If a person commits a crime you can of course always have, I don't know, some kind of public safety organisation specifically trained to deal with such cases. You could focus resources more efficiently and securely than trying to oversee handing out firearms to every civilian.
Do you not realize how easy it is to commit a crime and get away with it?
The world doesnt actually work like CSI... A semi intelligent person can easily commit several crimes without being caught and then move on.
Even if you say those numbers should be higher due to information being reported poorly... those are pretty terrible numbers.
You dont have to hand out a gun to every civilian... The threat of the civilian possibly having a gun is often enough. When conceal and carry is an option.. if I am walking through a dark area by myself any potential criminal has to consider what happens if I happen to have a gun... If it is illegal for me to carry a weapon and I happen to be walking through a dark area a potential criminal knows that unless I am also a criminal I dont have a gun. That is a big difference.
If a person commits a crime you can of course always have, I don't know, some kind of public safety organisation specifically trained to deal with such cases. You could focus resources more efficiently and securely than trying to oversee handing out firearms to every civilian.
Oh, you mean like the police? Yeah, NYC police, who have a better than average response time, respond within 8.4 minutes, which is better than the national average.
Once they get on the scene, they may well collect enough evidence/capture the bad guy and put him away. And you/your loved ones may still be dead. 8.4 minutes is an eternity for violent crime.
Yeah, anyone who needs to rob you will have a gun themselves and just shoot you.
So, your suggestion is that law-abiding citizens should just roll over? Sorry, I'd rather even the playing field as much as possible, not assume I'm gonna die.
On a related note: accounts from Concealed Carriers who've had to draw, and some have had to fire:
1% gets robbed.
>0.009% get shot or killed by a gun.
Many ROBBERS are not trying to be MURDERERS. Many robbers don't even use a gun, they only need to use violence or the threat of violence to be a ROBBER. So CCW might actually have a chance to save/defend their life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If a person commits a crime you can of course always have, I don't know, some kind of public safety organisation specifically trained to deal with such cases. You could focus resources more efficiently and securely than trying to oversee handing out firearms to every civilian.
You have no idea how bad American law enforcement is.
I am not sacrificing myself or one of my family so someone can take something I have worked for. If you are not willing to fight for yourself, your family and the stuff you have worked for, whats the sense of being independent or having freedoms?
Explain to me how someone whos way of life from a child has had guns around them, they have done classes and got permits to do things with guns legally. Then a group of people want to come along and tell you, the law abiding gun carrying person who has gone through hours of classes to get the permit, you can not carry any more, and your guns have to be turned in. Then tell me how we can not be emotionally invested in the decision.
I am 50 years old. I have been around guns since I was born. Shot my first gun at 5 years old. Have hunted and taught my children how to handle guns. Sat through classes to get licenses and permits to own, carry and use the guns I own. I have never shot another human being. Explain to me why I should give up my weapons or my legal rights to carry.
I did not say you should give up your rights to carry. I think it's fine as it is right now - People who are truly responsible and knowledgeable about guns get their guns; while people who are not and don't particularly want a gun don't.
But I am ambivalent about the claims that a universal conceal and carry will reduce crime rates for the reasons I've been continually repeating more than anything else. The more I see people(and myself) act, the more I think that individuals are inherently irrational. The argument that people will not commit violence when they know that everyone is armed requires people to be rational and actually good at risk-evaluation, among other things. You tell me whether people are good at risk evaluation or not.
I have nothing against conceal and carry as a principle, but the arguments supporting it doesn't make sense to me.
As for being emotionally vested in things- Well, that's sort of why it's important. It prevents people from being reasonable and being able to consider all aspects of an issue, and that always leads nowhere.
That doesn't at all follow from "displaying psychopathic tendencies" because that can manifest in something so simple as being more prone to taking risks or lying to you about something.
It absolutely follows. There's antisocial personality disorder, which is the general catch-all for people who do criminal behavior or other behavior not endorsed by society, then there's those displaying psychopathy, the trait of being extremely callous and unemotional. I refer to those with my 4% figure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Many thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the great banner!
