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

[blueb0g]

We should ban banning things and otherwise imposing sanctions that do nothing but create a false sense of security. Things like the ridiculous airline rules that went in after 9/11, or AMC theaters' new costume ban. You know, pointless rules that give an illusion of safety to idiots, but only annoy the rest of us because they don't actually make us safer. They inconvenience innocent people, calm stupid people, and that's about it.

Well airport security has unquestionably made flying safer; the amount of aircraft bombed in the sky or hijacked has dropped dramatically since the post 9/11 measures were introduced.

[citation needed]

You're forgetting the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber. The only reason neither of them were successful was because they messed up their own plan and got the mixture on the chemical explosives wrong. Hilariously so in the case of the underwear bomber, who did little but burn his own crotch. Besides, airplane bombings and hijackings were rare to begin with. The last decade or so has been pretty much par for the course.

I am not forgetting anything. The only issue here is that you have no clue what you're talking about. Yes, there have been times where the net was slipped but aircraft bombings and hijacking have dropped - no question. Yes they were rare, but they're a lot rarer now. (Actually, hickajings weren't really that rare at all). In the 70's, 80's and 90's, quite a lot - certainly, a number that would surprise you - of airliners were bombed. The number has dropped. The security has worked. That's indisputable, and if you argue, you're going up against hard facts.

We should ban banning things and otherwise imposing sanctions that do nothing but create a false sense of security. Things like the ridiculous airline rules that went in after 9/11, or AMC theaters' new costume ban. You know, pointless rules that give an illusion of safety to idiots, but only annoy the rest of us because they don't actually make us safer. They inconvenience innocent people, calm stupid people, and that's about it.

Well airport security has unquestionably made flying safer; the amount of aircraft bombed in the sky or hijacked has dropped dramatically since the post 9/11 measures were introduced.

[citation needed]

http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php?cat=H2

Drops from an average of 18 per year for the 10 years prior to 9/11, to an average of about 4 per yer for the 10 years afterwards.

[citation granted]

What countries were those planes flying out of, though? I mean, 1969 shows 86 hijackings. There is no way those were all out of the US. There were not 18 hijackings a year on American airliners prior to 9/11, and it was not the entire world that cracked down after 9/11, it was primarily the US and other countries that had a lot of airline security to begin with.

Edit: I mean, look at the wikipedia <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings>article. Aside from a streak in the 1970s which was over by the 1980's, hijackings overwhemlmingly have nothing to do with the US, and little to do with any other first world nations, either.

The post 9/11 security procedures were enacted all around the world, and remain to this day. They were drawn up and maintained not just by the FAA but by aviation authorities all over the world, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), an annex of the UN that oversees airline safety, and IATA (International Air Transport Association). And no, not all (or most) pre 9/11 events were in the US, but the figures don't lie - the amount of hijackings, bombings, and other unlawful interference with aircraft and flight crew dropped all over the world after the implementation of the post 9/11 security rules. You may not like them. You may find them heavy handed. You may find that they might benefit from a more intelligent, less blanket system. But the fact is that it has worked - it's a working solution, albeit a crude one.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

We should ban banning things and otherwise imposing sanctions that do nothing but create a false sense of security. Things like the ridiculous airline rules that went in after 9/11, or AMC theaters' new costume ban. You know, pointless rules that give an illusion of safety to idiots, but only annoy the rest of us because they don't actually make us safer. They inconvenience innocent people, calm stupid people, and that's about it.

Well airport security has unquestionably made flying safer; the amount of aircraft bombed in the sky or hijacked has dropped dramatically since the post 9/11 measures were introduced.

[citation needed]

You're forgetting the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber. The only reason neither of them were successful was because they messed up their own plan and got the mixture on the chemical explosives wrong. Hilariously so in the case of the underwear bomber, who did little but burn his own crotch. Besides, airplane bombings and hijackings were rare to begin with. The last decade or so has been pretty much par for the course.

I am not forgetting anything. The only issue here is that you have no clue what you're talking about. Yes, there have been times where the net was slipped but aircraft bombings and hijacking have dropped - no question. Yes they were rare, but they're a lot rarer now. (Actually, hickajings weren't really that rare at all). In the 70's, 80's and 90's, quite a lot - certainly, a number that would surprise you - of airliners were bombed. The number has dropped. The security has worked. That's indisputable, and if you argue, you're going up against hard facts.

We should ban banning things and otherwise imposing sanctions that do nothing but create a false sense of security. Things like the ridiculous airline rules that went in after 9/11, or AMC theaters' new costume ban. You know, pointless rules that give an illusion of safety to idiots, but only annoy the rest of us because they don't actually make us safer. They inconvenience innocent people, calm stupid people, and that's about it.

