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

[Nexxis]

We should ban people from wearing clothing that doesn't fit them. See "People of Walmart" for some examples. Sometimes, the visuals can traumatize a person. *shudders*

 

[Samantha Burt]

Well what if you want to use the gun to kill a mouse and are to tired to properly put it away. What if you are a crazy American who thinks guns are useless if kept in a locker because how are you gonna shoot somebody for looking at you the wrong way if its locked up.

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

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

Interestingly, I was discussing this with my dad just the other day, and we came up with a system just like this. Seems to be what the smart money is on; let's see if it sticks, eh?

 

[Kinguendo]

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.

I think they are more afraid of the toy you have to build yourself... there could be anything in that tiny capsule! It may look like a dinosaur but when you look at that small instruction manual it is clearly telling you how to make copious amounts of Mustard Gas with household materials.

I had plenty of Kinder Eggs when I was a child, as a result I died many times.

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

You put WHAT up your mouse?!

 

[Mathurin]

Well what if you want to use the gun to kill a mouse and are to tired to properly put it away. What if you are a crazy American who thinks guns are useless if kept in a locker because how are you gonna shoot somebody for looking at you the wrong way if its locked up.

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

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

Interestingly, I was discussing this with my dad just the other day, and we came up with a system just like this. Seems to be what the smart money is on; let's see if it sticks, eh?

And this plan is exactly why statements such as "we dont want to ban guns, just control them alittle" and other calls for 'reasonable gun control' mean absolutely nothing to american gun owners, and this is why they fight even the most minor gun control laws you can think up, they know its a softly softly approach with the end result of them being disarmed.

Thanks for supporting my point

 

[Ryotknife]

But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.

You are making a rather large assumption. You are assuming that the US military would remain intact if the federal government declared war against the states. That really depends on the state. I am sure there are more than a few people in my state (NY) who would gladly volunteer to flatten our state capitol building if the government demanded it because we are disenfranchised with our state government.

Go down south and a war between the federal government and the states is literally the doomsday scenario they have been dreading for decades, especially since people down there are more loyal to the state than their northern brethren on average.

So it is entirely possible for whole units or divisions of the military to switch sides if a civil war between te states and the government broke out, ESPECIALLY the national guard.

 

[jawakiller]

In order to keep the peace and prevent any more "tragic" accidents (stabbings, shootings, lynchings etc.), I say Xbox Live bans children under the age of 15 from playing anything with a mic. This, my research suggests, shall significantly decrease the number of homicides, both intentional and accidental.

It is time for Microsoft to protect it's customers from further abuse and pain...

Oh and I think Facebook should be forced to implement a stupid censor. It could block all the idiotic things people post and maybe even permanently ban them for posting really stupid shit.

And while we're in the business of banning shit, let's ban Nicki Minaj from life.

 

[AngloDoom]

Humans are dangerous, guns are just tools.

Very few modern firearms are designed to inflict bodily damage, well the ones in civilian hands anyway, they are designed to target shoot

Shooting cans is actually very good target practice btw.

I don't understand the whole "humans are dangerous" part of your argument: you could use that to justify absolutely anything.

Fair enough to target shooting, if you have your own land large enough to fire at a target without accidentally harming someone then I don't see a reason why not. I personally would not be able to fire a gun in my garden, since if I missed I'd fire straight into someone else's window. Still wouldn't make me want people carrying guns around town, though.

You have shown yourself sir.
You arent interested in crime, you know gun crime will still occur, and probably in similar quantity, all you want to do is punish a segment of society. Not for a rational reason, because you are scared.

I am interesting in crime, yet you yourself have said there is no law that can prevent someone unlawfully obtaining guns. I'd arguing making it a pain in the neck to acquire guns helps reduce this (since illegally sold guns don't magic out of nowhere) but my main concern is the idea that a random civilian has access to weapons that allows them to dole out justice in the same way as a police officer.

And yes, the idea does scare me. People do stupid things in a rush and in a high point of emotion, and I've had people attack me in ways that could have left me with lasting damage or death as a result of stupid things which nowhere-near warranted the aggression: if that person was armed with a gun I may well have ended up being shot. My 'rational reason', if you so want to call it, for wanting harsher restrictions on guns is that I see no reason for police when your average citizen is just as capable of obtaining the same equipment as the police and using them how they like, lawfully or otherwise.

I've made no attempt to hide my fear of guns: I think anybody who owns a gun should still be scared of it to some degree just as how you should be owning a dangerous animal or the responsible caution you would have in having an open fireplace in your livingroom. I also understand that my culture and upbringing will naturally colour my views on such matters, but I still don't understand why it is necessary for anyone to walk around with a concealed weapon on them. To me, that's bonkers.