Quote from CherryBoom! »
It mostly consists of a napalm filled trench around my house and a stack of 1994 pornography in my basement.
Quote from HandwrittenHero »
As much as I'm against the OTT view that this card is going to solo tournaments, cure cancer and make Susan Boyle attractive I'm not really a fan of the opposing camp who think it slaughters puppies and sired Justin Bieber.
"Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn" - Alfred ... We should keep this in mind.
We will never have a perfect society. If we take away guns people will be mad. If we have looser gun control laws people will be mad. No matter what approach we take people will be mad.
My thought is this. If we take away peoples guns only criminals will have guns. Criminals don't care about gun regulations... that's why they are criminals.
Has anyone in this thread actually gone through the legal hoops required to obtained a concealed handgun license?
Yes I have. It required a 4 week class and passing a few tests. You have to pass the shooting portion during the class room portion. You have 2 chances at the shooting and have to get an 85% on the test to get your permit.
My thought is this. If we take away peoples guns only criminals will have guns. Criminals don't care about gun regulations... that's why they are criminals.
A sort of untruth propagated by the pro-gun lobby as well as the anti-gun lobby. Both sides are very murky on this issue.
Gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting guns, they make it harder for someone with a criminal record to legally obtain a gun in some scenarios.
First off, a "good" criminal is, by definition, one that hasn't been caught. They're "slangin' rocks out the stash house" but have a squeaky clean record. They can walk into a gun shop and pass a NICS and obtain a CCW just like a good ol' 'merican boy.
And even if one has a record or not, pro-gun people use terms like "criminals buy their guns on the street!" which usually conjures up images of some dude buying a MAC-10 out of a car trunk in a dark alleyway somewhere.
Which is bull****.
A "criminal" can walk right into a gun show and purchase a gun off of a private seller just like a "law abiding" citizen would. Whether they have a record or not. They can go on an internet forum and meet up with someone, as is likely happening every day somewhere. They can buy a gun off a friend or cousin or coworker who may not know and/or care if it is legal to sell them a gun or not. And in few states is there any burden on a private seller to ensure that the transferee is able to lawfully own a gun or not.
That's also forgetting straw purchases, where a lawful owner simply buys a gun on behalf of someone else. Or of course stealing a gun from someone. Or gaining access to an unattended firearm from a friend/family member, or pilfering their safe or closet.
Genie's out of the bottle, really. There's something 200+ million guns in circulation in the USA and all any law could really do is raise the price, just like drugs. All a gun law could ever do at this point is raise/lower the price of guns indirectly. It's simply too late for gun control in the US, whether you are for it or not. Gun control will never work.
I just wish both sides would be a little more realistic about this.
Has anyone in this thread actually gone through the legal hoops required to obtained a concealed handgun license?
Depends on the state. Places like Florida and Texas require training and classes and such. Places like Pennsylvania and Utah hand them out like business cards to anyone with a pen and no felonies.
A sort of untruth propagated by the pro-gun lobby as well as the anti-gun lobby. Both sides are very murky on this issue.
Gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting guns, they make it harder for someone with a criminal record to legally obtain a gun in some scenarios.
First off, a "good" criminal is, by definition, one that hasn't been caught. They're "slangin' rocks out the stash house" but have a squeaky clean record. They can walk into a gun shop and pass a NICS and obtain a CCW just like a good ol' 'merican boy.
And even if one has a record or not, pro-gun people use terms like "criminals buy their guns on the street!" which usually conjures up images of some dude buying a MAC-10 out of a car trunk in a dark alleyway somewhere.
Which is bull****.
A "criminal" can walk right into a gun show and purchase a gun off of a private seller just like a "law abiding" citizen would. Whether they have a record or not. They can go on an internet forum and meet up with someone, as is likely happening every day somewhere. They can buy a gun off a friend or cousin or coworker who may not know and/or care if it is legal to sell them a gun or not. And in few states is there any burden on a private seller to ensure that the transferee is able to lawfully own a gun or not.
That's also forgetting straw purchases, where a lawful owner simply buys a gun on behalf of someone else. Or of course stealing a gun from someone. Or gaining access to an unattended firearm from a friend/family member, or pilfering their safe or closet.