Well airport security has unquestionably made flying safer; the amount of aircraft bombed in the sky or hijacked has dropped dramatically since the post 9/11 measures were introduced.

[citation needed]

http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php?cat=H2

Drops from an average of 18 per year for the 10 years prior to 9/11, to an average of about 4 per yer for the 10 years afterwards.

[citation granted]

What countries were those planes flying out of, though? I mean, 1969 shows 86 hijackings. There is no way those were all out of the US. There were not 18 hijackings a year on American airliners prior to 9/11, and it was not the entire world that cracked down after 9/11, it was primarily the US and other countries that had a lot of airline security to begin with.

Edit: I mean, look at the wikipedia <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings>article. Aside from a streak in the 1970s which was over by the 1980's, hijackings overwhemlmingly have nothing to do with the US, and little to do with any other first world nations, either.

The post 9/11 security procedures were enacted all around the world, and remain to this day. They were drawn up and maintained not just by the FAA but by aviation authorities all over the world, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), an annex of the UN that oversees airline safety, and IATA (International Air Transport Association). And no, not all (or most) pre 9/11 events were in the US, but the figures don't lie - the amount of hijackings, bombings, and other unlawful interference with aircraft and flight crew dropped all over the world after the implementation of the post 9/11 security rules. You may not like them. You may find them heavy handed. You may find that they might benefit from a more intelligent, less blanket system. But the fact is that it has worked - it's a working solution, albeit a crude one.

Even if parts of the rules are working, it has nothing to do with the rules against nail clippers and shampoo bottles, nor does it have anything to do with the new electronic strip search machines that are going in all over the US. Those rules have not worked as anything but a way of calming down the terminally stupid. For that matter, the do not fly list hasn't done much either, considering that it's full of innocent people, but it didn't have either of the terrorists I mentioned earlier on it, despite the family of at least one of them trying to warn the authorities. Saying these U.S. specific things work because airline bombings and hijackings went down in the rest of the world (though not in the U.S., which was my entire point) after the new rules went in is like saying that, after a new (hypothetical) law goes in funding healthcare, the rider on it that allocates money for the government to buy cars from a manufacturing plant in one of the sponsors' home district is the reason healthcare suddenly becomes affordable. It's completely illogical.

 

[Keltrick]

In fact guns offer many owners the feeling of safety in security in their own homes. Having a gun next to your bed, can help you rest easy knowing that if someone tries to break into your home you will have some sort of power over the situation.

A person with a gun will always have power over a person without, and to make laws that ban people from having guns is to make laws that ban civilians from having power.

To the above, it seems like we're trading the 'delusion of safety' for a 'delusion of safety.' If we make guns illegal, it apparently won't change anything except give us a beautiful lie to believe. If we keep them around though, people that have them will feel safer knowing it hypothetically could help? Sure guns are a symbol of power, but that power is not among the people equally. There was a time when having a gun meant that if our government got out of line, we could step up and put them back in their place. That was long ago. In today's time, I don't care how many hunting rifles and hand guns you have, you have NO physical power over the government. It may take time to escalate, and for them to use full force, but what are you going to do? Overwhelm them with numbers and throw bodies at them? So to that point, you don't have power even now, with the gun.

If its not directed at person vs government conflict, and means banning civilians from having power over civilians, that's a good thing. No person should have that just because of the luxury of a gun.

He's wrong though people will always find a way to kill people and there are more than enough options for them to choose from. What would happen if u drove your car through a crowd of people? How many people can you kill with a bomb you made from chemicals you bought at Walmart? How hard was it for a couple muslim extremists to kill 2,996 people with some box cutters and 3 planes?

I would say to an extent, sure. People that are determined to kill, will kill. That being said there is a big difference between in the heat of the moment, pulling a trigger and going to research, plant and detonate a pipe bomb. So while, yes, a car is reasonable if they don't care WHO they are killing and just want to rack up numbers, I don't think we can assume if you take away guns, they'll go after homemade explosives and high jacking aircraft when they come home to find their lover cheating on them, etc.

Guns are special. They are pretty easy to get a hold of and do a lot of damage. There are things like knives which are much easier, but aren't as effective a weapon. There are things like explosives which are much harder and require a lot of time effort and patience to make, but are much more deadly. I don't think most people are going to scale up their attacks. Gun represent an easy to find, very effective killing tool.

in 2007 12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide

Now I think that's a flaw statistic in the point you're trying to make. I think if we added "via homicide" it would reduce the numbers of a lot of these. There are accident related injuries and deaths from guns all the time. I know that's not the main point though.

