|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 06 2015 16:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so i just read some 11 year old shot his 8 yr old sister using his dads shotgun because 'he was angry'
a 11 yr old literally just took a shotgun out of somewhere and shot his sister.
what possible argument could gun advocates have for the prevention of this? "the gun should have been locked away"?
i really dont see why its so hard for so many americans to realise that no amount of 'gun control' will solve anything. they need to be removed just like the majority of most advanced countries
Would you have preferred if he killed her with a knife because he was angry?
|
Anytime something like that happens the parents should be thrown in prison, children taken away forever. If you can't keep your guns locked away safely and instead want them sitting around, openly accessible by your children you've failed completely as a parent and human being. You're criminally responsible for that murder on every single level.
|
On October 06 2015 16:47 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 16:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so i just read some 11 year old shot his 8 yr old sister using his dads shotgun because 'he was angry'
a 11 yr old literally just took a shotgun out of somewhere and shot his sister.
what possible argument could gun advocates have for the prevention of this? "the gun should have been locked away"?
i really dont see why its so hard for so many americans to realise that no amount of 'gun control' will solve anything. they need to be removed just like the majority of most advanced countries Would you have preferred if he killed her with a knife because he was angry?
It was a neighbour, and he shot her through his house's window.
Just as easy as running after her to stab her, for sure.
|
On October 06 2015 16:49 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Anytime something like that happens the parents should be thrown in prison, children taken away forever. If you can't keep your guns locked away safely and instead want them sitting around, openly accessible by your children you've failed completely as a parent and human being. You're criminally responsible for that murder on every single level.
Problem with this is...
A 12-16 year old that truely wants to get access to your gun(s) will get access to them sooner or later. Its just normal, you share a house and assuming your not running a small fort knox with retina scans and shit like that, they won't be "savely" locked away, no matter what.
+Even the most responsible gun owner can for some reason forget to lock the door (or hide the key...)
+Having the guns locked away like this also totally runs against the "guns for self defense" argument.
|
On October 06 2015 17:22 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 16:49 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Anytime something like that happens the parents should be thrown in prison, children taken away forever. If you can't keep your guns locked away safely and instead want them sitting around, openly accessible by your children you've failed completely as a parent and human being. You're criminally responsible for that murder on every single level. Problem with this is... A 12-16 year old that truely wants to get access to your gun(s) will get access to them sooner or later. Its just normal, you share a house and assuming your not running a small fort knox with retina scans and shit like that, they won't be "savely" locked away, no matter what. +Even the most responsible gun owner can for some reason forget to lock the door (or hide the key...) +Having the guns locked away like this also totally runs against the "guns for self defense" argument.
If your kid is breaking into your safe either he's a supervillian or you're a complete idiot, those are the 2 options here. I'm pretty sure the first one isn't the case which leaves option 2. Option 2 means you're not a responsible person and don't deserve to own guns or have children.
If you forget to lock the safe you're not responsible. We're not talking about forgetting to turn the dishwasher on before you leave for work. We're talking about locking up firearms.
Having your guns in a safe defeats the purpose of guns as self defense? I wouldn't say that necessarily. What I would say though is that if your kid can go grab a shotgun you've completely failed humanity on all levels. Your child just grabbed a gun which means it's openly accessible to him AND your child just grabbed a gun and then used it without you being aware. If your child is just waltzing around with a gun you're a total failure as a parent. You've taught that child nothing, you've not been a responsible parent, you've not been a responsible gun owner, that kids blood is on your hands.
|
You can kill people with spoons if you want, but most people will rather use a knife over a spoon. Just as most people would rather point a gun on the person and pull a trigger silightly towards them. Especially if it's not a 11 year old boy vs an 8 year old girl, if you want to kill your boss, who is fitter then you, a gun is so much easier. You are talking about regulation of guns. I would be interested in how you want to regulate.
By backgroundcheck? In germany, a pilot with tons of backgroundchecks flew a passenger plane into the Alps. The people you can filter out by background check will get the guns anyway, criminals come to mind.
