Things besides guns we should ban to give ourselves the delusion of safety

[scw55]

snip

snip

snip

Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.

You put WHAT up your mouse?!

*mouth

I like how everyone is discussing gun politics (as if there's even worth 2 sides to the argument.) and we're talking about Kinder Eggs The world would be a Kinder place if everyone got a Kinder egg everyday. No need for pseudo logic to defend owning a gun as no one would be in the mood to kill anyone.

Depends on what sort of toy. If you got a really awesome toy, and I got a really crappy one, I might be in the mood to kill...

The Jigsaws were rather crappy weren't they?

 

[Mathurin]

So its for harrassing gun owners now?

That is not harassment, that's just forensic logic. Harassment does not mean just being questioned by the police. You would not be a suspect; but if they were not talking to you if you were the only gun owner in town they would not be doing their jobs.

If they are talking to me solely because I am the only on the books gun owner in town, then its profiling at best.
You are thinking in very binary terms, as if you can know where all the guns are, and thusly who might be doing the shootings. But you cant even do that in britain. They arent nearly as widespread but illegal guns do exist there.

It seems logical, but in reality what you suggest would not be helpful, since most crimes are actually solved by the same old "who stood to gain" or "who wanted him dead" method, then examining the suspects.

When concealed carry licensing programs began lawmakers were very nervous, in several states they demanded the police pay close attention to these peoples records to be ready to yank the license.
What they found is a handful of citations.
I have a single speeding ticket, yet you think I should be suspected of a crime simply because I own a gun.

In the US we believe in very strong privacy rights and robust due process, they will question everyone around, if there is a reason to suspect me then they will find it, but this registry idea will just send them after gun owners the same way they seem to go after released felons.

How do you know? Other countries have such a system and I don't have any reason to think that harassment of gun owner is running rampant.

Police in the US already harrass gun owners

http://pennrecord.com/news/lawsuit-claims-harassment-of-lawful-gun-owners-is-turning-phila-into-a-police-state/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/democrats-have-police-harass-gun-owners-on-the-streets/

I read once (but cannot find) an article about canadian police treating a home differently when their records said a gun owner lived there.

You can still license, and require a license at purchase, I just want the base of licencees to be broad enough that its not a clear indication of firearms ownership.

I will let this rest now. You have made your point and as stated before I don't quite see the point in such a system.

Its not about trust, its about history, you can see it happening right now, individual soldiers are choosing to defect rather than fire on civilians.

Aren't you trusting history to repeat itself though? It doesn't always do that. In this particular case I would say that it is a likely outcome though. As do the generals probably so I guess they wouldn?t order their soldiers to fire on civilians. Well, we'll see.. (Hopefully not though).

I knew I didnt make this point clear enough when I wrote it.

No, im not trusting to history, I am trusting to modern times, at this moment in Syria soldiers are being ordered to abuse civilians, and some of them are defecting to the free Syrian army instead.
They go from being paid and powerful, to being hunted, solely because they dont want to shoot civilians.

And this is a corrupt nation where it is likely, as so many similar nations do, they promote generals based on loyalty, the generals give the order to fire, no doubt.

No, guns are not the only thing, and I will not advocate for their use until all legal and peaceful methods have proven fruitless

Good. I wholeheartedly agree.

Yes, very misanthropic, I didnt used to be this way, but then I started learning, reading about history and power struggles of the past, abuses of power in the present. About secret police sending millions to gulags on false charges (many never to return) to maintain a culture of fear and maintain power.
Human beings are bad creatures, this is a founding principle of our nation, if allowed power they will use it for ill, including things like illegal internment and interrogation. Only a decentralized system and a watchful public will keep the leaders in line.
Just read some history, you will see.

I study history at a university. I read quite a lot of history. Therefore I would say that it is not as full of horror as you think. Yes, there are plenty of terrible events spread out through our history, but look at the big picture. In the western world we have never been more materially wealthy and never freer. And the good news is that this is slowly spreading throughout the world (If consumer capitalism is sustainable, but that is really a whole other debate). As a student of history I know that stuff like this takes a really long time (often hundreds of years), but I also know that it is possible.

I do not doubt your knowledge. You probably know as much, if not even more than me. But it is obvious that we have interpreted history quite differently. And I will dare to say that you have not considered the big picture in the positive light that it deserves.