Genie's out of the bottle, really. There's something 200+ million guns in circulation in the USA and all any law could really do is raise the price, just like drugs. All a gun law could ever do at this point is raise/lower the price of guns indirectly. It's simply too late for gun control in the US, whether you are for it or not. Gun control will never work.
I just wish both sides would be a little more realistic about this.
I agree with a lot of what you say toward the end of your post, but you make it sound as if people just started killing each other with the advent of the gun. Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of our time on this planet. As far back as records go there has been war and murder. Taking away guns now is not going to change that aspect of humans. We will continue to kill each other with or without guns.
I'm fine with conceal and carry - as long as the individuals in question have the appropriate training. Part of the problem with the NRA viewpoint is that more people with guns isn't a solution - more trained people with guns is. You can't expect Johnny Gunlover to suddenly be an action hero in the middle of a crisis situation if he hasn't had some sort of quasi-military training (for perspective, that includes police).
Concealed carry has no deterrent aspect, so it's exclusively confrontational, therefore the individual involved needs to have training to handle that confrontation appropriately.
I agree with a lot of what you say toward the end of your post, but you make it sound as if people just started killing each other with the advent of the gun. Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of our time on this planet. As far back as records go there has been war and murder. Taking away guns now is not going to change that aspect of humans. We will continue to kill each other with or without guns.
Nothing in my post should imply this at all. Violence is innate to human nature, and you could trace murder as far back as Cain & Abel. People have been killing long before guns were ever even dreamed of.
The elephant in the room as far as violence and murder in the USA is drugs. Drugs drugs drugs. Many of the politicians have spent thirty years talking "tough on crime" and "war on drugs" and so their foot is in their mouth to take an honest stance at this point, even if they wanted to. Decriminalizing drugs, all drugs, would do more to lower the rates of violence in this country than anything else.
Even mental health is a bit of a distraction - I can still count the number of psychos that went on a rampage on one hand. Every day, people die to violence and by far, the reason is the underground drug trade. Take away the inflated market value, the exclusivity, the way to expand business by killing and intimidating rivals, and you will see the crime rate sink like a brick. 80 years ago people were gunning each other down over whiskey - why not anymore?
Taking away guns now is not going to change that aspect of humans. We will continue to kill each other with or without guns.
The argument many people make regarding this is, iirc, rather that guns make it much easier to kill someone than with just your bare hands or a stabbing weapon, and that if you magically remove guns to Christmasland then there overall be fewer deaths.
The issue with a strict gun ban is that there
1) It's never going to happen because removing the 2nd amendment will never happen.
2) There's simply too many guns and it be virtually impossible under current conditions to remove them all.
Beyond that though, it should be plainly evident that removing all guns from society will result in fewer deaths.
After all, it's not like the Sandy Hook shooting could have resulted in as many deaths if the guy had a knife instead of a gun.
I think people are intentionally ignoring this aspect or hand-waving it away by saying that people will murder one another anyhow.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Taking away guns now is not going to change that aspect of humans. We will continue to kill each other with or without guns.
The argument many people make regarding this is, iirc, rather that guns make it much easier to kill someone than with just your bare hands or a stabbing weapon, and that if you magically remove guns to Christmasland then there overall be fewer deaths.
The issue with a strict gun ban is that there
1) It's never going to happen because removing the 2nd amendment will never happen.
2) There's simply too many guns and it be virtually impossible under current conditions to remove them all.
Beyond that though, it should be plainly evident that removing all guns from society will result in fewer deaths.
After all, it's not like the Sandy Hook shooting could have resulted in as many deaths if the guy had a knife instead of a gun.
I think people are intentionally ignoring this aspect or hand-waving it away by saying that people will murder one another anyhow.
This happens in every thread in debate about gun control. The 2nd amendment defends paint the other side as "without guns there would be no deaths! But knives exist, idiot."
