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

[tobi the good boy]

snip

Let me make a point that nobody seems to realize.

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN BANNING GUNS

Gun control refers to more strict regulations on guns. You know, that device who's sole purpose is to cause injury and death to a human being?

Gun control puts license and registration laws in place for people who want to own deadly weapons. You know most people like to argue that cars are more dangerous than firearms? Well you need a license to operate a car, and it has to be registered with the department of motor vehicles, AND it has to be insured.

A gun, a WEAPON, can and SHOULD have the same regulation. Because you can KILL someone with it. A gun is the only weapon in history that requires no training, skill, or even two functioning eyeballs to use properly.

They are highly dangerous. These are not toys. Someone can bang on about the right to bear arms all they want, but a gun is dangerous, and deserves respect.

No other country has this problem.

in 2007 12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide
118,021 people died from random accidents(like slipping off a ladder)

How's this for ya?

In 2007, 12,632 people in the US were killed by guns via homicide.
In 2007, 14 people in Canada were killed by guns via homicide.
66 in the UK.
140 in the EU.
77 in China.

Yeah, more people die from random accidents than outright homicide. Does that make the issue any less serious? Do we write off the deaths of over 12,000 people simply because more people died from other problems?

12,632 people died from gun violence. That's 12,632 more than there should be.

Do you think weapons are fun? That you just get to have one to play with? No. These are fucking weapons. Yeah, criminals can still get guns but it will at least be harder for them. Just because they still can we should just make it easier for them?

America too obsessed with their guns. They need to grow the fuck up and realize that weapons deserve respect. And Americans have no respect for their weapons. People who write off murder just because it's a lower statistic than accidents are defined by one word.

Prick.

I've seen you post around this site, and while I don't normally agree with you, I have to tip my hat to you on this one.

 

[Daveman]

I believe that a gun is the ultimate symbol of power. 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. The United States is a country founded for the people by the people. The power should rest with all of us equally

So somebody with a tank will always have power over somebody without a tank. Guns are hardly the ultimate symbol of power. I can hire a bunch of goons and buy them guns and then I'll still have power over other people with a gun. Would it not be truer then to say that, if we followed your idea, people with the most money should have power over everyone else. A cynic would say that's already the case.

People have no right to power.

And just because we can never prevent every bad thing from happening doesn't mean we should give up and just let it happen. We responded to the threat of terrorism with increased airport security measures. Learning from our mistakes is the only way to make any sort of progress, not cling to outrageously outdated ideals.

I have no problem with a civilian owning a tank; well no more problem than i have with the government owning tanks.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. The point, should you actually care, is that you're suggesting power is bought and that that is a healthy system.

 

[Saltarius]

We need to ban everything. It's the only way we can be sure that we're absolutely safe.

 

[Sight Unseen]

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

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.

if people wanted to keep guns for personal safety, what would be the point of having the gun disassembled, not loaded, and locked in a cabinet somewhere... I'm pretty sure that kind of defeats the purpose if you randomly get a break in at 3 in the morning, the last thing you want to worry about is finding your key, putting the gun together, and loading it before you can use this. All of this likely in the dark and half a wake...

In countries where the gun control enforces a locker rule, guns aren't kept for personal safety. (And, surprisingly, people aren't constantly dying in robberies and the likes)
They're pretty shitty for self defense anyways.
Granted, for home defense, they're alright. Although pretty useless if you can't get a drop on the criminal.
In a society where guns are controlled, you're better off just defending your home with a bat, or calling the police.

I agree with you completely. I was just saying that just requiring a gun locker in the states wouldn't really be a good solution IMO. I'm in favour of gun control though, but I don't know how you can even approach implementing it in the states without the conservative right thinking the government is going to murder them all in their sleep.


Off Topic: Woah new forum layout.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Shouldn't the question really be: What things should we allow to give ourselves the delusion of safety?



Captcha: draw a blank



Edit: The thing is, if you live in a paranoid culture, you of course will think that you MUST have guns, you can't POSSIBLY survive without them. The reality is most people are not as scary as you think they are - they ARE NOT out to get you. Fact: I have never even seen a real gun that isn't on TV/Cinema/Video Games because, where I come from, we don't live in (as much as) a "climate of fear" as the US.

 

[Mathurin]

Yet nukes and explosive of all kinds are area of effect weapons, they are inherently pointed at everyone nearby, they must be carefully stored and maintained. They react to external changes and are complex.
Meanwhiles, guns are relatively inert, do not go off on their own (no matter what TV tells you) and only go off through intent or rank neglect.

Exactly! There are really more similarities then differences. Guns are a bit (not quite) like nukes on a micro level. Dangerous to individuals in the same way that nukes are dangerous to groups. We would not sell a nuke to an unstable state, and we should not sell a gun to just anyone who wants them. Ergo we need regulation.

