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

[FallenMessiah88]

Woah woah woah. Who's talking about banning anything? The way I see it, people are merely asking for more responsible gun laws.

 

[ElPatron]

responsible gun laws.

The dreaded term.

You can't pass "responsible"/"sensible" gun laws. Those terms have been used for what... two decades? And it has been used by the Brady Campaign, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. The hypocrites, the fat cats that want your "cheddar" and the emotionally damaged people who despise guns because a murderer used one to kill a relative instead of any other weapon.

What do you think would allow for "responsible gun laws"?

>can't ban anything that is legal now
>cannot infringe the second amendment

Heck, if you can actually think of a law that is actually effective and simple enough to prevent bureaucracy you might be on to something big.

 

[JWAN]

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.

Its actually easier to monitor ports than it was even 3 years ago. Every shipping container is marked from where it came from, what ship it got on and where it got off to the exact second it got on the ship, off the ship and stacked. My cousin works for the port authority in NY and they can tell what is in every bin because its monitored thoroughly from the load up to the offload to when it leaves the facility. Japan has a similar system in place. Most of the contraband that comes into the US comes across the US-Mexico border, in Japan they have to watch their water routes and they do a damn good job at that with China being awkward next-door neighbors.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

responsible gun laws.

The dreaded term.

You can't pass "responsible"/"sensible" gun laws. Those terms have been used for what... two decades? And it has been used by the Brady Campaign, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. The hypocrites, the fat cats that want your "cheddar" and the emotionally damaged people who despise guns because a murderer used one to kill a relative instead of any other weapon.

What do you think would allow for "responsible gun laws"?

>can't ban anything that is legal now
>cannot infringe the second amendment

Heck, if you can actually think of a law that is actually effective and simple enough to prevent bureaucracy you might be on to something big.

I dunno, I haven't really been following this whole pro guns/anti guns thing, so nope, sorry can't help you. I don't know enough about this subject to even attempt to make any kind of statement about it.

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.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control_p2/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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

So, in all the above examples you can use those items for docile purposes, cars can drive you around, knives can cut food, forks hold it for cutting, pointy sticks make charming fences, dangerous chemicals can make scientific advances, public transport gets you around

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

You can weaponise normal things you can't de-weaponise something who's only purpose is to injure or kill people.

You got any other arguments?

 

[Pandabearparade]

I'm not at all for banning guns, but.. yeah, stupid argument is stupid.

 

[Ardure]

I will give you one point OP... if we ban all guns they will not go away but just live in the black market.

But banning guns in general will never happen... that whole 2nd amendment in the US and what not. (Yes I am making the assumption here that this is directed at the US). With that being said I do believe that putting some additional restrictions would prove to be beneficial to society. Maybe making it way more difficult to get guns... since about 40% of gun sales don't require any background checks. These are legal gun sales. There are ways to make it more difficult for the crazies of the world to get guns. Also there is really no other use for an assault rifle for anything else other than to kill people... which begs the question... why allow them to be sold to the general public at all?

As someone who has nearly died in a car accident I am under no illusion that I am ever truly 100% safe, but I will not live my life in fear of being killed by random incidents and let that run my life. I believe in controlling the things I can control about my health but in the end random shit happens. We have some control on guns as a people and it is our responsibility to do something about it. It will not stop all disasters but if it just stops 1 it's worth it.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

Shoot inanimate targets for fun/points. Deter crime without even firing a shot, just with their mere presence.

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?

 

[blackrave]

Lawyers and Prosecutors
All of them
People should speak for themselves
Or fight 1on1 in Thunderdome
Depends on their IQ

What exactly do guns do other than shoot things to inflict an injury?

Helps to fight carnivores and pests?

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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?

Do they need to?

Do you remember the first post I quoted? The bit you editted out where someone was advocating banning cars and sticks because they could be dangerous? That's the point I was making, people may want stricter gun control because guns are only used for shooting things, the other things they listed all served useful purposes besides that. That was the argument. People may want stricter gun control because guns don't have an innocuous usage.

 

[LeeHarveyO]

Personally I believe we should ban the use of walls, I mean one could come falling down and crush you at any moment without warning. Plus you can stub your toes on them and that kinda hurts.

 

[O maestre]

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.

well americans love money more than anything, i suppose the government could buy back the guns, kind of like recycling cans... then again the government is broke so i guess a corporation could do it for long lasting tax cuts, sort of a reward program for the corp that gets the most guns out of civilian hands.

or the government could go retro and make a new contra scheme, where all the bought back guns are sold to the worlds rebellious militant factions

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[ElPatron]

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