The number of steps between here and "banning guns" is ridiculously long and difficult and violent. You can't just snap your fingers and put the genie back in the bottle.
Murders and Shootings
- Thread starter Sylverlokk
- Start date
porkchop sandwiches
Potato del Grande
- 524
- 546
There's a lot that are higher....but most of them are places you wouldn't want to visit.
Asshat Brando
Potato del Grande
- 5,346
- -478
What does death rates from diseases have to do with the conversation? I'm not following as your talking about something that applies equally everywhere to a certain extent to a situation where depending on where you are in the world the availability varies wildly.
Asshat Brando
Potato del Grande
- 5,346
- -478
Ok, so then just limiting this discussion to 1st world countries then I'm sure it's pretty tilted in one direction.
Edit: I'm not and haven't advocated for the banning of guns. The point of the right to bear arms was for national defense which obviously doesn't apply anymore unless you think China is getting ready to invade in the future. Unless you have a real need is there any reason anybody needs anything other than a hunting rifle?
Banning guns is completely unrealistic. The necessary amendment to the Constitution would not pass.
If you are just talking about changes you would implement if you were king for a day, then my apologies.
If you think getting rid of the guns in America is as "simple" a proposition as repealing the 2nd amendment and passing whatever federal/state prohibition laws, you are wrong. If our goal is to save lives, it behooves us to look at the cost effectiveness of attacking the various causes of death in our society. Relative to other causes of death, homicide is way WAY down on the list of major killers. Those two facts combined lead me (and I think other rational people) to conclude that it's not really a worthwhile goal at the moment (even before any considerations about liberty), irrespective of any occasional politically convenient kid-shootings.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
well let's start with the history of warfare before the age of the gun for starters. Genghis khan caused the deaths of 10 million people without the use of a gun, should we ban all horses are bows?
Rombo
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 763
- 198
Yea, i know this is like trying to put the toothpaste back into its tube.
And yea this is if i was king for a day... and cross every girl i meet and drop the ''hail to ......" well this isnt the time for this.
Is there a reason anybody needs anything other than a minivan? There are reasons to defend rights (even when they sometimes manifest in shitty ways) that have nothing to do with what a bunch of hat-and-shoe-bucklers thought.
GuardianX
Perpetually Pessimistic
- 6,764
- 17,068
Plenty of people were talking a ban on guns over the last few pages...
Also, no I am not saying that if you ban guns this person would have pulled a 9/11, I'm not fox news.
What I am saying is that people will find a way to pull off their acts of destruction. If you ban one thing you may limit theTYPEof destruction that is used but you won't remove theACTof destruction.
Thus the reasoning:
If you remove firearms, they will use explosives
If you remove explosives, they will use knives
if you remove knives, they will use rolling pins.
It isn't a literal "they will use" and is more a commentary that people will find a way to accomplish their act of destruction using tools available to them.
The act of destruction is the thing that people should be focusing on from a psychological standpoint. What can be done to stay ahead of these things and prevent people from ever getting to these states? As I said previous, this isn't "we should do nothing" post, I have no clue the "correct" course of action. I think the focus on theINSTRUMENTrather than theMENTALITYof the situation is a little foolish because it doesn't ensure that the act rare occurs again. (Can't really say it would "never" happen again unfortunately).
Asshat Brando
Potato del Grande
- 5,346
- -478
Again, you bring up examples that aren't even close to relevant. Unless you're stating the people are going to start buying cars based on the potential for lethality when running into other cars and people. You're also quoting me and talking about banning guns which I have yet to state. At this point I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make in regards to my comments to be honest.
There is a difference between bat shit crazy and legally armed people who are there to protect.
Springbok
Karen
- 9,036
- 12,635
As I've said in the other thread, only giant faggots run around with guns as they are completely and utterly unnecessary in modern society. They literally offer nothing to the daily lives of modern men. Unless of course you're a backwoods retard who thinks "herp derp" shooting cans iz fun. I've yet to see a compelling argument for them - Hunting? Get a bow and arrow you fucking cretin. Sport? Entertainment? Get a girlfriend or move to a goddamned city so you can have something to do.
That said - there is literally nothing you can do about it. Like someone else eluded to - once the cat got out of the bag, you can't stuff it back in. Trying to ban people from buying/owning firearms would cause as much/more violence and tragedy than what we're dealing with now.
We need to spend more money/time on dealing with these sociopaths. Good luck with that. Fuck this stupid fucking shit.
That said - there is literally nothing you can do about it. Like someone else eluded to - once the cat got out of the bag, you can't stuff it back in. Trying to ban people from buying/owning firearms would cause as much/more violence and tragedy than what we're dealing with now.
We need to spend more money/time on dealing with these sociopaths. Good luck with that. Fuck this stupid fucking shit.
Yeah because people only buy guns to kill other people and there's never a legitimate reason why they'd need to kill someone. That's just obvious, right?
Right. You're not talking about banning guns, you're just talking about banning every class of gun that you don't like. Got it. That's more than sufficient for everything that I've said to hold.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
Sure, I need a handgun to kill the potential intruder trying to break into my house.
No, the Second Amendment was not written for national defense - it was put in there for home protection. There were bad guys breaking into people's houses back in 1793 too.
Actually they're a lot of fun.
If you don't think shooting is fun, you've never done it (or you're just someone that can't let himself accept fun for stupid political reasons).
Why? Because you say so? Fuck you.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,459
- 50,601
You know, for the most part I respect people's opinions when they are anti-guns, but shut the fuck up you ignorant faggot.
Drakurii
Golden Baron of the Realm
- 14,240
- 45,312
GuardianX
Perpetually Pessimistic
- 6,764
- 17,068
I've seen this said a few times now..
If you are hunting for food then a gun is a fantastic choice.
If you are hunting for sport...bow and arrow, but ultimately it is choice.