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

[WickedSkin]

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Personally, I agree with the alcohol bit, just saying.

just because drugs are still there, doesn't mean they're as widespread as they would be if they were legal.

 

[Wicky_42]

in 2007 12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide
118,021 people died from random accidents(like slipping off a ladder)
68,705 died from diabetes
137,353 died from respiratory disease
567,628 died from cancer
128,842 died from a stroke
599,413 died from hear attack
25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol related accidents

Maybe you need slightly more comparative information - 'deaths in gun related incidents' vs 'deaths by alcohol poisoning' is likely to yield biased data the other way - statistics can lie very easily!

I like how most of the other things you've pulled out are health-care related, when the republican parts of the US are busy doing all they can to prevent affordable healthcare for the masses...

I don't have much sympathy or understanding for the pro-gun lobby; it's just too much of a geo-cultural thing for us non-gun-toting foreigners to discus rationally, but US healthcare is a travesty.

 

[gphjr14]

America's infatuation with guns is so entrenched I doubt there's anything that can be done. Having worked at a hospital for 4 years most of the people who come in shot were shot by someone who had the gun illegally at least from what I've observed. I can only think of a few instances where the gunshots were accidental and of those 1 that involved a child.
The worst was this [http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-jilted-lover-case-latest-child-victims/story?id=15007068#.UBa_ZLSe7Ng].

I know there are laws that prohibit gun sales to people with active restraining orders but there's not much preventing you from just buying one illegally or just getting one from a friend or relative.

 

[ElPatron]

Uhh, internet ate my post so take 2 and briefer. Cars require quite strict licensing

Licensing that was designed so that most of the population could drive a car and that doesn't prevent deaths worldwide.

Licensing that does not stop anyone without a license to just steal or acquire a car in the black market.

, the Bugati Veyron requires a lot of insurance and vehicular homocide is far lower than fire-arm related homocide (unless you can prove otherwise).

What do you mean with proving? Vehicular homicide is probably one of the worst ways to kill someone.

However, car accidents are waaaaay more common than firearm accidents.

Doesn't change the fact that the Bugati Veyron has to purpose as a road car.

Majority of cars designed to travel well over the speed limit aren't street legal, those that are.

Wat. Even a Fiat Punto or a VW Golf can go over 120kmh. Even a Smart can do it, you just have to keep your foot down for two weeks.

If by "well over" you mean something like 250 km/h, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo can reach those speeds. Heck, lots of German cars are limited to 250.

To me, "well over" means enough to constitute a severe infraction, which is 150 km/h. Lots of cars reach those speeds.

Though I don't understand why would top speed be the equivalent to bulk in firearms.

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.

Katanas suck. Get a spear or a heavier sword with two edges.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

Digicon Targets are almost BB guns. Modify them for unrestricted CO2 and load steel BBs.

I am not talking about upgrading a Tokio Marui. Running it on unrestricted CO2 would probably shatter the slide, lol

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.

The Yakuza has guns. They have no need to use them, be it for cultural reasons or to avoid too much heat from the fuzz... I have no idea, I have never been associated with them.

Simply, they have illegal weapons and the police has the right to search people for the tiniest reasons. Even if a weapon is confiscated illegally, in Japan it's okay to use illegally seized evidence in court.

Japan is all about social control. I can't say that "gun control" itself prevents gun deaths, because the guns are there. They are simply not being used.

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

 

[ElPatron]

And there are non-lethal weapons useful for incapacitation against malevolent gun-wielders.

Pepper spray and tasers can still kill (expect being sued for "torturing" someone's relative - even if you win the case it wasted your time and money). They are called less-than-lethal because, if I'm not mistaken, there have been 300 deaths caused by the effects of tasers since 2006.

And who knows? Maybe if I ever get stunned by a taser I can bribe a crooked doctor to have him testify that it caused me nerve damage. Show up in court jerking my hands.

Thing is, people on drugs might not stop because of a taser. Heck, they might not even stop after being shot.

Pepper spray wears down quicker if your target has exposed himself to pepper spray enough times before. Besides, if I were a raging, blind person with a knife I'd start slashing everything in reach.