Another interesting thing is that guns are the only listed thing who's primary focus is killing people. I know you can have fun at a shooting range, but guns were not invented or improved with that in mind. Its a weapon. Nothing else on that list, stupid or not, was conceived for that purpose. (sickness of course being out of control, and not something created) When you give me a statistic that shows how many people are killed by the machine made to kill, I only see it doing its job. I may be more or less upset, when I hear WHO it killed and what kind of people, but at the end of the day, guns are a machine to hurt others, whether just or unjust in doing so.

Banning guns wont make them disappear anymore than making drugs illegal has made them disappear.

I disagree. Disappear? No. They won't, but it sure as heck makes them a lot harder to get. If cocaine was legal, I think it would be MUCH easier to get than it is now. Making things illegal helps the problem.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

Except that article was written by a person who is working for page hits and far from being an expert.

- One of is arguments was "That's, I'm sorry, fucking stupid". That's an actual quote.

- One of his arguments is that drugs were not designed to kill humans. He is convinced that recreational and medicinal drugs are the only kind of drugs that exist, for some reason.

- So some guy tried to argue that inanimate objects and the companies that manufacture them should not be responsible for evil intentions of the user. Every year people try to get rich by suing corporations that did nothing wrong and had no responsibility over the way criminals have obtained their guns (stolen, private sales, even legal sales - not their responsibility). His logic? "HURR DURR HE'S COMPARING MATCHES TO GUNS, POINT AT HIM AND LAUGH BECAUSE HE'S ACTUALLY THINKS THAT GUNS ARE LIKE MATCHES".

- The 2nd Amendment is about giving the citizens the right to possess the same tools the government has. The British had muskets and canons, Americans had muskets and canons. Fact is, a lot of cannons used by Americans were borrowed from civilians. If the military has semi-automatic rifles, so do the citizens. If the military has tanks, then civilians can own tanks - even if they are expensive and full of red-tape. Provided you have several hundred million dollars you could try to own a jet fighter. Saying that the founding fathers would have wanted the American people to give up certain kinds of firearms is stretching it.

i.e. the author was way out of line in some of his writing, and in some parts made some pretty silly arguments.

Sure you can own a firearm, a tank and your own jetfighter. All we need is to make sure that not only the "right" people can own them, such as people with a license or people with a clean criminal record.

And no, this is not a perfect solution. To be honest, I don't think there is a perfect solution, but that still doesn't mean that we can't have a healthy debate about it. Hell, the things I just is probably already enforced in several countries. Once again, don't mind me. I'm just passing through.

 

[blueb0g]

We should ban banning things and otherwise imposing sanctions that do nothing but create a false sense of security. Things like the ridiculous airline rules that went in after 9/11, or AMC theaters' new costume ban. You know, pointless rules that give an illusion of safety to idiots, but only annoy the rest of us because they don't actually make us safer. They inconvenience innocent people, calm stupid people, and that's about it.

Well airport security has unquestionably made flying safer; the amount of aircraft bombed in the sky or hijacked has dropped dramatically since the post 9/11 measures were introduced.

[citation needed]

You're forgetting the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber. The only reason neither of them were successful was because they messed up their own plan and got the mixture on the chemical explosives wrong. Hilariously so in the case of the underwear bomber, who did little but burn his own crotch. Besides, airplane bombings and hijackings were rare to begin with. The last decade or so has been pretty much par for the course.

I am not forgetting anything. The only issue here is that you have no clue what you're talking about. Yes, there have been times where the net was slipped but aircraft bombings and hijacking have dropped - no question. Yes they were rare, but they're a lot rarer now. (Actually, hickajings weren't really that rare at all). In the 70's, 80's and 90's, quite a lot - certainly, a number that would surprise you - of airliners were bombed. The number has dropped. The security has worked. That's indisputable, and if you argue, you're going up against hard facts.

We should ban banning things and otherwise imposing sanctions that do nothing but create a false sense of security. Things like the ridiculous airline rules that went in after 9/11, or AMC theaters' new costume ban. You know, pointless rules that give an illusion of safety to idiots, but only annoy the rest of us because they don't actually make us safer. They inconvenience innocent people, calm stupid people, and that's about it.

Well airport security has unquestionably made flying safer; the amount of aircraft bombed in the sky or hijacked has dropped dramatically since the post 9/11 measures were introduced.

[citation needed]

http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php?cat=H2

Drops from an average of 18 per year for the 10 years prior to 9/11, to an average of about 4 per yer for the 10 years afterwards.

[citation granted]

What countries were those planes flying out of, though? I mean, 1969 shows 86 hijackings. There is no way those were all out of the US. There were not 18 hijackings a year on American airliners prior to 9/11, and it was not the entire world that cracked down after 9/11, it was primarily the US and other countries that had a lot of airline security to begin with.