No, I havent had to purchase weapons for this, I already have them.

I am not concerned with your doubts, success is never certain.

I don't understand this section, if I'm honest. You just seem to brush my doubts aside as if they are so trivial as to not answer them. If I am mistaken I would enjoy being enlightened on the subject as I prefer to be proven wrong than to remain ignorant. However, I still don't understand how allowing members of the public to carry pistols on their person in any way prevents an evil dictatorship. I don't think legally purchased guns have toppled governments - I imagine it is always circuits of illegal gun ownership. England doesn't have many guns in it, yet our government isn't sentencing people to die for public meetings or protesting.

To an extent actualy, a somewhat modified version of the standard assault rifle issued to US troops is available for purchase in most gun stores, thats enough for me.
The Free Syrian army has AKs against tanks and helicopters, and while its too early to say they are winning, they are definitely doing something.

But why not weapons on-par with military weapons? If your viewpoint is that humans are dangerous and not weapons, and that civilians need to have weapons capable of defending themselves from an evil dictatorship, why have any limits at all? There's no boundaries or clear lines in your view - do you believe I should be able to legally purchase a tank? If so, or if not, why?

Its not a utility knife, its big black scary military style knife (still a folding knife though). I use it as a utility knife.

May I ask why wouldn't a utility knife be sufficient, if you are only using it for utility? Unless you are a part of the military and just happen to have a knife issued to you, I can only imagine it would be because it looks cool.

Which is fine as an answer, but I still don't understand the argument presented here since guns cannot be used for anything but shooting things, and I've yet to see someone use a gun for DIY.

Ah, comparison of the citizens of a nation to children, how revealingly patronizing.
Its sad really that our big daddy government hasnt taken all our guns and said "no, you are collectively not responsible enough for that"

Considering the fact that are more heavily armed nations out there with lower rates of gun-related crime, I wouldn't say calling general American views on firearms "immature" as too much of a stretch. Also, I still don't see what's so bad about the government drawing lines in the sand about what we can or can't do - otherwise what's the point of them? Every argument you've presented so far just seems to promote anarchy: we should all be as armed as one-another and no-one should be able to tell anyone else what to do!

That is why I used a comparison between children, because to me your view is coming across as childish I'm sorry to say.

Actually crime is generally committed with pistols, the criminal arms race you speak of is limited by concealment, so they can access them, but they rarely if ever use them.

So what's the answer to this? If someone has a weapon concealed on them, how will you owning a gun prevent them from doing anything to you with it?

I don't like the idea that the only reason nobody is going around shooting everyone in the local vicinity is because they might get shot back, and I certainly don't buy that as a reason to keep guns: because it relies on the same stereotypes of the United States of America as you rightfully criticised me for earlier.

 

[AngloDoom]

((Double post))

 

[scw55]

snip

snip

snip

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

You put WHAT up your mouse?!

*mouth

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

 

[Commissar Sae]

No need to ban guns, just limit the possibilities of ownership and the type of weapon. Requiring firearm safety courses befor being allowed to purchase a weapon is a good start. I also think limiting the ammo capacity of long guns is a logical step too. You don't need a 30 round magazine to go hunting, a five shot limit is pretty reasonable and more than enough for self-defense or recreation.

It won't magically stop mass shootings from happening, but it will limit the damage they can do. A fine example is a shooting we had here in Montreal a few years back, even fully armed the shooter only caused one death, injuring others.

I'm pro-gun ownership, but within reasonable limits and with certain restrictions. I guess I'm very Canadian in that way.

 

[Vegosiux]

In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?

Well, that would depend on which side the army takes, ultimately. If the soldiers have no problem shooting at the people any kind of a revolution is bound to be a short-lived one.

 

[Deimateos]

I'm not saying we should ban guns (in fact I think it should depend on the country) but you're going to need a better argument that.

My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice. The fact that rifles like the AR15 are always the focus of ban proponents is proof of this. They want to ban big scary rifles, despite the fact that handguns are the majority tool in homicides involving guns [http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm](in the US anyway). Rifles are part of the "other guns" line, which also includes bolt-actions and shotguns. The number of deaths from that combined category is about even with knives. Knives.

It proves to me that most supporters aren't even remotely aware of the facts and reacting off of their fear of rifles(usually from movies, where a rifle shot to non-vital organs is instant death). That or they know the facts, they just don't care. IMO, a focus on rifles removes any credibility from the argument a ban supporter may have.