I'm not saying getting rid of military-grade weaponry in the civilian population will fix all murders, but they'll make the premediated ones harder.

Wait. I think most murders were not premeditated. Anyway... Most crimes are not committed with assault weapons as they are only used in nearly 1% of gun crime.

And premeditated murder can be committed easily with explosives or poison - or even cheap single shot pistols. Who the hell would want to shoot someone with an assault weapon, which is very expensive and harder to dispose of?

Spoiler: Non-military grade (your word), used by Breivik - 69 kills

Spoiler: military grade, used by Martin Bryant, 35 kills

Both fire nearly identical calibers in semi-automatic fashion. Cosmetic features do not make weapons deadlier.

And I suggest its a power to great to be limited to the elites

What does that even mean? I am arguing for state control over fire arms. That would mean that elected officials (that means your representatives) decide that there has to be rules in place so that the only people allowed to have such arms are responsible, sane, rational people who needs them, and that we have a regestry of who these people are. If that means that only "the elite" will have guns then that's surely a good idea, no?

Remember back when the "elite" had guns and the low-lives didn't? Whites owned black people. Free people owned guns, slaves didn't.

The elite are the "1%" (I hate that term, but whatever), the rich, the untouchable. Why would they have even more control, privileges and rights?

This is a VERY extreme example, but remember the first Batman movie? The mobster guy says he could shoot Christian Bale's head off in front of the authorities. In the real world that would be very hard to pull off, but don't forget that's why "godfathers" have henchmen to take the fall. How many times have important criminals dodged prison sentences?

The elites should be the last ones to own guns.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Uhh, internet ate my post so take 2 and briefer. Cars require quite strict licensing

Licensing that was designed so that most of the population could drive a car and that doesn't prevent deaths worldwide.

Licensing that does not stop anyone without a license to just steal or acquire a car in the black market.

, the Bugati Veyron requires a lot of insurance and vehicular homocide is far lower than fire-arm related homocide (unless you can prove otherwise).

What do you mean with proving? Vehicular homicide is probably one of the worst ways to kill someone.

However, car accidents are waaaaay more common than firearm accidents.

Doesn't change the fact that the Bugati Veyron has to purpose as a road car.

Majority of cars designed to travel well over the speed limit aren't street legal, those that are.

Wat. Even a Fiat Punto or a VW Golf can go over 120kmh. Even a Smart can do it, you just have to keep your foot down for two weeks.

If by "well over" you mean something like 250 km/h, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo can reach those speeds. Heck, lots of German cars are limited to 250.

To me, "well over" means enough to constitute a severe infraction, which is 150 km/h. Lots of cars reach those speeds.

Though I don't understand why would top speed be the equivalent to bulk in firearms.

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.

Katanas suck. Get a spear or a heavier sword with two edges.

I'm gonna be lazy and just do paragraph by paragraph down here.

You're right, it is possible to acquire a car illegally. It is also possible to acquire a gun illegally so for the purposes of comparison I dunno if this gels with the point. Car licensing at least requires you to show some responsibility, I don't believe the gun background test does? (other than showing you haven't gone on a rampage before, I guess, not overly familiar so could well need correction here)

By proving I mean statistics, say stats of vehicular homocide VS deaths by firearms. I'd ask for stats for the car accident/gun accidents thing but I'm inclined to think you're right, if just because of the far greater prevalence of cars and the fact they can be caused by a wider range of factors (deer in front of the car, old pedestrian, cyclists suddenly zipping across, etc)

I'm still getting my brain around kilometres so this may be why I'm unsure of the scale but the fastest I can concieve a regular car achieving is 150. That's dangerously speeding to be sure but this is only likely to be on a main road/freeway/highway as it does take time to get that fast. Same with bikes, Motorbikes can go incredibly fast in a short period of time but generally don't kill many people (other than the people ON the motorbike). When I think of well over I'm thinking 200ish miles and while some cars can likely achieve that (probably even some which are street legal) it's usually reserved for more impractical things like F1 cars. But this could be my own personal bias, this may have been a faulty line of reasoning on my part.