Edit: I mean, look at the wikipedia <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings>article. Aside from a streak in the 1970s which was over by the 1980's, hijackings overwhemlmingly have nothing to do with the US, and little to do with any other first world nations, either.

The post 9/11 security procedures were enacted all around the world, and remain to this day. They were drawn up and maintained not just by the FAA but by aviation authorities all over the world, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), an annex of the UN that oversees airline safety, and IATA (International Air Transport Association). And no, not all (or most) pre 9/11 events were in the US, but the figures don't lie - the amount of hijackings, bombings, and other unlawful interference with aircraft and flight crew dropped all over the world after the implementation of the post 9/11 security rules. You may not like them. You may find them heavy handed. You may find that they might benefit from a more intelligent, less blanket system. But the fact is that it has worked - it's a working solution, albeit a crude one.

Even if parts of the rules are working, it has nothing to do with the rules against nail clippers and shampoo bottles, nor does it have anything to do with the new electronic strip search machines that are going in all over the US. Those rules have not worked as anything but a way of calming down the terminally stupid. For that matter, the do not fly list hasn't done much either, considering that it's full of innocent people, but it didn't have either of the terrorists I mentioned earlier on it, despite the family of at least one of them trying to warn the authorities. Saying these U.S. specific things work because airline bombings and hijackings went down in the rest of the world (though not in the U.S., which was my entire point) after the new rules went in is like saying that, after a new (hypothetical) law goes in funding healthcare, the rider on it that allocates money for the government to buy cars from a manufacturing plant in one of the sponsors' home district is the reason healthcare suddenly becomes affordable. It's completely illogical.

A few things:

I never said that all of the security protocols make sense. They don't. They could bring the same benefit by being less heavy handed. However, they have brought results.

Your hypothetical example about healthcare really isn't relevant. The security protocols went into effect after the world was shocked into action with the explicit purpose of reducing the number of hijackings, bombings, and other unlawful interference. Directly after the fact, the number of hijackings, bombings, and other unlawful interference dropped. It's no coincidence. It could have been more effective but it has worked - the fact that bombers have to resort to blowing up their underwear somewhat proves that.

Also, the things that you talk about are not US specific, as I've already said.

Lastly, it's not just about reducing the figures. Yes, there hadn't been many hijackings in the US directly before 9/11 (but there had been hijackings in the western world, and let's not forget the likes of Air India 182 and Pan Am 103, that couldn't happen today), but air transport did meet a different type of threat during and following 9/11 and it had to be responded to. 9/11 showed terrorists just how effective a weapon an airliner could be, and just how much attention an attack on the air transport system would bring to their cause. The fact that the same thing hasn't happened again since 9/11 is a testament to the fact that the security measures DO work, either by directly foiling plans, reducing their effectiveness, or simply discouraging would-be-bombers/hijackers before they even try anything. And people have tried.

No, it's not perfect, and no, it's not just the US. But the security measures - despite their many flaws - have made flying safer, the world over. Improvements have to be made; we need to approach the idea of security from a more intelligent angle, to avoid the amount of disruption to innocent travelers - but our skies are safer thanks to those security measures. (Also to note - you say that "though not in the U.S., which was my entire point" is disingenuous, as you never raised the US in your initial post, and is callous because it makes it seem as if you don't care about the lives of people outside the US). Please, take it from someone who knows what he's talking about.

That's all I have to say about that. Take it or leave it, it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Keltrick]

I love engineering and mechanical devices.

Telling me I can't do anything besides destruction with firearms is like telling me I shouldn't own a car that goes over 120kms/h.

Besides that, I have straightened knife blades and mushed potatoes with a gun. Do I win?

That's simply not what it was designed for. Your metaphor is a little skewed. Its more like saying you shouldn't own a car if you intend to drive it. A car's main purpose is transporting you somewhere. Technically you could use it to straighten knife blades all day long, but it wasn't made for that.

A firearm is a weapon. Its was invented and designed for it. While I agree you can have completely not destructive fun with them, you can also buy a car just to sit on a pedestal and show off, never intending to drive it. Its trying to deny what their purpose is, just because you decided to use them differently once in a while.

Even target shooting is destruction, although it doesn't harm anyone. Skeet shooting is the best example of this. Stationary targets too, they just don't explode into pieces. Destruction still takes place though.

 

[MetalMonkey74]

Prohibition doesn't work.

