supply of glocks in a hidden shack in the woods.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
No, that's not my point.
My point is: Demand = supply. No matter how dangerous, difficult or costly something is, if someone wants it, they will get it. The idea that banning legal gun ownership is going to change this is ludicrous.
Also, before someone brings the "guns don't grow on trees, drugs do" argument: Actually, methamphetamine doesn't. It's made with what amounts to bomb making chemicals, that are illegal and hard to find. Yet more people are making meth in this country right now than ever did in the pre-prohibition era. The prison sentences are even ludicrous for possessing it now, like attempted murder for possessing a gram of meth. It requires hard to find chemicals, chemists know how and can get you life in jail, but the supply is greater than ever.
Uhh, so because a fake TV show says making meth is easy, that's your argument?
Little background for you: I used to be a meth addict, I've seen my share of meth labs. They aren't fucking chemistry projects. They are complex and dangerous, and some fucking TV show doesn't even tell you half the story. Go back to watching American Idol or something.
What the fuck, dude? Meth is considered redneck cocaine precisely because it's easy to obtain the parts to make it and easy to produce in quantities enough that net a profit. You're seriously talking out of your ass. This is common fucking knowledge, and you claim to have used meth before?
Most of the necessary chemicals are readily available in household products or over-the-counter cold or allergy medicines. Synthesis is relatively simple, but entails risk with flammable and corrosive chemicals, particularly the solvents used in extraction and purification. Clandestine production is therefore often discovered by fires and explosions caused by the improper handling of volatile or flammable solvents.
Dangerous /= difficult. I can get instructions online right now and have a lab up and running by tonight.
No one is talking about ending crime, or even gun crime. We're talking about reducing it substantially. Do I think the common "impulse robber" is less likely to commit robbery without a gun? Yes. Do I think that even if he does commit robbery, his not having a gun makes it less likely anyone will be hurt? Yes.
You still are correlating legal guns with robbers. I am not sure how you are making this consistent mistake, but you are.
The guy is still going to rob my house with a gun, I just won't be armed to protect myself. Sounds like a winner.
If you're robbing someone with a gun, it stands to reason that you think a gun will give you a better chance of being successful. That's why you have the damned thing in the first place. Mostly though, I'm talking about risk of injury. I'm less concerned about crime itself than I am about physical injury as a result of crime.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
My point is: Demand = supply. No matter how dangerous, difficult or costly something is, if someone wants it, they will get it. The idea that banning legal gun ownership is going to change this is ludicrous.
This is the part where I give you an economics textbook and tell you not to come back until you read it. Supply and demand are affected by a lot more factors than eachother.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
My point is: Demand = supply. No matter how dangerous, difficult or costly something is, if someone wants it, they will get it. The idea that banning legal gun ownership is going to change this is ludicrous.
And you're ignoring the fact that it will be so hard to clandestinely manufacture illegal firearms that it won't actually be worth it. You either fly under the radar and make maybe a few shoddy pistols a week, or you risk getting exposed and actually manufacture firearms at huge expenses that make your weapons too pricey for the common thugs we're worried about having weapons.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Also, before someone brings the "guns don't grow on trees, drugs do" argument: Actually, methamphetamine doesn't. It's made with what amounts to bomb making chemicals, that are illegal and hard to find. Yet more people are making meth in this country right now than ever did in the pre-prohibition era. The prison sentences are even ludicrous for possessing it now, like attempted murder for possessing a gram of meth. It requires hard to find chemicals, chemists know how and can get you life in jail, but the supply is greater than ever.
Uhh, so because a fake TV show says making meth is easy, that's your argument?
Little background for you: I used to be a meth addict, I've seen my share of meth labs. They aren't fucking chemistry projects. They are complex and dangerous, and some fucking TV show doesn't even tell you half the story. Go back to watching American Idol or something.
What the fuck, dude? Meth is considered redneck cocaine precisely because it's easy to obtain the parts to make it and easy to produce in quantities enough that net a profit. You're seriously talking out of your ass. This is common fucking knowledge, and you claim to have used meth before?
Most of the necessary chemicals are readily available in household products or over-the-counter cold or allergy medicines. Synthesis is relatively simple, but entails risk with flammable and corrosive chemicals, particularly the solvents used in extraction and purification. Clandestine production is therefore often discovered by fires and explosions caused by the improper handling of volatile or flammable solvents.
Dangerous /= difficult. I can get instructions online right now and have a lab up and running by tonight.
You're confusing crank with glass. Glass is not made using R/W/B, but is still fucking meth. Yes, any idiot can make bathtub peanut butter crank. Not any idiot can cook glass.
(Thus why glass is 4 to 5 times the street price).
Posts
Except that you'll never get rid of violence. Even assuming you get rid of the human-on-human variety, handguns are much more convenient and easy to carry for use against wildlife, and there are some that have more than enough power to drop some of the more dangerous critters that those who live more than a mile from a Starbuck's might run into.
Maybe that second bit should start "especially assuming you get rid of the human-on-human variety."
The fact that you would want to get rid of handguns even if you could get rid of handgun crime entirely, though, betrays you as somebody who is probably not even worth discussing the subject with.