If we continue to discuss philosophy of history though I fear we will go dramatically off topic. Maybe we already are

Are you aware that after WWII the allied nations kept german POWs for use as slave labor for years after.
France forced them to clear minefields, dangerous work which the geneva conventions banned
Britain used them to work the fields.
You realize the american version of aparteid wasnt removed until the mid 1960s


You are right, we have cleared the worst of this behavior from the main segment of our society, but it still lurks at the corners, and in the hearts of men. We just classify it top secret when it happens now.
I wont ignore over 2000 years of recorded history because the western world has had an uptick in the last 60. Right now we are a statistical anomaly that might end up as a trend. Though not even that when you look at the stuff that went on during the cold war.

 

[Mathurin]

To everyone who wants to dramatically control guns.


Gun crime in the US is almost entirely in the domain of the drug gangs, so initiatives like licensing and registration, even outright bans, will not prevent a significant amount of gun crime, because law abiding owners, for the most part, dont commit crimes.


If you realize this and still want to ban guns, its because you have an irrational fear, please figure out your irrational fear instead of using it to justify moronic laws.


If you actually want to stop crime, all crime not just the gun variety, we need to work to kill off gang violence, this is multifaceted problem that doesnt respond to simple BS like gun laws, by making the discussion about gun laws you are just getting in the way.

 

[Leadfinger]

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

And yet, higher suicide rate than America. Not to mention small island with pathological hierarchy issues. Saying that gun control has any major bearing on it is idiotic.

Denying that Japan's gun control laws have anything to do with the lack of guns there seems farfetched, but I suspect from your comments that you aren't an expert on Japan, or gun control, or logic for that matter.

Of course, if I gave a shit about the number of an item vs the number of culturally dictated suicides and homicides, you might have a point. Not to mention the vastly increased presence of organized crime in Japan means the criminal organizations themselves have a vested interest in keeping guns from flooding Japan.



Oh, fun fact, while guns are officially banned for most Chinese, with less than 680,000 registered to citizens legally, most of whom are almost certainly mid to high ranking Party members, there are over 40,000,000 illegal guns. And this is in a place where guns have been illegal since before the 2nd world war.

Argumentation must be a snap for you when you can make up your own "fun facts."

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

If they are talking to me solely because I am the only on the books gun owner in town, then its profiling at best.
You are thinking in very binary terms, as if you can know where all the guns are, and thusly who might be doing the shootings. But you cant even do that in britain. They arent nearly as widespread but illegal guns do exist there.
It seems logical, but in reality what you suggest would not be helpful, since most crimes are actually solved by the same old "who stood to gain" or "who wanted him dead" method, then examining the suspects.
When concealed carry licensing programs began lawmakers were very nervous, in several states they demanded the police pay close attention to these peoples records to be ready to yank the license.
What they found is a handful of citations.
I have a single speeding ticket, yet you think I should be suspected of a crime simply because I own a gun.

I am saying it again; they would not have any reason to suspect you but plenty of reason to question you. They are not the same thing. What if your gun had been stolen and used by someone else?
Also, if you go back to my original post on this you will find that I said something like "if they don't have any other leads". That means that they wouldn't know who stood to gain or who wanted him dead. This is of course unlikely to happened seeing as this was an example for the sake of argument. The fact that it is unlikely to happens shows that in places where the police is respectful (which I am sorry to say is far from everywhere), suspicion simply for owning a gun would be minimal.

Police in the US already harrass gun owners
http://pennrecord.com/news/lawsuit-claims-harassment-of-lawful-gun-owners-is-turning-phila-into-a-police-state/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/democrats-have-police-harass-gun-owners-on-the-streets/
I read once (but cannot find) an article about canadian police treating a home differently when their records said a gun owner lived there.

If this is indeed true, then I of course don't support it. Police harassment and abuse is always wrong. I do think that this is a problem inherit within the police culture and not inherit to the issue of gun control though. It is obvious that we can have one without the other.

No, im not trusting to history, I am trusting to modern times, at this moment in Syria soldiers are being ordered to abuse civilians, and some of them are defecting to the free Syrian army instead.
They go from being paid and powerful, to being hunted, solely because they dont want to shoot civilians.
And this is a corrupt nation where it is likely, as so many similar nations do, they promote generals based on loyalty, the generals give the order to fire, no doubt.

We agree on this I think. Though the fact that you do trust soldiers not to abuse civilians might suggest that you are not as misanthropic as I might have thought.
I am afraid however that the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram experiment give us little reason to trust the majority of soldiers.