Um no, there are not more similarities than differences, the only similarity is "they both kill people"

Guns on the battlefield dramatically reduced the power of the nobles

... and very often put it in the hands of absolutist kings. And it is not true that the nobles lost power after the advent of gunpowder. England arguable remained an aristocracy until the parlamentary reform of 1832, maybe even longer. The United Provinces (The Netherlands)was ruled by a noble republic for 200 years. And thats only Europe! Asian states had guns, but most of them didn't turn democratic until very recently and some haven't yet. No, democracy is very much a product of ideological and socio-economic conditions. It does not just come down to whether or not "the people" has guns.

Im not arguing that, the people had to be willing to demand democracy, much like the arab spring. Yet guns were a vital part of it, were the american revolution fought without guns, with armor and the handweapons prior to firearms, the americans would have lost.

 

[McMullen]

You know, there are one or two other threads you could demonise people wanting gun restrictions in.

Pretty much this. I mean, for a new thread, one could at least come up with something new...this is a "heard it a million times" thing.

While I don't have a strong opinion on the issue one way or another and dislike repeat threads as much as the next guy, I think it's fair to bring it up again.

Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.

 

[Mathurin]

snip

Let me make a point that nobody seems to realize.

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN BANNING GUNS

Correction, gun control does not inherently mean banning guns. It can and frequently does mean banning guns.

Gun control refers to more strict regulations on guns. You know, that device who's sole purpose is to cause injury and death to a human being?

Gun control puts license and registration laws in place for people who want to own deadly weapons.

Oh, so all you want to do is license and register, gee, that seems fine.
Except thats all that New York, Washington DC and Chicago claimed they wanted to do, just license and register guns and owners, then they changed their mind and refused to register entire classes of firearms.
Turns out politicians lie.

You know most people like to argue that cars are more dangerous than firearms? Well you need a license to operate a car, and it has to be registered with the department of motor vehicles, AND it has to be insured.

False, I own several cars that I used to spare parts, nobody required me to tag or insure them, I dont need to register them or even possess a title.

You need to tag and insure a car to drive it on public roads, you need a license to drive on public roads.

You may drive unlicensed and untagged vehicles without a drivers license all you wish on private property, which is also, coincidentally, where people use firearms.

A gun, a WEAPON, can and SHOULD have the same regulation. Because you can KILL someone with it. A gun is the only weapon in history that requires no training, skill, or even two functioning eyeballs to use properly.

It requires minimal training, I wouldnt say no training.
Regardless, you are right, they are far simpler than cars, which is part of the reason we dont need a government license.

Still, I am willing to find a meeting point on training, I have long thought that we needed a basic firearms safety course as a part of high school, a basic one wouldnt even take 2 hours.

They are highly dangerous. These are not toys. Someone can bang on about the right to bear arms all they want, but a gun is dangerous, and deserves respect.

No other country has this problem.

Someone can bang on about their right to free speech, but white supremacists are dangerous.

See, I can disrespect rights too, isnt it fun?
Suffice to say, the 2nd ammendment is part and parcel of our constitution, until that changes we DO have a right to bear arms in the US, enshrined in law. Unless you recommend we ignore an inconvenient part of our constitution, that could never lead to bad things.

in 2007 12,632 people were killed by guns via homicide
118,021 people died from random accidents(like slipping off a ladder)

How's this for ya?

In 2007, 12,632 people in the US were killed by guns via homicide.
In 2007, 14 people in Canada were killed by guns via homicide.
66 in the UK.
140 in the EU.
77 in China.

Yeah, more people die from random accidents than outright homicide. Does that make the issue any less serious? Do we write off the deaths of over 12,000 people simply because more people died from other problems?

12,632 people died from gun violence. That's 12,632 more than there should be.

Your comparison is absurd, the nations do not have the same populations, and as you like to point out, the single vector you are measuring is controlled.

Look at rates per 100k for total homicides if you dont want to be laughed out of the internet statisticians meetings.

Also, most of those deaths are drug gang related, you are using a symptom to suggest control is needed, we need to stop fighting symptoms.

Do you think weapons are fun? That you just get to have one to play with? No. These are fucking weapons. Yeah, criminals can still get guns but it will at least be harder for them. Just because they still can we should just make it easier for them?

America too obsessed with their guns. They need to grow the fuck up and realize that weapons deserve respect. And Americans have no respect for their weapons. People who write off murder just because it's a lower statistic than accidents are defined by one word.

Prick.

Guns are worthy of a great deal of respect, but that does not mean they require government control. I respect firearms greatly, and I have never had an unintended discharge, I follow the 3 rules and they work.

The citizens of developed nations have become too reliant on their government to control everything in their lives. When anyone is controlled everyone is controlled, and the more control there is the less free we all are.
This is why I want to legalize drugs, and not control guns, among a much larger platform of things I want government to stop doing.

 

[Vegosiux]

Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.

And "I need my guns in case the government decides to go tyrannical and murder us in our sleep" or "I need my guns on an off chance someone breaks into my house to murder me" isn't paranoid?

 

[NightHawk21]

Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.

 

[Mathurin]

Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.

You dont see why?

Here is a hint, the 2nd ammendment was not created to protect the right to hunt.


Its more than that though, I prefer military firearm designs over civilian ones, even for hunting.
They are stronger and better suited to rough treatment, they are easier to breakdown and clean. Parts, ammunition and accessories are cheap and easy to find.