Banning something doesn't make people not want it.It only creates a black market, and a black market puts the power in the hands of organised crime. Organised crime leads to violence between rival criminal gangs, which in turn leads to innocent people being hurt and dragged into a life of crime.

its a viscous circle that only benefits the top criminals and no one else.

Sometimes, people do stupid things. Its unavoidable. Its human nature.

Personally i think that if weapons were outright banned everywhere, and the world stopped producing weapons entirely it would be a better place. But that's not going to happen. I also think organised religion should be banned as that seems to cause more hate and harm than it does good. But then again, we are arguing morality, and morality can never be argued as different people view things in different ways.

So the bottom line is that banning anything will not help. Instead, why don't we try and look at history and learn some lessons from it, maybe future disasters can be avoided.

 

[ElPatron]

Sure you can own a firearm, a tank and your own jetfighter. All we need is to make sure that not only the "right" people can own them, such as people with a license or people with a clean criminal record.

That's why background checks are done.

Even target shooting is destruction, although it doesn't harm anyone. Skeet shooting is the best example of this. Stationary targets too, they just don't explode into pieces. Destruction still takes place though.

Ever heard of the .22 BB caliber firearms used in target shooting? Hardly destructive. They are propelled by the shock sensitive compound and no powder.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

That's why background checks are done.

And that's all I'm really asking for and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way, hence my first comment.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Except that article was written by a person who is working for page hits and far from being an expert.

- One of is arguments was "That's, I'm sorry, fucking stupid". That's an actual quote.

- One of his arguments is that drugs were not designed to kill humans. He is convinced that recreational and medicinal drugs are the only kind of drugs that exist, for some reason.

- So some guy tried to argue that inanimate objects and the companies that manufacture them should not be responsible for evil intentions of the user. Every year people try to get rich by suing corporations that did nothing wrong and had no responsibility over the way criminals have obtained their guns (stolen, private sales, even legal sales - not their responsibility). His logic? "HURR DURR HE'S COMPARING MATCHES TO GUNS, POINT AT HIM AND LAUGH BECAUSE HE'S ACTUALLY THINKS THAT GUNS ARE LIKE MATCHES".

- The 2nd Amendment is about giving the citizens the right to possess the same tools the government has. The British had muskets and canons, Americans had muskets and canons. Fact is, a lot of cannons used by Americans were borrowed from civilians. If the military has semi-automatic rifles, so do the citizens. If the military has tanks, then civilians can own tanks - even if they are expensive and full of red-tape. Provided you have several hundred million dollars you could try to own a jet fighter. Saying that the founding fathers would have wanted the American people to give up certain kinds of firearms is stretching it.

i.e. the author was way out of line in some of his writing, and in some parts made some pretty silly arguments.

Sure you can own a firearm, a tank and your own jetfighter. All we need is to make sure that not only the "right" people can own them, such as people with a license or people with a clean criminal record.

And no, this is not a perfect solution. To be honest, I don't think there is a perfect solution, but that still doesn't mean that we can't have a healthy debate about it. Hell, the things I just is probably already enforced in several countries. Once again, don't mind me. I'm just passing through.

Funniest thing about the 2nd amendment is that it gives the right to bear arms to a militia. IE The National Guard has the right to bear arms. The citizens of the United States do not (unless they join the National Guard). It's funny because it's true.

More OT: OP is crazy. Has basically shot down (pun intended) every rational argument armed only with crazy (and probably a lot of guns). You can't argue with crazy. I'm out.

 

[Leadfinger]

The most interesting point that I saw is that Canada has a gun ownership almost as high as the United States and less then half the homicide rate per 100k. In Canada, handguns are highly regulated and assault weapons are restricted to police and military. So this is a solid argument towards tightening control over handguns and, well, guns that are only intended to kill people.

Yes, lets ignore the fact that Canada is a country high higher standards of living and less poverty.

Assault weapons are only used in about 1% of the crime in the US. Their restriction in Canada is a moot point.

Besides, in Canada it is possible to own assault weapons such as AR15 or the VZ58 even if you're not in the police.

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

Japan is also the country where a woman was killed because criminals modified an airsoft gun.

Japan is also a country with a shit-ton of suicides.

How about not comparing totally different countries and cultures while pretending that a metric ton of other factors are irrelevant?

Don't forget they live on an island. Its easy keeping contraband off of an island.

No it's not. Busy ports can have millions of containers moving around every year. It would be impossible to check more than a few of them.

Well, El Patron, I believe the "woman killed by heavily modified airsoft gun" was a hoax. Japan does have a lot of suicides, and should look into taking steps to reduce the overall number of suicides, but very few of the suicides involve firearms-much less than the U.S., for example, so I'm not sure this point is germane to our discussion of gun control.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

However, I did stumble upon an interesting article just recently which I think may shed some light on why did whole debate seem to have reached a deadlock.