I've stated this at least 5 times with this exact phrasing "The question is not whether or not one would kill another, it is about limiting the destructive abilities of the tools they have access to. It's the same reason we don't let everyone have a nuke."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Taking away guns now is not going to change that aspect of humans. We will continue to kill each other with or without guns.
The argument many people make regarding this is, iirc, rather that guns make it much easier to kill someone than with just your bare hands or a stabbing weapon, and that if you magically remove guns to Christmasland then there overall be fewer deaths.
The issue with a strict gun ban is that there
1) It's never going to happen because removing the 2nd amendment will never happen.
2) There's simply too many guns and it be virtually impossible under current conditions to remove them all.
Beyond that though, it should be plainly evident that removing all guns from society will result in fewer deaths.
After all, it's not like the Sandy Hook shooting could have resulted in as many deaths if the guy had a knife instead of a gun.
I think people are intentionally ignoring this aspect or hand-waving it away by saying that people will murder one another anyhow.
This happens in every thread in debate about gun control. The 2nd amendment defends paint the other side as "without guns there would be no deaths! But knives exist, idiot."
I've stated this at least 5 times with this exact phrasing "The question is not whether or not one would kill another, it is about limiting the destructive abilities of the tools they have access to. It's the same reason we don't let everyone have a nuke."
Guns are not the most destructive or easiest to obtain. I wouldnt even say easiest to use either. If someone is determined to kill someone, they will figure it out. Whether its a rock or a knife or a pipe bomb. Hell I could kill a person with a bow and arrow from a decent distance and kill multiple depending on how many arrows I have in my quiver.
Guns are not the most destructive or easiest to obtain. I wouldnt even say easiest to use either. If someone is determined to kill someone, they will figure it out. Whether its a rock or a knife or a pipe bomb. Hell I could kill a person with a bow and arrow from a decent distance and kill multiple depending on how many arrows I have in my quiver.
Absolutely; except you cannot kill 4+ people in seconds with a bow and arrow like you could with any handgun.
Yes, bombs are frighteningly easy to make, and many mass shootings could have just been replaced with bombings. I understand that. Except bombs require some level of planning and prior intent to use, and random people cannot just whip a bomb out of their pocket in a fit of rage and kill people.
Besides, that wasn't my point. The point is that guns make it easier to kill people than other common tools like your hands or knives. This is indisputable. That's sort of why the military and the police use guns over hand to hand or knife/sword/bow/other tools for combat.
This point isn't even something that can be seriously addressed because addressing it doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things; I just want to see it acknowledged instead of hand-waved away or marginalized.
Guns are not the most destructive or easiest to obtain. I wouldnt even say easiest to use either. If someone is determined to kill someone, they will figure it out. Whether its a rock or a knife or a pipe bomb. Hell I could kill a person with a bow and arrow from a decent distance and kill multiple depending on how many arrows I have in my quiver.
Absolutely; except you cannot kill 4+ people in seconds with a bow and arrow like you could with any handgun.
Yes, bombs are frighteningly easy to make, and many mass shootings could have just been replaced with bombings. I understand that. Except bombs require some level of planning and prior intent to use, and random people cannot just whip a bomb out of their pocket in a fit of rage and kill people.
Besides, that wasn't my point. The point is that guns make it easier to kill people than other common tools like your hands or knives. This is indisputable. That's sort of why the military and the police use guns over hand to hand or knife/sword/bow/other tools for combat.
This point isn't even something that can be seriously addressed because addressing it doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things; I just want to see it acknowledged instead of hand-waved away or marginalized.
I know guys who can kill you with a throw knife from the same distance most of these shootings are taking place.
I keep coming back to the thinking guns have been in this country almost since its inception. What has all of a sudden made guns bad? In part of the country we put guns in our childrens hands and teach them to hunt with them. Yet one crazy person killing kids all of a sudden makes guns bad. Its a knee jerk reaction to a situation that has little to do with guns, and more to do with society.
Yes, but unless you're a very trained individual you cannot kill multiple people with a throwing knife in the same time as you would with a handgun.
I never said guns are bad. I am merely asking people to acknowledge the fact that guns let you kill people much faster than most other things. This is undisputed fact, and it is the reason why the military prefers to use guns and related instead of swords.