Rounding off, I'm actually having to fall back on sodding Cracked to think of a good way to express the point, all those cars can be used for a purpose other than killing people or practicing killing people (yes, you can use them to just shoot inanimate things because you want to, that unfortunately is still under the umbrella of practicing to kill people). It's the same reason I wouldn't carry a katana around with me (that and a spear would probably work better, I think I once again must concede ground on my argument for that) it can be used for only killing/injuring or practicing that. Cars can be used for a number of things such as driving around and disposing of the body involved in the earlier killing/injuring. You can weaponise nearly anything it's trickier to de-weaponise a weapon.

 

[ElPatron]

You're right, it is possible to acquire a car illegally. It is also possible to acquire a gun illegally so for the purposes of comparison I dunno if this gels with the point. Car licensing at least requires you to show some responsibility, I don't believe the gun background test does? (other than showing you haven't gone on a rampage before, I guess, not overly familiar so could well need correction here)

Just because I know the laws and write them in a test does not prove I am going to follow them. Just because during the driving exam everyone drives at 45km/h (it gets annoying because there are several driving schools near my home and college) doesn't mean they will do that in a "real life" situation.

Background tests do not show responsibility? Fair point. But they also show that you are not being fined for drinking and driving, being a drug addict, beating your wife or assaulting people on the street. In the Netherlands a kid was granted a license to own a gun even though his medical records shown that he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and attempted suicide.

Rounding off, I'm actually having to fall back on sodding Cracked to think of a good way to express the point, all those cars can be used for a purpose other than killing people

I'm not talking about killing people. I'm talking about purpose. Certain cars are designed as road cars but at the same time purpose built for performance.

I think that denying things to citizens based on "purpose" should mean the end of pretty much a big chunk of luxury items. Because I am that mean.

 

[Leadfinger]

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Ignorant AND racist, all in one package!

Your right we should throw black people on that list as well.

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.

Digicon Targets are almost BB guns. Modify them for unrestricted CO2 and load steel BBs.

I am not talking about upgrading a Tokio Marui. Running it on unrestricted CO2 would probably shatter the slide, lol

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.

The Yakuza has guns. They have no need to use them, be it for cultural reasons or to avoid too much heat from the fuzz... I have no idea, I have never been associated with them.

Simply, they have illegal weapons and the police has the right to search people for the tiniest reasons. Even if a weapon is confiscated illegally, in Japan it's okay to use illegally seized evidence in court.

Japan is all about social control. I can't say that "gun control" itself prevents gun deaths, because the guns are there. They are simply not being used.

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

The Yakuza don't generally have guns except in Takeshi Kitano movies. The guns aren't generally there, and they aren't used, because there's too much heat from the fuzz, and the penalties for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime are quite severe.

BTW, Japanese police don't have the right to search a person unless they have probable cause, just like in the U.S. Also, illegally obtained evidence can't be used in court.

 

[ElPatron]

The Yakuza don't generally have guns except in Takeshi Kitano movies. The guns aren't generally there, and they aren't used, because there's too much heat from the fuzz, and the penalties for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime are quite severe.

Which is exactly why they are not used. Simply put it's a market that is being explored.

I looked around and the sources I found claim from 50k to 100k illegal weapons circulating in Japan. The Yakuza deal with prostitution and drugs. Why wouldn't they sell those illegal goods if they have no need for guns?

You cannot claim that the guns are not there because guns exist everywhere Man has set foot on. Sten sub-machine guns can be manufactured in any machine shop, even if the ammunition is nearly impossible to get.

BTW, Japanese police don't have the right to search a person unless they have probable cause, just like in the U.S. Also, illegally obtained evidence can't be used in court.

Then one of the sources can eat a bag of dicks because they gave me useless info.

I still think it's more about social control than gun control alone.

 

[Leadfinger]

The Yakuza don't generally have guns except in Takeshi Kitano movies. The guns aren't generally there, and they aren't used, because there's too much heat from the fuzz, and the penalties for having an illegal gun or using a gun in a crime are quite severe.