It all stinks of a power-grab, like how most of the anti-gun, anti-concealed carry license politicians here in California have handguns and concealed carry licenses.


Back on topic! We must ban sharp and heavy rocks!!! I fear for my life just knowing some rock-carrying psycho might be just around the next bend! While we're at it, ban smooth stones and slings! You heard the bible story, David killed a giant with those things! A giant! Imagine how little a chance we regular-sized people stand!

 

[Vegosiux]

My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice.

Nice generalization. Right back atcha. If I had a cent for every time a pro-gun person went on about how they need it to defend themselves from the government if it decides to go tyrannical and how they need to sleep with their gun in their nightstand in case someone breaks into their house to kill them. I say, if someone's out for your blood they're going to find a less risky way to go about it.

 

[Deimateos]

My issue with banning guns is that the argument for is rarely based on logic or reason, instead on fear and cowardice.

Nice generalization.blah blah snip

I could explain to you how the statement "rarely" infers that the ones who want to ban guns for logical reasons are in the vocal minority or that my post is clearly voicing my problem with anti-gun proponents who focus on rifles instead of handguns, even though the facts show that handguns are the real problem area in gun killings (while rifles and shotguns combined account for near the same deaths as knives), not all gun ban proponents.

I could even tell you how while I own exactly zero guns, I understand their role in this country's formation (defense against a government, among other things), as well as the power terrorist groups like the Klan gained from removing the right to bear arms from black citizens like my family and I.

I could do all those things, but I'm sure you'll disregard all those facts and focus instead on whatever I say that gets you butt-hurt next.

 

[neoontime]

All those in favour of banning hyperbole say aye!

I will go further to banning the use of that Hyperbole and a Half meme X all the things. It has several times almost driven me to kill from being so overused and that''s a danger that must be stopped.

 

[Vegosiux]

I could do all those things, but I'm sure you'll disregard all those facts and focus instead on whatever I say that gets you butt-hurt next.

Are you my advocate? No? Then please, quit saying what I will or will not do. If I need representation, I'll ask for it. I'm perfectly capable of choosing my course of action myself. Plus, this is nothing other than a cop-out and you know it. It's akin to a person saying, for example "I refuse to call my opponent -insert insult here-".

Bottom line is, you "could" do those things. So, do them instead of talking about how you could. You might be surprised at my reaction and maybe the discussion will take an interesting turn.

Or, you can keep sitting atop your high horse of smug supreiority and go "talk to the hand" at me because you, with your powers of clairvoyance, have seen the future and know exactly how I will react and thus deemed me unworthy of your time.

In which case, I of course sincerely apologize for wasting that time, and for presuming that you have nothing better to do than act smug on the internet. Either way, it's up to you if you actually want to make your points or not - but do not expect to "make" them and expect me to take them at face value.

In before you going "Haha I was right about butthurt" by the way.

But you know what, my butt is perfectly fine. Now excuse me I'm going to take a water slide.[footnote]Cookies for anyone who gets the reference[/footnote]

 

[GenericAmerican]

Cars and baseball bats are just as deadly as firearms. . .but no on is trying to stop you from driving to a ball game.

Also

Cookies for anyone who gets the reference

XKCD

 

[Aprilgold]

That last fact is the one I find the most compelling. Many of the above statistics will be dismissed as irrelevant, because they are "self inflicted." Also, many people say that guns are different because they are only useful for killing.

Yeah you're absolutely right there. Accidental death and death caused by illness is not even remotely comparable with deaths caused by something designed specifically to kill and wound.

I'm not saying we should ban guns (in fact I think it should depend on the country) but you're going to need a better argument that.

How exactly does one's nationality come into play?

_________________________________________

Banning or highly restricting fire arms will not stop murders. You take away their guns then the average street thug will either get smarter and use chemicals or insanely clever ways of killing their victims such as fire bombs, timed bombs, gas bombs and other assorted, terrible and devious ways of killing their victims. Or if they don't want the labor they can use a brick. You ban bricks and they'll use sticks. You ban sticks and they'll use their fists.

My point is that if there is a will, there is a way. The only true way to prevent crime is better education, better law enforcement and a easier way for people to discuss problems without the threat of violence. Right now, that doesn't seem to be anyones master plans.

How about cars, we should ban cars. Those things go so fast and can hit someone and kill them or crash and blow up thus killing people inside the vehicle. Fuck anything that isn't a giant safety bubble has a potential to be deadly. What we drink could be poisoned and what we eat could have a deadly virus in it.

Life is dangerous, check your worries about banning shit at the door.