Additionally due to the additional weight per knife versus per bullet - you're more limited in how many knives you can carry for extra "shots" since one small clip (8-10 bullets) weighs roughly the same as one lethal throwing knife.
[Yes, shurikens are lighter - they're meant to injure and incapacitate, not kill - killing throwing knives actually have heft to them - frankly might weight more than even an extended clip]
Yes, but unless you're a very trained individual you cannot kill multiple people with a throwing knife in the same time as you would with a handgun.
I never said guns are bad. I am merely asking people to acknowledge the fact that guns let you kill people much faster than most other things. This is undisputed fact, and it is the reason why the military prefers to use guns and related instead of swords.
Actually our military today prefers pushing a button and sending a missile.;)
Soldiers also carry knives, and some squads carry tomahawks. Does that mean those are just as deadly as guns?
I keep coming back to the thinking guns have been in this country almost since its inception. What has all of a sudden made guns bad? In part of the country we put guns in our childrens hands and teach them to hunt with them. Yet one crazy person killing kids all of a sudden makes guns bad. Its a knee jerk reaction to a situation that has little to do with guns, and more to do with society.
I heard the attorney who argued DC v Heller in front of the USSC talk about this. His main theory of why is primarily because of the differences in culture, namely between the North and South (for example... generalizing real quick here).
In the South, you learn gun safety and go hunting. You shoot guns; guns are normal, safe, fine, whatever.
In the North, you have never seen a personally. The idea of owning a gun is foreign. The gun culture doesn't exist. (Again, just generalizing...)
So, if you do not have a culture where guns safely exist, and see a murder or mass killing, you have no connection to why you should protect the rights to have a gun.
You don't see a reason to have a gun. None of your friends have guns and they don't see why you should have a gun either. So, you have no basis for even considering supporting gun rights.
So, when someone who supports gun rights comes along, you don't have any kind of connection other than guns equal murder, and you think they are crazy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you not realize how easy it is to commit a crime and get away with it?
The world doesnt actually work like CSI... A semi intelligent person can easily commit several crimes without being caught and then move on.
Here are the crime clearance rates for 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_rate
Even if you say those numbers should be higher due to information being reported poorly... those are pretty terrible numbers.
You dont have to hand out a gun to every civilian... The threat of the civilian possibly having a gun is often enough. When conceal and carry is an option.. if I am walking through a dark area by myself any potential criminal has to consider what happens if I happen to have a gun... If it is illegal for me to carry a weapon and I happen to be walking through a dark area a potential criminal knows that unless I am also a criminal I dont have a gun. That is a big difference.
Oh, you mean like the police? Yeah, NYC police, who have a better than average response time, respond within 8.4 minutes, which is better than the national average.
Once they get on the scene, they may well collect enough evidence/capture the bad guy and put him away. And you/your loved ones may still be dead. 8.4 minutes is an eternity for violent crime.
So, your suggestion is that law-abiding citizens should just roll over? Sorry, I'd rather even the playing field as much as possible, not assume I'm gonna die.
On a related note: accounts from Concealed Carriers who've had to draw, and some have had to fire:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1aena8/concealed_carriers_of_reddit_have_you_ever_had_to/
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
Hmmmmm, dubious claim.
http://www.crimevictimservices.org/page/victimtypes/57
http://www.bookofodds.com/content/view/full/678590
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234302/How-muggers-away-it.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
1% gets robbed.
>0.009% get shot or killed by a gun.
Many ROBBERS are not trying to be MURDERERS. Many robbers don't even use a gun, they only need to use violence or the threat of violence to be a ROBBER. So CCW might actually have a chance to save/defend their life.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You have no idea how bad American law enforcement is.
I am not sacrificing myself or one of my family so someone can take something I have worked for. If you are not willing to fight for yourself, your family and the stuff you have worked for, whats the sense of being independent or having freedoms?
I did not say you should give up your rights to carry. I think it's fine as it is right now - People who are truly responsible and knowledgeable about guns get their guns; while people who are not and don't particularly want a gun don't.