Are you aware that after WWII the allied nations kept german POWs for use as slave labor for years after.
France forced them to clear minefields, dangerous work which the geneva conventions banned
Britain used them to work the fields.
You realize the american version of aparteid wasnt removed until the mid 1960s
You are right, we have cleared the worst of this behavior from the main segment of our society, but it still lurks at the corners, and in the hearts of men. We just classify it top secret when it happens now.
I wont ignore over 2000 years of recorded history because the western world has had an uptick in the last 60. Right now we are a statistical anomaly that might end up as a trend. Though not even that when you look at the stuff that went on during the cold war.

If we have cleared the worst behavior for the main segment of our society then we are moving in the right direction. Yes, there is evil in the hearts of men, but the very fact that we accept that is a step in the right direction. I am not saying we live in a perfect world, I am arguing for a view of history that acknowledges the great improvements that has happen, not in the last 60, but in the last 10 000 years.

What about the agricultural revolution, the development of cities, the birth of philosophy and science and art, the beginning of Christianity that laid the groundwork for a new and improved moral system (I am not religious myself but I do accept the importance of religion, unlike some), the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution etc., etc., etc. I could go on and on. To say that all the improvements have happened in the last sixty years is just not right.

History is full of changes (often small, granted) for the better that does not warrant such a bleak view on human achievement.

 

[Mathurin]

Im gonna have to stop, I was offered a chance to work more hours yesterday so im gonna have to drop off to make sure I get enough sleep, I might drop into the boards as time allows but we have pretty much played this out.

Regardless, the only thing I would respond to is that I dont trust all soldiers not to abuse civilians, just a small subset of them.

 

[puncturedrectum]

T

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jul/13/mexico-drug-smuggling-tunnels-video

They exist. They are mainly used to sell drugs but they can be used to smuggle anything.

When the smugglers you are up against are willing and able to use underground tunnels. You are pretty much fucked.

Also, legalizing pot won't do anything. Cartels are so entrenched the time of "weakening them" is long gone... by decades.

They are so entrenched that they have infinite resources and manpower? Unlikely, to say the least. Its just going to take longer, the rest of the drugs arent sold enough to sustain their "empire"... when a massive body cannot fuel itself it collapses into itself, just take away the majority of their fuel and if they do not immediately begin to downsize they will collapse.

Except America smokes more than just pot. You also have Cocaine, which some cartels are built on.

Its more than just one cartel, there are many. Not all of them are pot dealers, because there is more than one drug. Sure you may take down the smaller cartels, but the small ones never mattered. It won't effect the big ones, who have their hands in more than just one trade.

And some have military training and weapons. Which means normal police can't even touch them.

As I said, the time when we could weaken the cartels is long over.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

Im gonna have to stop, I was offered a chance to work more hours yesterday so im gonna have to drop off to make sure I get enough sleep, I might drop into the boards as time allows but we have pretty much played this out.

Regardless, the only thing I would respond to is that I dont trust all soldiers not to abuse civilians, just a small subset of them.

And that case, thank you for a good dabate!

 

[ElPatron]

If the laws are there, it deters and it stops some people.

How many people die from car accidents involving alcohol? Laws don't stop people who break the law. Just the law abiding citizens.

I simply do not agree that people will turn into madmen from touching a gun. There is no point in restricting firearms ownership to the law abiding citizen.

Just a few weeks ago I read that a tanker truck accident had killed 100 people. I find it ironic that there are no extra restrictions or psychiatric evaluations to drive a truck full of flammable fluid. It's just like if you were driving a truck full of chickens.

Yea I don't see why people would be opposed to regulating gun ownership. As it stands in some countries any psycho can buy a gun. Over here you need permits for guns. You wouldn't really get a permit for a gun in a city. Only very select rapid response police have guns

In my country they are restricted... and any psycho can have a gun. Simply put, criminals do not need to buy legally - they just go to the black market or make their own.

I am opposed to regulation because the law makes me feel almost like a criminal for owning firearms.

And I know why. Because we have fought tyranny before. The governments know that restricting firearms will prevent us from fighting again.

Introducing gun control to a country like the US is a gradual process.
You can't just suddenly ban all guns. That would leave a shitton of guns on the market, none of them legal.
You need to restrict what kinds of guns can legally be produced and sold and slowly increase the difficulty of getting a license to buy a gun.
Banning magazine sizes greater than what's needed for hunting, etc.
After a while you may ban handguns entirely.

You don't change the public's attitude towards keeping guns locked up overnight.

Which is exactly what it is being done.

They came for the full-autos, the silencers, the short-barrel rifles/shotguns. Since outright banning them would be anti-constitutional, they just put red tape on those items.