Except that article was written by a person who is working for page hits and far from being an expert.

- One of is arguments was "That's, I'm sorry, fucking stupid". That's an actual quote.

- One of his arguments is that drugs were not designed to kill humans. He is convinced that recreational and medicinal drugs are the only kind of drugs that exist, for some reason.

- So some guy tried to argue that inanimate objects and the companies that manufacture them should not be responsible for evil intentions of the user. Every year people try to get rich by suing corporations that did nothing wrong and had no responsibility over the way criminals have obtained their guns (stolen, private sales, even legal sales - not their responsibility). His logic? "HURR DURR HE'S COMPARING MATCHES TO GUNS, POINT AT HIM AND LAUGH BECAUSE HE'S ACTUALLY THINKS THAT GUNS ARE LIKE MATCHES".

- The 2nd Amendment is about giving the citizens the right to possess the same tools the government has. The British had muskets and canons, Americans had muskets and canons. Fact is, a lot of cannons used by Americans were borrowed from civilians. If the military has semi-automatic rifles, so do the citizens. If the military has tanks, then civilians can own tanks - even if they are expensive and full of red-tape. Provided you have several hundred million dollars you could try to own a jet fighter. Saying that the founding fathers would have wanted the American people to give up certain kinds of firearms is stretching it.

i.e. the author was way out of line in some of his writing, and in some parts made some pretty silly arguments.

First one is valid-ish, in the same way a Bow and Arrow are fun for shooting targets with, but both functions are solely weaponised functions. Not getting into the deterrent side of things because that's not the point of what I was saying.

No-one's asking for "Stricter knife control" (though in some places there already is strict knife control) because knives are used for preparing food, whittling wood, a range of things, guns are used for shooting things and that's all they do. Even as a deterrent the deterrent is "I will kill you", do guns serve any purpose other than the use of/threat of lethal force?

I love engineering and mechanical devices.

Telling me I can't do anything besides destruction with firearms is like telling me I shouldn't own a car that goes over 120kms/h.

Besides that, I have straightened knife blades and mushed potatoes with a gun. Do I win?

http://www.ipsc.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_shooting

I forgot how much of a spur of a moment sport competitive shooting is, of course, you must need to purchase a wide range of fire-arms and be constantly prepared to start a match, the club certainly wouldn't provide them. And when shooting targets or clay pigeons you of course do no damage to them at all and cause no destruction.

As Lol as mashing potatos is, it still doesn't fit the car example as the car CAN go over 100 miles per hour, a bullet cannot go under something like 500 MILES per hour, its false equivalence (in b4: "you don't need to go 100 miles per hour to kill someone 8D", no but it is possible to drive a car in a way that won't injure someone if you hit them)

I'm not really on either side of the argument but there are a few people who need to stop pretending guns are just harmless tools which CAN kill people in the same way a car or a stick could. That is literally all they are designed to do, mashing potatoes with the butt, fine, doing some target shooting, it'll mean you're better when you attempt it on a real person (or are they human shaped for a different reason?). You can argue gun control with stronger arguments than "hurr, people also die from cars, cars must also be illegalised"

 

[Vegosiux]

- One of his arguments is that drugs were not designed to kill humans. He is convinced that recreational and medicinal drugs are the only kind of drugs that exist, for some reason.

Actua, that's a pretty good argument, considering that you want to keep the folks using them alive so they come back for more.

I've never quite managed to wrap my mind around the term "recreational drugs" so I might be misinterpreting, but I'd call substances designed to outright kill "poisons" or "venoms", depending on how you get them into the system.

 

[bizentine]

Speaking as someone who's ownership of a gun has saved the life of myself and possibly a coworker, I have to say that banning guns outright is idiotic.
A gun allows a person who could otherwise not defend themselves have a fighting chance against much bigger people. Often times a gun doesn't even have to be fired in order to do it's job either. I simply made it obvious I had it, and the situation ended.

All a gun is, is a chunk of metal that focuses an explosion in one direction. it's not magic, it's not something to be glorified or demonized, it is a tool. A tool that levels the playing-field.

 

[ElPatron]

I forgot how much of a spur of a moment sport competitive shooting is, of course, you must need to purchase a wide range of fire-arms and be constantly prepared to start a match, the club certainly wouldn't provide them. And when shooting targets or clay pigeons you of course do no damage to them at all and cause no destruction.

Just because I mentioned something, doesn't mean that my whole post is based on it.

