We did talk about this last time and you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation (from people, from stores, from manufacturers, from criminals etc.) wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence. I fully get that it's almost impossible to actually implement it politically at a large enough level but that's not the same thing as it not working.
We did talk about this last time and you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation (from people, from stores, from manufacturers, from criminals etc.) wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence. I fully get that it's almost impossible to actually implement it politically at a large enough level but that's not the same thing as it not working.If you're the one suggesting a US-wide change then you're the one who's supposed to come up with the justification.
Inq has a little sneaky word in there. "you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence."
the real question is, would taking guns out of circulation have a positive effect on violence in general? there is no doubt by removing all guns, gun violence will be zero. just look at London and Southern Sweden for evidence here ;)
Inq has a little sneaky word in there. "you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence."the real question is, would taking guns out of circulation have a positive effect on violence in general? there is no doubt by removing all guns, gun violence will be zero. just look at London and Southern Sweden for evidence here ;)
Well if there are literally no gun, there can't be much gun violence. Because... Gun violence requires guns. But the counter argument is that we need guns to defend ourselves in case the government becomes tyrannical, and because criminals will get access to guns anyway.
Not that I particularly agree with either of those counter-arguments.
Personally I think if we want implement laws to counter tyrannical governments, we should allow everyone easy access to tanks, military drones and ballistic missiles. Then instead of shooting up his school, little Timmy can blow up New York.
London’s Knife Crime Emergency: ON A KNIFE EDGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_pNlDhpbew
but still does not fix the underlying violence problem.
how do we fix the violence and stop blaming the tool used in the violence? when guns are banned knives are used, when knives are banned clubs will be used next, are humans forever doomed to violent primate tribalism?
You're missing the point, a knife can't shoot up an entire school or movie theater, a knife isn't explosive, a knife isn't as obvious of a ranged weapon and stabbing someone takes more commitment. It reduces the efficiency of the killing and makes for a considerably easier target.
If someone is unarmed versus these "tools", figure their odds.
Also, do you really think the military would use missiles on civilians? America is very aware that they need to cater to the support of their people to declare any sort of war. Anything like that used in country, even if for the right reasons would end in a massive turnout of support for the revolting side.
The government would be more likely to use information to either keep us suppressed or fighting against each other. The idea of them attacking their own people directly is madness when there's more nuanced means at their disposal even within overt, blatant strategies. The people are armed, but they aren't unified.
Factoring if we could take down the government as one gigantic faction isn't really the problem anymore for the government, it's more about who has dangerous tools at their disposal, how they got them, and how liable they are to be used against other regular people. When it just takes one person to cause mass hysteria, the issue changes in nature.
Surveillance seems to be the current strategy, and as time goes on they're liable to try to weed out the "fake news" seeds before they have the chance to grow.
London’s Knife Crime Emergency: ON A KNIFE EDGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_pNlDhpbew
but still does not fix the underlying violence problem.
how do we fix the violence and stop blaming the tool used in the violence? when guns are banned knives are used, when knives are banned clubs will be used next, are humans forever doomed to violent primate tribalism?
You're missing the point, a knife can't shoot up an entire school or movie theater, a knife isn't explosive, a knife isn't as obvious of a ranged weapon and stabbing someone takes more commitment. It reduces the efficiency of the killing and makes for a considerably easier target.
If someone is unarmed versus these "tools", figure their odds.
i understand that knives are less effect killing tools. my point in putting the knives up was to showing that violence continues with or without guns. is the violence less effective? of course, guns are better than knives at killing.
but guns/knives dont cause the violence. people do
37200 people died in gun related events in 2016,
37461 people died in automobile related events in 2016. why are we focused on guns?
the best answer so far is fear of guns and media hype
we dont seem to have fear of drunk drivers or fear of automobiles and i see zero media hype bandwagoning about automobiles.
BTW mass shootings are insignificant statistically, very few deaths occur. it sucks it happens, the cause seems to be bullied autistic shooters or crazy people shooters. gang shootings seems to be the norm
Gun control thread 2.0? : p
The anti gun argument is an uninformed and reactionary one pushed by the news. Most as in over 95% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Restrictions would do nothing on the number of gun related homicides. You want to lower the gun deaths, come down harder on the drug trade.
Why does it matter how many gun owners are law-abiding? If we gave everyone an arsenal of nukes it hardly matters that only 0.01% of them were 'illegally' used. The focus should be on the trade-off between consequences and benefits instead, in my opinion.
Is a nuke really a fair comparison? This is teetering a bit towards Slippery Slope.
Why wouldn't restrictions and/or buybacks have an effect?