Which is exactly why they are not used. Simply put it's a market that is being explored.

I looked around and the sources I found claim from 50k to 100k illegal weapons circulating in Japan. The Yakuza deal with prostitution and drugs. Why wouldn't they sell those illegal goods if they have no need for guns?

You cannot claim that the guns are not there because guns exist everywhere Man has set foot on. Sten sub-machine guns can be manufactured in any machine shop, even if the ammunition is nearly impossible to get.

BTW, Japanese police don't have the right to search a person unless they have probable cause, just like in the U.S. Also, illegally obtained evidence can't be used in court.

Then one of the sources can eat a bag of dicks because they gave me useless info.

I still think it's more about social control than gun control alone.

I think it's probably a question of both social control and gun control.

You do have spree killings in Japan. The killer is often armed with a hammer or a kitchen knife. Every time I hear of such an incident, I'm glad the psycho in question didn't have access to an assault rifle.
captcha-needs must

 

[WickedSkin]

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

Thank you captain Obvious

 

[WickedSkin]

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Ignorant AND racist, all in one package!

Since those 2 always goes hand-in-hand it's not really a sensation is it?

 

[Galletea]

Sooo what's your point? We should ban cancer and alcohol?
I'm seeing a lot of arguing, and a hell of a lot of analogies, but not any real point. It's all reactionary.

The thing is, banning guns isn't going to happen, no politician would dare try, so there's no point getting all pissy about the idea of it. And even if they did, it wouldn't stop psychos getting hold of firearms.

 

[ElPatron]

I think it's probably a question of both social control and gun control.

Uh, social control involves gun control. You can't separate both. If you're in control, it's not the guns that worry you.

You do have spree killings in Japan. The killer is often armed with a hammer or a kitchen knife. Every time I hear of such an incident, I'm glad the psycho in question didn't have access to an assault rifle.
captcha-needs must

Assault rifles are illegal in most countries. In the US there are no assault rifles registered after 1986 (the year of the machine-gun ban). The only ones available for purchase cost several thousand dollars because they are rare.

Their purchase also requires a $200 tax stamp and a VERY detailed background check done by the ATF. They will investigate your life and decide if you can have the assault rifle or not.

The purchase is covered with red-tape. I have searched about it, and apparently there has only been ONE crime ever committed with a legally purchased Class III weapon (where assault rifles belong) - ironically it was a policeman using a MAC11, which isn't even an assault rifle.

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

Thank you captain Obvious

I'm sorry for not detecting sarcasm trough simple text.

 

[bluesession]

I didn't read the 11 pages, sorry if it was said before...

We should ban LIFE.
You know whats the MAYOR real safety issue in the world: People living!
Let me explain. A LIVE person can DIE. (And a DEAD person just can't)
So I decree! from now on, everyone should die, to prevent them from getting hurt and dying. (Kinda reaper logic)

DONE safe place for everyone.

 

[Leadfinger]

I think it's probably a question of both social control and gun control.

Uh, social control involves gun control. You can't separate both. If you're in control, it's not the guns that worry you.

You do have spree killings in Japan. The killer is often armed with a hammer or a kitchen knife. Every time I hear of such an incident, I'm glad the psycho in question didn't have access to an assault rifle.
captcha-needs must

Assault rifles are illegal in most countries. In the US there are no assault rifles registered after 1986 (the year of the machine-gun ban). The only ones available for purchase cost several thousand dollars because they are rare.

Their purchase also requires a $200 tax stamp and a VERY detailed background check done by the ATF. They will investigate your life and decide if you can have the assault rifle or not.

The purchase is covered with red-tape. I have searched about it, and apparently there has only been ONE crime ever committed with a legally purchased Class III weapon (where assault rifles belong) - ironically it was a policeman using a MAC11, which isn't even an assault rifle.

I think banning white people from carrying guns would be enough.

Which will prevent people from all races from carrying weapons illegally.

Guess what? The Joker shooter was not allowed to bring guns to the movies but he did it anyway.

Thank you captain Obvious

I'm sorry for not detecting sarcasm trough simple text.

By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.