By hobby? yeah, that would work, in germany there are some 2-3m weapons registered, all for hunters and sports shooters.
|
On October 06 2015 16:47 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 16:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so i just read some 11 year old shot his 8 yr old sister using his dads shotgun because 'he was angry'
a 11 yr old literally just took a shotgun out of somewhere and shot his sister.
what possible argument could gun advocates have for the prevention of this? "the gun should have been locked away"?
i really dont see why its so hard for so many americans to realise that no amount of 'gun control' will solve anything. they need to be removed just like the majority of most advanced countries Would you have preferred if he killed her with a knife because he was angry?
at the very least its not a sure kill. yeah he could have got a knife and stabbed the girl (apparently the neighbour, not sister), but the chances of her surviving are still a lot higher than getting shot at by a fking shotgun.
also i agree with the failed self defense argument. if someone manages to break into your house in the middle of the night you would want your self defense weapon to be readily accessible. you dont want to go find your keys then go to your safe and take out your gun in the hopes that the intruder is waiting in the kitchen for you to come and shoot him
|
I never actually understood the whole "responsible gun owners keep their guns in a safe locked away with a hidden key" and "guns must be instantly accessible at all times for self defense" dichotomy. Doesn't make alot of sense to me. How would you even know that the home invading aggressor wouldn't be in-between the path of you and your sealed away weapon at any inopportune time? Do people really have the time to gain access to a weapon on such short notice?
The only instance where I see it being applicable is when there is an ongoing escalating argument between people who are in the house where you would have the time, in that case wouldn't getting a gun only aggravate the situation?
|
obligatory "you can't take the edge off of a knife" rant:
+ Show Spoiler +Anyway, one thing I always see getting either missed or glossed over in this classic political argument is somehow the idea of "criminals" having "access" to these murder-death-kill weapons of mass death. The problem is, that thought process is already flawed. A criminal isn't a criminal to start with, they become one through their choice of actions. Actions driven by a mindset, totally independent of what means they undertake. Does anyone really believe that if firearms were abolished from public access entirely that would stop monstrous psychopaths from seizing their opportunity in another way? Let's ignore the glaring hole in that way of thinking (that criminals don't obtain their weapons legally in the first place, or weren't criminals when they did) for a minute, and focus on the psychopaths themselves. They do it because there something wrong with them or they're acting out. or they are looking to bask in the glorification the media will infamize them with, or they are just truly violently deranged individuals. They don't do these things because they "have access" to something as equalizing as a firearm (note: firearms don't grant you any power except over those who don't have them). They do it because they can, simply put, and they want to. Not having a gun wouldn't stop that mindset.
In a world of nothing but stones and sharp sticks they'd still be pulling this shit. The idea of having the police provide all the protection the public needs is ludicrous and events like this recent one on Oregon (the prick was planning on killing himself from the start anyway before police even *could* intervene) or the Oslo shooting (crazy dresses up as a cop to lure victims to him) show that these nutjobs not only spit directly in the face of such an idea, they also openly mock it and use it against the innocents they are targeting. The only way that could even possibly work at all is to run things as a total police state and we all know where that leads, where the government has ALL the guns and the public has none of their rights.
Another point is that these psychos could just as easily be doing the same thing with bombs. Those are certainly illegal to use/make/possess, but that sure as shit never stopped them did it? They can just as easily mow down a crowd of bystanders with a car, but where is the great push to outlaw those and make all transportation public? Serial killers have never had a problem throughout history racking up victims without having to walk right into a group and massacre them all at once. The method of depravity is not the issue here at all. It's the depravity itself.
The problem is behavioral, and it's two-fold. 1) For some reason, we think these monsters are people and normal or something until suddenly they become "empowered," when the reality is they were just biding time and directly circumventing the very systems in place meant to somehow stop them. Make no mistake, these are evil fuckers, intentionally working against the established system of law and order just to bring harm, grief and misery, they aren't John Q. Taxpayer who had a hotheaded moment and shot up his workplace because he's got a handgun in the car... 2) Our very vocal idiot leaders rationalize that disarming the very public that these monsters prey upon will somehow either protect the sheep or impede the wolf, when the exact opposite is true, as a thinly veiled excuse to attack the industry itself (read between those lines as you will). Clinton herself was just saying if elected she'd pull an Obama and use executive authority to directly act against firearms manufacturers. What does that even have to do with the issue? How do "improved" background checks impede a person that will never have one? A better step forward would be to enact legislation to tell the media to SHUT THE FUCK UP about it and stop blowing it up in an effort to prevent the mindset from spreading, and maybe spend more time reinforcing that we should not *want* to kill and harm each other. Hands over our eyes and wishful thinking, I know, but we've got to start somewhere.