But I am ambivalent about the claims that a universal conceal and carry will reduce crime rates for the reasons I've been continually repeating more than anything else. The more I see people(and myself) act, the more I think that individuals are inherently irrational. The argument that people will not commit violence when they know that everyone is armed requires people to be rational and actually good at risk-evaluation, among other things. You tell me whether people are good at risk evaluation or not.
I have nothing against conceal and carry as a principle, but the arguments supporting it doesn't make sense to me.
As for being emotionally vested in things- Well, that's sort of why it's important. It prevents people from being reasonable and being able to consider all aspects of an issue, and that always leads nowhere.
It absolutely follows. There's antisocial personality disorder, which is the general catch-all for people who do criminal behavior or other behavior not endorsed by society, then there's those displaying psychopathy, the trait of being extremely callous and unemotional. I refer to those with my 4% figure.
Many thanks to ChibiSwan of The Ugly Swan for the great banner!
We will never have a perfect society. If we take away guns people will be mad. If we have looser gun control laws people will be mad. No matter what approach we take people will be mad.
My thought is this. If we take away peoples guns only criminals will have guns. Criminals don't care about gun regulations... that's why they are criminals.
Yes I have. It required a 4 week class and passing a few tests. You have to pass the shooting portion during the class room portion. You have 2 chances at the shooting and have to get an 85% on the test to get your permit.
A sort of untruth propagated by the pro-gun lobby as well as the anti-gun lobby. Both sides are very murky on this issue.
Gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting guns, they make it harder for someone with a criminal record to legally obtain a gun in some scenarios.
First off, a "good" criminal is, by definition, one that hasn't been caught. They're "slangin' rocks out the stash house" but have a squeaky clean record. They can walk into a gun shop and pass a NICS and obtain a CCW just like a good ol' 'merican boy.
And even if one has a record or not, pro-gun people use terms like "criminals buy their guns on the street!" which usually conjures up images of some dude buying a MAC-10 out of a car trunk in a dark alleyway somewhere.
Which is bull****.
A "criminal" can walk right into a gun show and purchase a gun off of a private seller just like a "law abiding" citizen would. Whether they have a record or not. They can go on an internet forum and meet up with someone, as is likely happening every day somewhere. They can buy a gun off a friend or cousin or coworker who may not know and/or care if it is legal to sell them a gun or not. And in few states is there any burden on a private seller to ensure that the transferee is able to lawfully own a gun or not.
That's also forgetting straw purchases, where a lawful owner simply buys a gun on behalf of someone else. Or of course stealing a gun from someone. Or gaining access to an unattended firearm from a friend/family member, or pilfering their safe or closet.
Genie's out of the bottle, really. There's something 200+ million guns in circulation in the USA and all any law could really do is raise the price, just like drugs. All a gun law could ever do at this point is raise/lower the price of guns indirectly. It's simply too late for gun control in the US, whether you are for it or not. Gun control will never work.
I just wish both sides would be a little more realistic about this.
Depends on the state. Places like Florida and Texas require training and classes and such. Places like Pennsylvania and Utah hand them out like business cards to anyone with a pen and no felonies.
I agree with a lot of what you say toward the end of your post, but you make it sound as if people just started killing each other with the advent of the gun. Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of our time on this planet. As far back as records go there has been war and murder. Taking away guns now is not going to change that aspect of humans. We will continue to kill each other with or without guns.
Concealed carry has no deterrent aspect, so it's exclusively confrontational, therefore the individual involved needs to have training to handle that confrontation appropriately.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Nothing in my post should imply this at all. Violence is innate to human nature, and you could trace murder as far back as Cain & Abel. People have been killing long before guns were ever even dreamed of.
The elephant in the room as far as violence and murder in the USA is drugs. Drugs drugs drugs. Many of the politicians have spent thirty years talking "tough on crime" and "war on drugs" and so their foot is in their mouth to take an honest stance at this point, even if they wanted to. Decriminalizing drugs, all drugs, would do more to lower the rates of violence in this country than anything else.