I dont understand why people choose 'civilian' firearms over military surplus or those heavily based on military design.

Civilian is in quotes because the dividing line between civilian and military firearms is much harder to pinpoint than you might think.

 

[McMullen]

Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.

And "I need my guns in case the government decides to go tyrannical and murder us in our sleep" or "I need my guns on an off chance someone breaks into my house to murder me" isn't paranoid?

It is, but I wasn't making that argument, was I?

 

[Something Amyss]

Everyone's so up in arms about this whole gun crime thing, so i decided to put some things in perspective for you guys.

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

I love how you're comparing homicides to things that do not happen via malicious intent, but accusing people of opting for a "delusion of safety."

that's some skewed perspective, man.

 

[Vegosiux]

Why? Because even though, as you say, we've heard it a million times, it's a hard fact that somehow hasn't sunk in very well. As long as people are arguing this issue based on their paranoia and preconceptions rather than the mathematics of the situation, then the mathematics bear repeating, no matter how many times it's been said before.

And "I need my guns in case the government decides to go tyrannical and murder us in our sleep" or "I need my guns on an off chance someone breaks into my house to murder me" isn't paranoid?

It is, but I wasn't making that argument, was I?

True. It's just an argument I run into in R&P on a pretty much daily basis.

Oh and just randomness for everyone: In Slovenia, yes, we have shooting ranges. But, human shilhouette targets are prohibited. I would quite wonder what people would say about that.

 

[NightHawk21]

Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.

You dont see why?

Here is a hint, the 2nd ammendment was not created to protect the right to hunt.


Its more than that though, I prefer military firearm designs over civilian ones, even for hunting.
They are stronger and better suited to rough treatment, they are easier to breakdown and clean. Parts, ammunition and accessories are cheap and easy to find.

I dont understand why people choose 'civilian' firearms over military surplus or those heavily based on military design.

Civilian is in quotes because the dividing line between civilian and military firearms is much harder to pinpoint than you might think.

As a non-American let me be honest when I say the second amendment means jack shit to me. This is not the 19th century anymore, times have changed and proposals of the past that made sense then might not make sense now.

As for the point you raised about hunting; just because something is easier and more suited to the job does not mean that it is what everyone should be using. There are some methods that have the potential to cause great harm (whether to the environment or something else), when they provide a very small benefit over the safer product.

 

[Something Amyss]

Here is a hint, the 2nd ammendment was not created to protect the right to hunt.

Yeah, it was established to allow a well-regulated militia as is necessary for the wellbeing of the union. Strangely enough, we have that.

 

[scw55]

Having a gun by your bed might make you feel more safe and control over the situation if someone breaks in but:
A gun easily kill more than say, a Baseball bat.
A gun is only urgent if say the robbers have guns themselves.
Killing a criminal is still murder, man-slaughter if you're lucky.
You can still be prosecuted for seriously hurting an intruder.
You can also seriously hurt yourself defending yourself against an intruder.
You're best of getting somewhere safe and phoning the police or COPS.

A gun is a tool for death. You can kill someone with many things. But at the end of the day, a gun is only used as a weapon. You can't justify a civilian owning a gun without a licence.

A gun can be used to hunt with, to kill game.

You can shoot a gun at a firing range. But why do you have to own a gun to shoot there. When you go bowling you don't normally take bowling shoe with you. You rent them.


The stats you listed had 'tragic' 'unavoidable' deaths. Gun deaths are avoidable (as are alcohol accident deaths). Saying that guns are the "second most reason people die due to human intervention" isn't a good defence. It just highlights how stupid it is to legally allow people to have guns. If you ban guns, people with guns without a licence can be arrested before they hurt anyone. Police officers will have to use other means of policing other than waving guns around. The only weapons you'll have to worry about will be blades, which you can also ban. I don't know why I even bothered replying. Waste of my time. I hope someone reads this and gain clarity.

Your null-points for stating why it's good to have guns reminds me of that PETA article about why you should be vegan/vegetarian.

Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine.
Thought you'd like to know.

You can kill a man by forcing him to stick half a plastic capsule down their throat.

 

[Navvan]

I don't think its exactly fair to discount non-homicide related deaths from fire-arms (including suicide) and then compare it to other personal decisions done to the self that can lead to death. The actual number for 2007 is then ~33,000 [http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf]

Likewise all of the other things you listed besides alcohol have a natural occurrence. In some cases this natural occurrence is higher than gun control in and of itself. Cancer for example is bound to happen to everyone who lives long enough. Heart Disease is also prevalent whether or not you eat healthily. You could cut these numbers down, but the base rate would still likely be higher than gun related death. As opposed to an outright ban on guns which could (in a perfect world) lead to a 100% decrease in gun related deaths.

That said I agree with the spirit of your post. People will find a way to kill other people regardless. A person could potentially build an explosive and plant it to kill far more people than they could even with guns. This has been demonstrated in the past and will likely happen in the future. It also is much harder to catch the person who does so. Banning guns out right may help the issue, but it isn't an answer the the problem. Gun control as it stands is fine IMO.