People will always kill people. It's in our nature, ideas like morals and ethics are social constructs meant to maintain order in a communal setting, not some extension of ourselves. We are violent, possessive, materialistic, segregative, adaptive, emotional beings, and our conflicts with one another will never end, only the issues will vary.. Just like that never changes, so too will the idea that removing an object an individual can single-handley employ would ever stop the horrible things they would do with or without it.
There, now that's out of the way...
I laughed pretty heartily today when the news mentioned something about Hillary hopping on the gun control bandwagon again after the Oregon shooting.. Of course she would, she's been slipping in the polls and it's always a safe topic to pick the usual party stance on to not ever say anything new or meaningful but still incite a rise out of people. Been wondering if there's even such a thing as non-sensationalism in American media anymore.
EDIT:
On October 06 2015 16:49 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Anytime something like that happens the parents should be thrown in prison, children taken away forever. If you can't keep your guns locked away safely and instead want them sitting around, openly accessible by your children you've failed completely as a parent and human being. You're criminally responsible for that murder on every single level.
Just like Remington might somehow responsible because they may have manufactured that shotgun? God damn you people are childish. It's literally no different than if he had broken her neck with his bare hands in his rage. Nobody else is responsible for another human being's intent unless said human being is mindless themselves or forced against their will (which requires threat of force in and of itself). US law would agree with you at least so far as the parents taking the fall for their ward, but that to is based entirely on WHAT he did, not HOW, and the fact he's a legal minor.
On October 06 2015 18:53 Caihead wrote:
I never actually understood the whole "responsible gun owners keep their guns in a safe locked away with a hidden key" and "guns must be instantly accessible at all times for self defense" dichotomy. Doesn't make alot of sense to me. How would you even know that the home invading aggressor wouldn't be in-between the path of you and your sealed away weapon at any inopportune time? Do people really have the time to gain access to a weapon on such short notice?
The only instance where I see it being applicable is when there is an ongoing escalating argument between people who are in the house where you would have the time, in that case wouldn't getting a gun only aggravate the situation?
Two different scenarios entirely. In the first, people that usually keep a weapon with the thought of self-defense either hide a singular weapon withing easy reach (the most paranoid ones carry it ON them) or place multiple ones around their domicile, so it's unlikely that a person in that mindset would be beat to his own weapon by a complete stranger. My step-dad kept one in the nightstand, his truck, in the closet, at his shop and even mounted on the ATV for instance, in addition to all the ones in the safe. Especially with the state laws here, I wouldn't want to try to break in to his place with anybody home.
In the second scenario, the weapon doesn't aggravate the situation. The idiot thinking that the weapon would be a good idea to bring into it is what aggravates the situation, because if things were indeed equal he would only bring ruin upon himself i.e. he either gets shot back by the other dude using his own gun, the other party uses the idiot's gun on him before he can, or said idiot shoots the guy and goes away upstate for being a dipshit. Do I think that dumbshits who can't control themselves should be trusted with a firearm? No, but legally speaking you can't define that without prior action and it's not the only thing I wouldn't trust them with including cars, being in charge of children or getting other people to listen to them. Unfortunately, the only thing you CAN do is either remove yourself from the situation or make yourself prepared for it.
|
On October 06 2015 18:53 Ghost151 wrote:obligatory "you can't take the edge off of a knife" rant: + Show Spoiler +Anyway, one thing I always see getting either missed or glossed over in this classic political argument is somehow the idea of "criminals" having "access" to these murder-death-kill weapons of mass death. The problem is, that thought process is already flawed. A criminal isn't a criminal to start with, they become one through their choice of actions. Actions driven by a mindset, totally independent of what means they undertake. Does anyone really believe that if firearms were abolished from public access entirely that would stop monstrous psychopaths from seizing their opportunity in another way? Let's ignore the glaring hole in that way of thinking (that criminals don't obtain their weapons legally in the first place, or weren't criminals when they did) for a minute, and focus on the psychopaths themselves. They do it because there something wrong with them or they're acting out. or they are looking to bask in the glorification the media will infamize them with, or they are just truly violently deranged individuals. They don't do these things because they "have access" to something as equalizing as a firearm (note: firearms don't grant you any power except over those who don't have them). They do it because they can, simply put, and they want to. Not having a gun wouldn't stop that mindset.