It's not very hard to own a silencer or a short barrel rifle, but they have the right to make you wait for it because they realized that $200 today is easier to pay than decades ago. The full autos were easy-peasy because now they are worth several grand.

Banning and restricting things is the most anti-libertarian thing in the world, and it simply won't fly in the US. Not even with the ridiculous amount of people who fight for gun control.

Say what you want about the hypocrisy of the founding fathers, but at least they felt some degree of oppression.

I respect your opinions but you will be biased until you have truly felt governmental oppression. My parents did. My grandparents did.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Chavs. We should ban chavs.

Because they're chavs.

 

[BlindTom]

We should ban bullets.

 

[tmande2nd]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt the founding father of America want the citizens to have guns so they could resist foreign invasion, and tyrannical rule at home?

The Second Amendment was all about how as a citizen you were legally allowed to own a gun, as a member of the militia, so as to protect America.

Also the debate is silly to me.
Everyone in the debate just wants to be safe really, shame they cant agree.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

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

This.

I would also like to submit that we stop crafting hot dogs in link form, they should be cut in bite size pieces so that I don't choke.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If the laws are there, it deters and it stops some people.

How many people die from car accidents involving alcohol? Laws don't stop people who break the law. Just the law abiding citizens.

I simply do not agree that people will turn into madmen from touching a gun. There is no point in restricting firearms ownership to the law abiding citizen.

Just a few weeks ago I read that a tanker truck accident had killed 100 people. I find it ironic that there are no extra restrictions or psychiatric evaluations to drive a truck full of flammable fluid. It's just like if you were driving a truck full of chickens.

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

 

[ElPatron]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Elementlmage]

Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.
The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them.

Eh, where did you here that? Fact is, there is ZERO correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rate:

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

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

See, Brazil had 4x the number of homicides, with 1/4 the number of firearms per person as the US. That places the Ratio of Firearms-Homicides off by a factor of SIXTEEN between the two countries!

And for that matter, take a look at the Firearm Ownership Rates for Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, France, and Germany and compare that to their homicide rates. Again, there is no correlation! The fallacy that there is a correlation is just that. Without even bringing socio-economic factors in to level the playing field, even the RAW statistics disprove any correlation.

But your right to a certain extent, it's about freedom of property ownership; one of the tenants this country was founded on. I am free to pursue what ever activity that leads to my happiness so long as it does not infringe upon someone else's pursuit of happiness. Do I really need to quote the Declaration of Independence?

Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort.

You mean the sort of gun control in place when Columbine took place? Fact is, the assault weapon ban had ZERO effect on gun crime in the US. "Assault weapons" are only involved in less that 1 percent of recorded crime.

Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.

Also extraordinarily effective when used in a defensive capacity by law abiding citizens:

In the US, there are over 2.5 million to 3.5 million defensive gun uses every year compared to less than 500 thousand by criminals. Or maybe that's too abstract? How about, when used in a defensive capacity, on a daily basis, firearms prevent 550 murders, 1100 rapes, and 5200 other violent crimes, and that in 99.1 percent of these instances the firearm merely had to be brandished to de-escalate the situation?**

**National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

Or, that in 92% of ALL defensive gun uses (violent, property, etc.) the firearm is never shot, and the situation is successfully de-escalated by merely brandishing the firearm? Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.*

*Targeting Guns, Kleck, from the National Self-Defense Survey, 1995

Dont forget about all of those accidental gun deaths. You know all the four year old blows his head off or shoots dad ones.

You mean the all of 613 people who died of accidental shootings in 2007? Or, the all of 39 kids who between the ages of 0-9 who died in that same period. The accidental firearm deaths in this country are absolutely negligible and are dropping year over year, even as the firearm supply increases. This is a small price to pay for all of the crimes firearms prevent on a daily basis.

Statistics from CDC WISQARS site: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Granted, those can be stopped without even enforcing anything like strict gun control.
All that's needed is to implement a law that requires every gun owner to store the weapons in locked firearm boxes, and without being completely assembled.
Like pretty much every other country that allows gun ownership does.

You mean the safe storage laws that have almost no effect on accidental injury/death rates with a firearm and actually cause MORE people to get injured by not being able to defend themselves?

Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all.*

*Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter 1997 at 293-324

15 states that passed ?safe storage? laws saw 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults in the first five years. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses. "The problem is, you see no decrease in either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates."**

**Safe Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime, Prof. John Lott, Yale School of Law, March 2000


Any questions?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yes lets ban freedom because people are too stupid to live freely... well they do vote for politicians that pass laws just for votes...*shudders*

 

[JWAN]

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