I am aware that I said that it is possible to use firearms without causing destruction. In IPSC steel targets the hardness of the targets does not allow lead projectiles to destroy itself. However I might also had that there are legit purposes in destruction.

it still doesn't fit the car example as the car CAN go over 100 miles per hour, a bullet cannot go under something like 500 MILES per hour, its false equivalence

If a car's purpose is to get me to places faster than walking and speeding is illegal, why do cars go over 90mph?

A Bugati Veyron was purpose built to drive over 400 kilometers/hour. Why should it be legal?

You're trying to create the false equivalence. I never mentioned the speed of bullets for a reason.

it'll mean you're better when you attempt it on a real person (or are they human shaped for a different reason?). You can argue gun control with stronger arguments than "hurr, people also die from cars, cars must also be illegalised"

How many murders have IPSC champions committed? Please give numbers if you're making assumptions.

Human shapes were derived from military targets to increase the chance of a soldier shooting the first time he had the enemy on his sights.

AND I AM NOT USING THAT ARGUMENT. I am use your own arguments against you. If you argue that firearms were purpose built to kill, which is illegal, your car (which probably goes over 90mph) was purpose built to go over the speeding limit and run away from the police. I am trying to ridicule the "purpose built" argument.

We are free to chose how to use objects around us. You have seen stupid arguments before so you're trying to put words on my posts so that you can feel that you're right on the internet.

- One of his arguments is that drugs were not designed to kill humans. He is convinced that recreational and medicinal drugs are the only kind of drugs that exist, for some reason.

Actua, that's a pretty good argument, considering that you want to keep the folks using them alive so they come back for more.

I've never quite managed to wrap my mind around the term "recreational drugs" so I might be misinterpreting, but I'd call substances designed to outright kill "poisons" or "venoms", depending on how you get them into the system.

Uh, okay, the "recreational drugs" were not designed to kill people. Maybe some drugs were designed to kill people but we found they were beneficial in small concentrations so we callhem meds.

However, there are drugs designed to be lethal. That's what the author decided to ignore.

Well, El Patron, I believe the "woman killed by heavily modified airsoft gun" was a hoax. Japan does have a lot of suicides, and should look into taking steps to reduce the overall number of suicides, but very few of the suicides involve firearms-much less than the U.S., for example, so I'm not sure this point is germane to our discussion of gun control.

Hope I didn't screw up the quote, but here it goes:

Yes, a woman was killed by an airsoft replica.

It was a Digicon race-gun modified and running on unrestricted CO2. If I not mistaken that death was responsible for the limitation on the power of airsoft replicas. Now every replica must have a muzzle energy equal or lower than 1 joule.

EDIT: and if you remove bridges there won't be any Japanese people jumping from them. Suicides are self-inflicted and not related to gun control.

 

[Leadfinger]

I forgot how much of a spur of a moment sport competitive shooting is, of course, you must need to purchase a wide range of fire-arms and be constantly prepared to start a match, the club certainly wouldn't provide them. And when shooting targets or clay pigeons you of course do no damage to them at all and cause no destruction.

Just because I mentioned something, doesn't mean that my whole post is based on it.

I am aware that I said that it is possible to use firearms without causing destruction. In IPSC steel targets the hardness of the targets does not allow lead projectiles to destroy itself. However I might also had that there are legit purposes in destruction.

it still doesn't fit the car example as the car CAN go over 100 miles per hour, a bullet cannot go under something like 500 MILES per hour, its false equivalence

If a car's purpose is to get me to places faster than walking and speeding is illegal, why do cars go over 90mph?

A Bugati Veyron was purpose built to drive over 400 kilometers/hour. Why should it be legal?

You're trying to create the false equivalence. I never mentioned the speed of bullets for a reason.

it'll mean you're better when you attempt it on a real person (or are they human shaped for a different reason?). You can argue gun control with stronger arguments than "hurr, people also die from cars, cars must also be illegalised"

How many murders have IPSC champions committed? Please give numbers if you're making assumptions.

Human shapes were derived from military targets to increase the chance of a soldier shooting the first time he had the enemy on his sights.

AND I AM NOT USING THAT ARGUMENT. I am use your own arguments against you. If you argue that firearms were purpose built to kill, which is illegal, your car (which probably goes over 90mph) was purpose built to go over the speeding limit and run away from the police. I am trying to ridicule the "purpose built" argument.

We are free to chose how to use objects around us. You have seen stupid arguments before so you're trying to put words on my posts so that you can feel that you're right on the internet.

- One of his arguments is that drugs were not designed to kill humans. He is convinced that recreational and medicinal drugs are the only kind of drugs that exist, for some reason.

Actua, that's a pretty good argument, considering that you want to keep the folks using them alive so they come back for more.