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
They added that extra bit at the end for a reason, it's entirely unique and isn't present in any other amendment. There is no changing this. There is no discussion to even be had, if the constitution can have a core amendment negated it opens up the door for an inevitable domino effect that we can not afford.
Anti gun people are ignorantly playing with fire for no reason. There is sound logic on why the founding fathers found this so crucial that only the first amendment of free speech was prioritized over it.
The founding fathers also, wisely, added the option for amendments precisely because things might change in the future. It's absolutely possible to change the 2nd amendment (if there was support for it) without risking some kind of domino effect. Laws are organic.
I also think the fetishizing of the founding fathers is a bit unsound. They weren't that different from the politicians of today.
If we just start throwing away the core tenants that helped this country develop into what it is today, it could stand to become anything in this current social climate. Them being stuck within constraints forces them to work harder and smarter, such as the current workaround for The Electoral College. We are who we are as a culture not directly because of the Constitution itself, but we are a reflection of where it's brought us today causally. It's at our foundation, and ripping pieces of it out's very risky, even if simply for setting the precedent that it's okay to do so.
Everyone here's too splintered now to agree on much of anything, and I'd argue that they need to be herded under some banner of consistency that's "bigger than them" if it's going to show any sense of stability. People of the US use the constitution as a means of backing up their arguments against anyone, including the government, and without that as a backbone of justification it'd just be the government and it's people plainly.
London’s Knife Crime Emergency: ON A KNIFE EDGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_pNlDhpbew
but still does not fix the underlying violence problem.
how do we fix the violence and stop blaming the tool used in the violence? when guns are banned knives are used, when knives are banned clubs will be used next, are humans forever doomed to violent primate tribalism?
You're missing the point, a knife can't shoot up an entire school or movie theater, a knife isn't explosive, a knife isn't as obvious of a ranged weapon and stabbing someone takes more commitment. It reduces the efficiency of the killing and makes for a considerably easier target.
If someone is unarmed versus these "tools", figure their odds.i understand that knives are less effect killing tools. my point in putting the knives up was to showing that violence continues with or without guns. is the violence less effective? of course, guns are better than knives at killing.
but guns/knives dont cause the violence. people do
What do you figure is the easier and more reasonable path to take: regulating guns, or changing human nature?
It doesn't matter if it's "people's fault" that the guns were fired as tools that killed people, in the interest of Harm Reduction it makes sense to go for the tools.
37200 people died in gun related events in 2016,
37461 people died in automobile related events in 2016. why are we focused on guns?
How many people would you say in the United States have been killed by car bombs as of 2016? Should we just be okay with car bombs because of their low fatality rate?
the best answer so far is fear of guns and media hype
Said fear also has a way of selling more guns...
we dont seem to have fear of drunk drivers or fear of automobiles and i see zero media hype bandwagoning about automobiles.
What would you expect to happen if they tried to handle driving the way they handle guns?
BTW mass shootings are insignificant statistically, very few deaths occur. it sucks it happens, the cause seems to be bullied autistic shooters or crazy people shooters. gang shootings seems to be the norm
The issue with guns is over how they are sort of like "the great equalizer". They reduce our means of survival significantly more than most tools at our disposal, and they do so with ease.
If you're the one suggesting a US-wide change then you're the one who's supposed to come up with the justification.
Isn't the justification obvious? That the freedom to not be a victim of gun violence should be prioritized over the freedom to own guns.
Well if there are literally no gun, there can't be much gun violence. Because... Gun violence requires guns. But the counter argument is that we need guns to defend ourselves in case the government becomes tyrannical, and because criminals will get access to guns anyway.
Not that I particularly agree with either of those counter-arguments.
Personally I think if we want implement laws to counter tyrannical governments, we should allow everyone easy access to tanks, military drones and ballistic missiles. Then instead of shooting up his school, little Timmy can blow up New York.
Yeah, I'd say both of those arguments are a little thin in the context of a massive gun buyback couple with restriction. The argument about criminals getting access to weapons anyway makes more sense when we're talking about slimmer restrictions. The actual implementation of the restriction matters a lot.
Inq has a little sneaky word in there. "you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence."
You read that sneakiness into it since you seem to believe that a reduction in gun violence will lead to an equal increase in some other kind of violence. I think that is very unlikely.
the real question is, would taking guns out of circulation have a positive effect on violence in general? there is no doubt by removing all guns, gun violence will be zero. just look at London and Southern Sweden for evidence here ;)
Yes, I'd say taking guns out of circulation would have a positive effect on violence in general.
Not sure what your point about London or southern Sweden is here. Are you saying they have gun violence issues despite more stringent gun laws or that they have an equal amount of other violence to balance out their lack of gun violence?