In a world of nothing but stones and sharp sticks they'd still be pulling this shit. The idea of having the police provide all the protection the public needs is ludicrous and events like this recent one on Oregon (the prick was planning on killing himself from the start anyway before police even *could* intervene) or the Oslo shooting (crazy dresses up as a cop to lure victims to him) show that these nutjobs not only spit directly in the face of such an idea, they also openly mock it and use it against the innocents they are targeting. The only way that could even possibly work at all is to run things as a total police state and we all know where that leads, where the government has ALL the guns and the public has none of their rights.
Another point is that these psychos could just as easily be doing the same thing with bombs. Those are certainly illegal to use/make/possess, but that sure as shit never stopped them did it? They can just as easily mow down a crowd of bystanders with a car, but where is the great push to outlaw those and make all transportation public? Serial killers have never had a problem throughout history racking up victims without having to walk right into a group and massacre them all at once. The method of depravity is not the issue here at all. It's the depravity itself.
The problem is behavioral, and it's two-fold. 1) For some reason, we think these monsters are people and normal or something until suddenly they become "empowered," when the reality is they were just biding time and directly circumventing the very systems in place meant to somehow stop them. Make no mistake, these are evil fuckers, intentionally working against the established system of law and order just to bring harm, grief and misery, they aren't John Q. Taxpayer who had a hotheaded moment and shot up his workplace because he's got a handgun in the car... 2) Our very vocal idiot leaders rationalize that disarming the very public that these monsters prey upon will somehow either protect the sheep or impede the wolf, when the exact opposite is true, as a thinly veiled excuse to attack the industry itself (read between those lines as you will). Clinton herself was just saying if elected she'd pull an Obama and use executive authority to directly act against firearms manufacturers. What does that even have to do with the issue? How do "improved" background checks impede a person that will never have one? A better step forward would be to enact legislation to tell the media to SHUT THE FUCK UP about it and stop blowing it up in an effort to prevent the mindset from spreading, and maybe spend more time reinforcing that we should not *want* to kill and harm each other. Hands over our eyes and wishful thinking, I know, but we've got to start somewhere.
People will always kill people. It's in our nature, ideas like morals and ethics are social constructs meant to maintain order in a communal setting, not some extension of ourselves. We are violent, possessive, materialistic, segregative, adaptive, emotional beings, and our conflicts with one another will never end, only the issues will vary.. Just like that never changes, so too will the idea that removing an object an individual can single-handley employ would ever stop the horrible things they would do with or without it. There, now that's out of the way... I laughed pretty heartily today when the news mentioned something about Hillary hopping on the gun control bandwagon again after the Oregon shooting.. Of course she would, she's been slipping in the polls and it's always a safe topic to pick the usual party stance on to not ever say anything new or meaningful but still incite a rise out of people. Been wondering if there's even such a thing as non-sensationalism in American media anymore. EDIT: Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 16:49 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Anytime something like that happens the parents should be thrown in prison, children taken away forever. If you can't keep your guns locked away safely and instead want them sitting around, openly accessible by your children you've failed completely as a parent and human being. You're criminally responsible for that murder on every single level. Just like Remington might somehow responsible because they may have manufactured that shotgun? God damn you people are childish. It's literally no different than if he had broken her neck with his bare hands in his rage. Nobody else is responsible for another human being's intent unless said human being is mindless themselves or forced against their will (which requires threat of force in and of itself). US law would agree with you at least so far as the parents taking the fall for their ward, but that two is based entirely on WHAT he did, not HOW, and the fact he's a legal minor.
If you are a parent you are liable and responsible for your children up to a legal enforced or morally accepted age / education / social state. You are always partially liable and responsible for the actions of those whose actions and thoughts you can easily influence or manipulate. By your logic responsibility can't ever be enforced when there is some chain of command or partial liability involved, which goes against the fundamental basis of much of modern tort laws.
It's very easy for you to say "no one else is responsible", yet studies have shown that a significant percentage of accidental deaths and unintentional injuries, particularly ones used in youth suicide attempts and other intentional youth shootings use guns that were accessible to them with out either a trigger lock, secured gun storage, or any parental oversight. Wasn't it just a few months ago when a 2 year old in Idaho pulled a gun out of the mother's handbag and shot her dead?
|
This thread is hell a lot of fun for sure :D Funny USA people.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 06 2015 18:53 Ghost151 wrote:
Two different scenarios entirely. In the first, people that usually keep a weapon with the thought of self-defense either hide a singular weapon withing easy reach (the most paranoid ones carry it ON them) or place multiple ones around their domicile, so it's unlikely that a person in that mindset would be beat to his own weapon by a complete stranger. My step-dad kept one in the nightstand, his truck, in the closet, at his shop and even mounted on the ATV for instance, in addition to all the ones in the safe. Especially with the state laws here, I wouldn't want to try to break in to his place with anybody home.