And yet millions of them get used every day (even in America where we're stupider than everyone else) for purposes other than violence. I would think they'd be completely useless when not putting gaping holes in living flesh. Sounds like a serious design flaw. I blame the corporations.
You're naming exceptions whereas I'm just talking about the general civilian population. In a world of zero violence, very, very few people would ever need a pistol. Exceptions could be made, sure, where the need is actually present, but that need would be incredibly rare.
But you asked the question about a non-violent world, not me. Trust me, I know it's a moot point. But I still think it's in society's best interests to get rid of handguns if they're the predominate firearm used in gun violence, which they are, and if 60% of gun violence is commited with weapons stolen from legal owners and outlets, which seems to be true. It's a net benefit since these weapons are used more often for offensive, criminal behavior than defensive behavior.
Those benefits can be attained with handguns, by the way... I'm quite capable of hunting with a handgun and of target-shooting with a handgun. Rifles are just easier to use for that.
I understand the argument of getting rid of guns because all they're good for is killing. I understand the argument of getting rid of pistols because they're concealable. The argument to get rid of pistols because rifles are "better" is just odd.
Where the fuck did I say that rifles are better? I'm just more concerned with handguns because they're much more useful for criminal activity.
But see, the real world is calculus, not arithmetic. Because at least some portion of those gun crimes and that gun violence will instead become knife crime or bat violence. And another portion will become gun crime with guns smuggled in from out of the country (create the demand, and the supply will come). Assuming that you're not an idiot, and that you consider a dead or maimed person to be just as dead or maimed regardless of the weapon, it's then necessarily to consider just how much of the actual violence will be eliminated, before you can weigh it against defensive uses and other purposes and determine the net effect.
Unless you're actually assuming that the 60% of gun violence committed with weapons stolen from legal owners will instead just not happen.
Of course, this assumes that reducing violence and/or death is actually your desired end, not just getting rid of guns. Which seems like it might not be an entirely valid assumption.
Yes, because making drugs illegal sure has stemmed the fucking tide. Drug use is more prevalent and wide spread than it's ever been in this country, yet they've been illegal for 35 years, with some amazingly stiff and heavy handed prison sentences attached them. It sure has stopped people from getting them, huh?
This idea that taking hand guns away from people is going to stop hand gun crime is so ludicrous, it fucking hurts. It's like you're living in a fairy land, where you actually think telling people they can't have something stops them from getting it.
The reason 60% of the handguns used in crimes are stolen from legal sources is because that's the path of least resistance. Changing the path doesn't stop people form going down it. To think it would is dumb. It's a complete fucking straw man argument, perpetuated by people who are so obviously in the "GUNS ARE SCARY" camp, they might as well put a blinking neon sign over their head.
I find it funny when people use Virginia Tech as an example of why we shouldn't own guns. Funny, I see that as an example of why every student at VT should have been armed. He would have gotten two shots off before someone else shot him. People act as if handgun legality would have stopped that massacre. Right, sure it would have. Just like methamphetamine illegality stops people from sucking it up their noses, or nearly blowing themselves up to make it, or risking life and limb to bring it in to the country.
The simple fact of the matter is that the firearm Pandora's Box is open. Unless you come up with a magic firearm zapping ray, that just destroys every firearm on the planet, the cat is out of the bag. Taking handguns away from law abiding citizens isn't going to stuff the cat back in the bag, it's just going to create another illegal black market industry.
Sure, the government could kill everyone if they wanted. Nuke the entire country if they felt it appropriate. But you don't derive power from dead people. An armed populace can't give themselves immortality. But they sure as hell can fight off enslavement.
Please, no, let's not go there. For the love of all that is right and holy. Yes, that is one possible outcome. There are other possible outcomes that would have been worse. We have no way of knowing, and it's largely irrelevant.
Also, a blanket handgun ban probably would have stopped that massacre. It's unlikely that Cho would have gone through or known how to go through the kind of channels that would then have been necessary to get ahold of handguns, so more likely he'd have just wound up just killing himself instead. Though if long guns were still readily available he could probably have still taken a few people with him, particularly if semi-autos with detachable magazines were still available, which likely the would be. Handguns aren't the only guns you can get your school shooting on with, and in fact there have been at least a couple committed with what would be considered "hunting" rifles by the average Joe.
But again, irrelevant. School shootings are uncommon, and the number of deaths caused by them are statistically insignificant.
Correlation != causation.
You're more easily subdued carrying a knife than you are carrying two handguns (so you can cover your reloads). Much more easily. I think it's reasonable to suggest that, as far as that individual incident goes, a handgun ban may have actually prevented it or at the least lowered the death toll. But looking at a single incident in a vacuum is not the way to craft policy.
Also, did you miss the last thread where we had at least one (IIRC) Brit defending/promoting a blanket ban, or at least very strong restriction, on kitchen knives? Because, after all, only chefs need that deadly pointy tip. Good stuff.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
You can't grow 9mm pistols in a god damned window box.
Make them illegal to produce and sell, the price becomes prohibitive almost instantly. They'd be much easier to detect in shipping than drugs, so it'd be much harder to get them across borders, so it'd require much more money to actually obtain one.