Even mental health is a bit of a distraction - I can still count the number of psychos that went on a rampage on one hand. Every day, people die to violence and by far, the reason is the underground drug trade. Take away the inflated market value, the exclusivity, the way to expand business by killing and intimidating rivals, and you will see the crime rate sink like a brick. 80 years ago people were gunning each other down over whiskey - why not anymore?
The argument many people make regarding this is, iirc, rather that guns make it much easier to kill someone than with just your bare hands or a stabbing weapon, and that if you magically remove guns to Christmasland then there overall be fewer deaths.
The issue with a strict gun ban is that there
1) It's never going to happen because removing the 2nd amendment will never happen.
2) There's simply too many guns and it be virtually impossible under current conditions to remove them all.
Beyond that though, it should be plainly evident that removing all guns from society will result in fewer deaths.
After all, it's not like the Sandy Hook shooting could have resulted in as many deaths if the guy had a knife instead of a gun.
I think people are intentionally ignoring this aspect or hand-waving it away by saying that people will murder one another anyhow.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
This happens in every thread in debate about gun control. The 2nd amendment defends paint the other side as "without guns there would be no deaths! But knives exist, idiot."
I've stated this at least 5 times with this exact phrasing "The question is not whether or not one would kill another, it is about limiting the destructive abilities of the tools they have access to. It's the same reason we don't let everyone have a nuke."
Guns are not the most destructive or easiest to obtain. I wouldnt even say easiest to use either. If someone is determined to kill someone, they will figure it out. Whether its a rock or a knife or a pipe bomb. Hell I could kill a person with a bow and arrow from a decent distance and kill multiple depending on how many arrows I have in my quiver.
Absolutely; except you cannot kill 4+ people in seconds with a bow and arrow like you could with any handgun.
Yes, bombs are frighteningly easy to make, and many mass shootings could have just been replaced with bombings. I understand that. Except bombs require some level of planning and prior intent to use, and random people cannot just whip a bomb out of their pocket in a fit of rage and kill people.
Besides, that wasn't my point. The point is that guns make it easier to kill people than other common tools like your hands or knives. This is indisputable. That's sort of why the military and the police use guns over hand to hand or knife/sword/bow/other tools for combat.
This point isn't even something that can be seriously addressed because addressing it doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things; I just want to see it acknowledged instead of hand-waved away or marginalized.
I know guys who can kill you with a throw knife from the same distance most of these shootings are taking place.
I keep coming back to the thinking guns have been in this country almost since its inception. What has all of a sudden made guns bad? In part of the country we put guns in our childrens hands and teach them to hunt with them. Yet one crazy person killing kids all of a sudden makes guns bad. Its a knee jerk reaction to a situation that has little to do with guns, and more to do with society.
I never said guns are bad. I am merely asking people to acknowledge the fact that guns let you kill people much faster than most other things. This is undisputed fact, and it is the reason why the military prefers to use guns and related instead of swords.
[Yes, shurikens are lighter - they're meant to injure and incapacitate, not kill - killing throwing knives actually have heft to them - frankly might weight more than even an extended clip]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Actually our military today prefers pushing a button and sending a missile.;)
Soldiers also carry knives, and some squads carry tomahawks. Does that mean those are just as deadly as guns?
Soldiers do not use knives and tomahawks as their primary weapon- they use guns.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge the fact that guns let you kill people much faster than most other things?
I heard the attorney who argued DC v Heller in front of the USSC talk about this. His main theory of why is primarily because of the differences in culture, namely between the North and South (for example... generalizing real quick here).
In the South, you learn gun safety and go hunting. You shoot guns; guns are normal, safe, fine, whatever.
In the North, you have never seen a personally. The idea of owning a gun is foreign. The gun culture doesn't exist. (Again, just generalizing...)
So, if you do not have a culture where guns safely exist, and see a murder or mass killing, you have no connection to why you should protect the rights to have a gun.
You don't see a reason to have a gun. None of your friends have guns and they don't see why you should have a gun either. So, you have no basis for even considering supporting gun rights.
So, when someone who supports gun rights comes along, you don't have any kind of connection other than guns equal murder, and you think they are crazy.