I've never quite managed to wrap my mind around the term "recreational drugs" so I might be misinterpreting, but I'd call substances designed to outright kill "poisons" or "venoms", depending on how you get them into the system.

Uh, okay, the "recreational drugs" were not designed to kill people. Maybe some drugs were designed to kill people but we found they were beneficial in small concentrations so we callhem meds.

However, there are drugs designed to be lethal. That's what the author decided to ignore.

Well, El Patron, I believe the "woman killed by heavily modified airsoft gun" was a hoax. Japan does have a lot of suicides, and should look into taking steps to reduce the overall number of suicides, but very few of the suicides involve firearms-much less than the U.S., for example, so I'm not sure this point is germane to our discussion of gun control.

Hope I didn't screw up the quote, but here it goes:

Yes, a woman was killed by an airsoft replica.

It was a Digicon race-gun modified and running on unrestricted CO2. If I not mistaken that death was responsible for the limitation on the power of airsoft replicas. Now every replica must have a muzzle energy equal or lower than 1 joule.

EDIT: and if you remove bridges there won't be any Japanese people jumping from them. Suicides are self-inflicted and not related to gun control.

I did read reliable news that someone had damaged a car windshield using a Digicon, and that was the reason for the stiffened airsoft controls, but I haven't seen anything reliable documenting that someone had been killed. I mean, the most you could possibly juice up any sort of airsoft gun would be to the level of a pellet gun, so I suppose it's remotely possible to kill someone, but it would be pretty hard to do so.

Anyhoo, to get back to our topic, yes there are cultural differences between Japan and the U.S., but even so it's hard to deny that Japan's tough gun laws have something to do with the lack of firearm related killings in Japan. Ergo, gun control works. This isn't to say that exactly the same kind of laws that work in Japan would work in the U.S., but I also disagree with those who say gun control could never work.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I forgot how much of a spur of a moment sport competitive shooting is, of course, you must need to purchase a wide range of fire-arms and be constantly prepared to start a match, the club certainly wouldn't provide them. And when shooting targets or clay pigeons you of course do no damage to them at all and cause no destruction.

Just because I mentioned something, doesn't mean that my whole post is based on it.

I am aware that I said that it is possible to use firearms without causing destruction. In IPSC steel targets the hardness of the targets does not allow lead projectiles to destroy itself. However I might also had that there are legit purposes in destruction.

it still doesn't fit the car example as the car CAN go over 100 miles per hour, a bullet cannot go under something like 500 MILES per hour, its false equivalence

If a car's purpose is to get me to places faster than walking and speeding is illegal, why do cars go over 90mph?

A Bugati Veyron was purpose built to drive over 400 kilometers/hour. Why should it be legal?

You're trying to create the false equivalence. I never mentioned the speed of bullets for a reason.

it'll mean you're better when you attempt it on a real person (or are they human shaped for a different reason?). You can argue gun control with stronger arguments than "hurr, people also die from cars, cars must also be illegalised"

How many murders have IPSC champions committed? Please give numbers if you're making assumptions.

Human shapes were derived from military targets to increase the chance of a soldier shooting the first time he had the enemy on his sights.

AND I AM NOT USING THAT ARGUMENT. I am use your own arguments against you. If you argue that firearms were purpose built to kill, which is illegal, your car (which probably goes over 90mph) was purpose built to go over the speeding limit and run away from the police. I am trying to ridicule the "purpose built" argument.

We are free to chose how to use objects around us. You have seen stupid arguments before so you're trying to put words on my posts so that you can feel that you're right on the internet.

Uhh, internet ate my post so take 2 and briefer. Cars require quite strict licensing, the Bugati Veyron requires a lot of insurance and vehicular homocide is far lower than fire-arm related homocide (unless you can prove otherwise). Majority of cars designed to travel well over the speed limit aren't street legal, those that are. It's also a far end of the spectrum, akin to having a SAW in your pocket as your concealed weapon, the bulk of cars struggle to go very far over the speed limit (and speed limits are a different discussion to be having) and perhaps more importantly they have a domestic purpose ASIDE from those that require a controlled environment. You can race a car at 400kph round a track and you can fire an assault rifle at targets at a firing range. The difference is you can also drive the car at 30 down the street in a legal manner.

Your attempt at ridiculing the argument does not appear to have suceeded. Although while we're on the subject of ridiculing arguments, I'd rather like to carry a katana with me in public. Maybe some frag grenades, y'know, I don't HAVE to use them to blow people up. I can use the katana to cut the plastic tags off new clothes.

 

[Dwarfman]

We should ban Australia.

There are things there that man was certainly not meant to step on...

Oiii!! Don't say that mate! You'll make all our venomous snakes and spiders sad.