this is exactly the scenario that contradicts 'safe' gun storage, education on gun usage, gun control etc etc
all of those examples just prove that guns are so readily accessible to anyone who knows its whereabouts. this is why you have kids in america taking their parents guns and shooting schools. or in the most recent case, an 8 yr old child with a shotgun
|
On October 06 2015 17:07 Usagi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 16:47 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On October 06 2015 16:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so i just read some 11 year old shot his 8 yr old sister using his dads shotgun because 'he was angry'
a 11 yr old literally just took a shotgun out of somewhere and shot his sister.
what possible argument could gun advocates have for the prevention of this? "the gun should have been locked away"?
i really dont see why its so hard for so many americans to realise that no amount of 'gun control' will solve anything. they need to be removed just like the majority of most advanced countries Would you have preferred if he killed her with a knife because he was angry? It was a neighbour, and he shot her through his house's window. Just as easy as running after her to stab her, for sure.
Because 8 year old girls are hard to chase after.
Boy kills sister with wrestling move
Boy stabs girl after refusing to go to prom
Boy strangles girl with t shirt
Girl beats 2 month old baby to death
Girl kills classmate in fight over a boy
Go on, tell me how banning guns would have prevented these deaths. If you become irrationally angry enough to want to kill someone, not having a gun isn't going to stop you. Shit like this happens all the time, the only reason the gun related ones make the news is because people with an anti-gun agenda highlight the shit out of it because it keeps the narrative going.
Why don't we address the real issue of kids having shitty parenting instead of taking the lazy way out and blaming inanimate objects?
|
Are you kidding me? No, banning Guns wouldn't prevent all kind of deaths. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Btw:
Fights/Brawls normally aren't to the death and most often deaths coming from it are, as far as the Intention goes, accidents.
Shooting someone with a Gun? Death is a likely, if not the expected, outcome.
As for Knives, it needs way more "stomach" to actually stab someone than just pull the trigger. Yes, sometimes this won't matter.
|
Isn't it proof enough that having guns so available lead to shootings, if you look at all the other countries that have stricter gun laws? And countries like UK/Australia that enforced stricter laws after shootings, and it seems to have worked? US is the only first world country with so frequent mass shootings. I don't think americans are inherently angrier or more dissatisfied than others, but maybe if you live in a place where guns are a part of your daily lives, it would be a shorter leap to actually using one (let alone get a hold of one).
Also, I never actually understood the constitution thing. I get it that it says that every man should be able to bear arms, or something of the sort, but are laws in US never read/understood according to the times they were written? I'm sure there are a thousand outdated laws in the US, that would never be followed, were there an incident, like (terrible source, but random google: "If there are more than 5 Native Americans on your property you may shoot them." from South Dakota). In comparison, the constitution in Norway has almost every law written as "The King decides whether/when/if [insert something]", but it has since been read and understood as the government, and not the king, since the idea is now outdated. My point is that its not strange that the early settlers felt a need to bear arms, but its been a few hundred years now, and you have a working society with laws and law enforcement.
|
On October 06 2015 21:24 Velr wrote:
Are you kidding me? No, banning Guns wouldn't prevent all kind of deaths. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Btw:
Fights/Brawls normally aren't to the death and most often deaths coming from it are, as far as the Intention goes, accidents.
Shooting someone with a Gun? Death is a likely, if not the expected, outcome.
As for Knives, it needs way more "stomach" to actually stab someone than just pull the trigger. Yes, sometimes this won't matter.
You're missing the point entirely.
All of these deaths were due to somebody being irrationally angry enough to want to cause harm to someone else. That is the problem, the method of harm is just ancillary. You're better off solving the root issue rather than being lazy by banning guns and ending up with people who still respond to petty disputes with violence, be it with illegally obtained guns (oh, did you think banning guns would make all guns disappear instantly?), knives or fists.
On October 06 2015 21:37 shabby wrote:
Isn't it proof enough that having guns so available lead to shootings, if you look at all the other countries that have stricter gun laws? And countries like UK/Australia that enforced stricter laws after shootings, and it seems to have worked? US is the only first world country with so frequent mass shootings. I don't think americans are inherently angrier or more dissatisfied than others, but maybe if you live in a place where guns are a part of your daily lives, it would be a shorter leap to actually using one (let alone get a hold of one).