Nothing personal, but you've obviously never handled something like a Glock. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to build one.
Demand = supply, period. You can take all the legal guns in the country away and bangers will still have them. Why this is even up for debate is shocking to me. If the last 75 years in America have proven anything it's that prohibition, of anything, DOES NOTHING.
e: Also, if you think modern composite firearms aren't easy to smuggle...hahah, you're in for a rude awakening.
Mostly what swayed me was statistics. The "guns are bad" argument generally arises because people tend to be killed using guns. Makes sense. From this it follows that if you have fewer guns, you'll have fewer people killed. More guns, more people killed. Sure.
But, this really doesn't stack up if you look at gun ownership rates in other countries. The Swiss are armed to the teeth; not exactly a high murder rate in Switzerland though.
Since more guns does not correlate with higher murders, it must mean that there is something else at play here. I'm not going to disagree to much with gun control, since I'm all for preventing people from killing each other. But be pragmatic about it. If you enact a gun control law, and the murder rate doesn't fall, then you're doing something wrong.
And the argument of owning a gun in order to overthrow a tyrannical government appeals to me, even if it may not be very practical in this day and age.
How about these: Whiskey rebellion, Shays rebellion, Confederacy, Utah War, Boxer's Rebellion, Rebellions of 1837, Boer War, or any number of other examples. An armed populace does not protect your liberties.
In fact, let's look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. Each had heavily armed populaces. Each was oppressed by harsh military dictatorships (theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Prohibition has actually increased the cost of illegal drugs quite substantially. It is the same argument with guns. Criminals' demand for guns should be fairly inelastic; if they are so expensive that using them to rob convenience stores ceases to make economic sense, there will be fewer robberies that use guns.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Actually, considering the level of his psychosis, he would more likely had the determination to look up how to cook up a home-made bomb. It would take about 20 minutes of searching online to get a materials/assembly list, maybe another half hour to figure out where to go to buy the materials. Add in the fact that most floor plans for university buildings are not kept tightly locked up and he could probably have even figured out where to place the bomb for maximum damage; all without even having to leave his desk.
/tangent off
Situation excellent. I am attacking.
- General Ferdinand Foch
I sincerely doubt somebody could create a viable black market business inside the country (making drugs/distilling alcohol) with any sort of profit or output without getting noticed by the government. (See what I did there?).
The idea of price is sort of laughable too. Do you really think someone who is already highly vested in the criminal world cares if his 9mm cost him an extra grand? Answer: No.
I just find it fascinating that people actually believe banning hand guns would solve our "gun violence problem". I dunno, maybe some of you haven't spent enough time dealing with some of the criminal element in this country (I grew up in a pretty rough neighborhood). You seem to think that they think laws or borders apply to them.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Wrong.
You still are correlating legal guns with robbers. I am not sure how you are making this consistent mistake, but you are.
The guy is still going to rob my house with a gun, I just won't be armed to protect myself. Sounds like a winner.
Actually, considering that guns are often treated as throwaway items (you don't want to keep one you've actually fired more than once illegally, as it will link you to all the crimes), so price probably is an issue. I don't think the average criminal carries the same gun for years on end. Maybe I'm wrong.
Most people I knew that had illegal handguns didn't pay a grand for them, put it that way. So an extra grand? Yeah, they'd care.
I'm just not sure exactly how much more expensive they'd wind up being. Anybody know what a "hot" handgun runs in the UK nowadays?
Uhh, so because a fake TV show says making meth is easy, that's your argument?
Little background for you: I used to be a meth addict, I've seen my share of meth labs. They aren't fucking chemistry projects. They are complex and dangerous, and some fucking TV show doesn't even tell you half the story. Go back to watching American Idol or something.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
My point is: Demand = supply. No matter how dangerous, difficult or costly something is, if someone wants it, they will get it. The idea that banning legal gun ownership is going to change this is ludicrous.
/thread
What the fuck, dude? Meth is considered redneck cocaine precisely because it's easy to obtain the parts to make it and easy to produce in quantities enough that net a profit. You're seriously talking out of your ass. This is common fucking knowledge, and you claim to have used meth before?
Dangerous /= difficult. I can get instructions online right now and have a lab up and running by tonight.
If you're robbing someone with a gun, it stands to reason that you think a gun will give you a better chance of being successful. That's why you have the damned thing in the first place. Mostly though, I'm talking about risk of injury. I'm less concerned about crime itself than I am about physical injury as a result of crime.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
This is the part where I give you an economics textbook and tell you not to come back until you read it. Supply and demand are affected by a lot more factors than eachother.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And you're ignoring the fact that it will be so hard to clandestinely manufacture illegal firearms that it won't actually be worth it. You either fly under the radar and make maybe a few shoddy pistols a week, or you risk getting exposed and actually manufacture firearms at huge expenses that make your weapons too pricey for the common thugs we're worried about having weapons.
You're confusing crank with glass. Glass is not made using R/W/B, but is still fucking meth. Yes, any idiot can make bathtub peanut butter crank. Not any idiot can cook glass.
(Thus why glass is 4 to 5 times the street price).