More guns = more shootings, yes. But in the case of UK/Aus, taking the guns away didn't reduce violence, it just caused people to find other tools for violence (which is my point above). I mean, you had a guy behead someone in the street in broad daylight in the UK. And then you get to the point where you start banning knives, and when that doesn't work, they increase restrictions and you have to show ID to buy teaspoons at the store.
|
Certainly. But killing one person with a knife or a gun is vastly different from killing 10-50 people with a gun or a knife. I think we all agree that violence will continue, and murders will happen if people are motivated enough. My point is that I think raiding a high school with a knife is much more difficult than with a gun.
|
When a depressed child or any other deranged individual can murder 10 people who are trying their hardest to get away, within the space of seconds, using anything other than a gun, this debate will make a tiny bit of sense. Until then, it is simply idiotic. Saying "guns don't kill people", which is the crux of all pro-gun rhetoric, is incredibly dishonest and outright stupid. It simply is not correct. It's a platitude. If guns don't kill people, why do you need a gun to defend from one? Use that knife you keep bringing up in debates and get him with that. Then come back and tell me how it went.
Making guns legal is the single dumbest mistake any country could make. It makes them widely accessible, which assures that anyone who wants to get hold of a firearfm can do so quickly, cheaply and anonymously. This means desperate, insane people have guns at their disposal, and they will use them to go on suicidal killing sprees instead of quietly offing themselves in some corner. It also makes sure petty criminals can get their hands on guns in no time. Suddenly everyone needs to have one just to level the playing field. We're witnessing hard proof of this fact day by day, America is completely fucked, the whole situation has the additional nasty side effect of turning cops into fascist, paranoid bullies because they're afraid a random 14-year-old might shoot at them, and it is not a situation you want to be in, period.
|
On October 06 2015 21:59 shabby wrote:
Certainly. But killing one person with a knife or a gun is vastly different from killing 10-50 people with a gun or a knife. I think we all agree that violence will continue, and murders will happen if people are motivated enough. My point is that I think raiding a high school with a knife is much more difficult than with a gun.
Sure. But if you ban something to prevent people from getting killed/hurt, and people get killed/hurt anyway, can you still say it was worthwhile to ban it?
On October 06 2015 22:09 Kickboxer wrote:
When a depressed child or any other deranged individual can murder 10 people who are trying their hardest to get away, within the space of seconds, using anything other than a gun, this debate will make a tiny bit of sense. Until then, it is simply idiotic. Saying "guns don't kill people", which is the crux of all pro-gun rhetoric, is incredibly dishonest and outright stupid. It simply is not correct. It's a platitude. If guns don't kill people, why do you need a gun to defend from one? Use that knife you keep bringing up in debates and get him with that. Then come back and tell me how it went.
Making guns legal is the single dumbest mistake any country could make. It makes them widely accessible, which assures that anyone who wants to get hold of a firearfm can do so quickly, cheaply and anonymously. This means desperate, insane people have guns at their disposal, and they will use them to go on suicidal killing sprees instead of quietly offing themselves in some corner. It also makes sure petty criminals can get their hands on guns in no time. Suddenly everyone needs to have one just to level the playing field. We're witnessing hard proof of this fact day by day, America is completely fucked, the whole situation has the additional nasty side effect of turning cops into fascist, paranoid bullies because they're afraid a random 14-year-old might shoot at them, and it is not a situation you want to be in, period.
How about a depressed man murdering hundreds of people in the space of seconds using a plane?
|
Yes. SpeaKEaSY, I'd say so, because you prevented the additional killings that the gun might have caused, and probably all the killings that would only have taken place if the perpetrator had a gun (i.e. killing someone from afar or in a drive-by). You say "people get killed/hurt anyway", like the numbers don't change, but I don't believe that to be the case, ecoing my point about killing 50 people with a knife vs a rifle, its just so much more unlikely to succeed. Another example is banning biological weapons: people still die, but I think it was worthwhile. And I don't think as many people would be killed if you banned guns, because they make it so easy, and it seems like the only major different thing between US and other developed countries, where mass shootings/mass murders are very rare in comparison.
Edit: About the plane, its the same thing. How many people can actually get a hold of, and fly a plane, and crash it into people? Very few. Hence why its not happening. But anyone can seemingly get a hold of a gun and learn how to use it very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
