The thread about guns and stuff like that!

[Valerie]

Ugh, do we really need another gun thread? It's like we have one every couple of months, and the same shit always gets said.

 

[Rob "Klister"]

Whether they make guns or not would depend entirely on how much political pressure there is on them. You seem to be assuming a very low level of pressure on them, and that's not really fair to the argument.

And again, your argument about the negative effects of a handgun black market sounds more like your opinion than anything else. We can't predict how much demand there would be for handguns in the criminal world, so why should I accept your gloom-and-doom predictions as more significant than the chance that far fewer people will be getting killed by handguns if they're illegal?

oh come on, politicians are bought all the time. you dont think gun mans shell out loads of cash to keep their business going. don't be so naive. they have billions at their disposal.

hand guns are the easiest thing to conceal. of course there will be a demand for them. you think criminals are going to start carrying shotguns around just because they're easier to obtain.?

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

It's pretty absurd to claim that "guns save lives" when the U.S. has by far the highest murder rate of any developed country in the world.

ok, take guns away from the good natured citizens and watch the murder rate double

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Also in defense of Krig and other fellow pro-gunners (ironic term I've randomly invented I think ) guns aren't the only way to murder people. I don't know what our gun death rates are though.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

oh come on, politicians are bought all the time. you dont think gun mans shell out loads of cash to keep their business going. don't be so naive. they have billions at their disposal.

Why are you even making this argument? If this is the kind of reasoning you go by, you might as well just say, "Fuck the environment, fuck public health, and fuck personal liberties. Big businesses don't give a shit about any of those, and they have enough money to bribe the government with, so there's nothing we can do about them polluting, manufacturing dangerous drugs, and making software that spies on us." Isn't the whole point of policy reform to raise enough public outcry that politicians have to go against the big businesses lest they risk losing votes? Seriously.

hand guns are the easiest thing to conceal. of course there will be a demand for them. you think criminals are going to start carrying shotguns around just because they're easier to obtain.?

I agree with your point, but I think you're still ignoring the fact that making it easier for EVERYONE to have guns is going to result in more deaths overall, because it will reduce (1) accidental deaths by gunfire, and (2) crimes of passion, where normally un-criminal people resort to violence out of anger or desperation.

Of course, we're not going to get anywhere in this debate without looking at statistics that compare different types of homicides, and homicides vs. accidental deaths. But to say that banning handguns will result in more homicides due to criminals having exclusive access to handguns is just short-sighted.

 

[Valerie]

Guess I'll chime in and add to this.

Also in defense of Krig and other fellow pro-gunners (ironic term I've randomly invented I think ) guns aren't the only way to murder people. I don't know what our gun death rates are though.

This is a relavent point that most people against guns often dismiss. Not only are they one of the many ways to kill people, but they're also one of the most difficult to obtain. It'd be much easier to buy a knife or a sword to kill someone, or even use your own body.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

ok, take guns away from the good natured citizens and watch the murder rate double

Yes, just look at all the helpless citizens of European countries. They're just getting slaughtered left and right by all those criminals with access to superior weaponry.

 

[Cythraul]

I'm sure not many people kill with swords these days, which is pretty unfortunate because swords are way more badass than knives and guns and killing people with them is ultra-badass.

 

[Rob "Klister"]

Why are you even making this argument? If this is the kind of reasoning you go by, you might as well just say, "Fuck the environment, fuck public health, and fuck personal liberties. Big businesses don't give a shit about any of those, and they have enough money to bribe the government with, so there's nothing we can do about them polluting, manufacturing dangerous drugs, and making software that spies on us." Isn't the whole point of policy reform to raise enough public outcry that politicians have to go against the big businesses lest they risk losing votes? Seriously.



I agree with your point, but I think you're still ignoring the fact that making it easier for EVERYONE to have guns is going to result in more deaths overall, because it will reduce (1) accidental deaths by gunfire, and (2) crimes of passion, where normally un-criminal people resort to violence out of anger or desperation.

Of course, we're not going to get anywhere in this debate without looking at statistics that compare different types of homicides, and homicides vs. accidental deaths. But to say that banning handguns will result in more homicides due to criminals having exclusive access to handguns is just short-sighted.

im making this argument because you said "Whether they make guns or not would depend entirely on how much political pressure there is on them. You seem to be assuming a very low level of pressure on them, and that's not really fair to the argument." the reason why there is low pressure is because of the money the politicians are getting. pretty straight forward.

i never said we should make it easier for everyone to get guns. i'm not sure where you're getting this.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This is a relavent point that most people against guns often dismiss. Not only are they one of the many ways to kill people, but they're also one of the most difficult to obtain. It'd be much easier to buy a knife or a sword to kill someone, or even use your own body.

Why exactly are you holding anti-gun people solely at fault for that? Doesn't that just deflate the argument for both sides equally?

Obviously gun policy isn't going to affect a huge percentage of the population. Banning guns won't result in wholesale slaughter of law-abiding citizens, and maintaining the status quo isn't going to cause a national crisis either. But changes in gun policy can still affect hundreds or thousands of lives per year, so it's something worth discussing just like any other public safety issue.

 

[Valerie]

Why exactly are you holding anti-gun people solely at fault for that? Doesn't that just deflate the argument for both sides equally?

What? Why would someone in favor of guns... dismiss... an argument in favor of guns...

 

[zabu of nΩd]

im making this argument because you said "Whether they make guns or not would depend entirely on how much political pressure there is on them. You seem to be assuming a very low level of pressure on them, and that's not really fair to the argument." the reason why there is low pressure is because of the money the politicians are getting. pretty straight forward.

i never said we should make it easier for everyone to get guns. i'm not sure where you're getting this.

Well, it sounded like you were using this to argue against gun policy reform. I don't know why you would be making such a big deal out of how "big and bad" the gun companies are otherwise.

But if you're not actually using that argument to justify the status quo in U.S. gun policy, then what are we even arguing about? I don't really know what you're trying to argue as far as whether gun policy should be tighter or not. I'm just trying to argue that it should be tighter.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What? Why would someone in favor of guns... dismiss... an argument in favor of guns...

Well, sorry if I'm having trouble following you right now, but I don't see how that was an argument in favor of guns. Just because guns aren't the sole method of homicide doesn't mean we should make them more readily available. That's kind of like saying, "Well, drunk driving isn't the main reason people die in car accidents, so we should be more lenient on drunk driving."

 

[Rob "Klister"]

Well, it sounded like you were using this to argue against gun policy reform. I don't know why you would be making such a big deal out of how "big and bad" the gun companies are otherwise.

But if you're not actually using that argument to justify the status quo in U.S. gun policy, then what are we even arguing about? I don't really know what you're trying to argue as far as whether gun policy should be tighter or not. I'm just trying to argue that it should be tighter.

i was using the argument against the ban handguns idea and how it will never happen is all.

as far as making guns easier to obtain, i'm against. the back round checks and 3 day waiting period were good ideas, though almost unaffective.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

i was using the argument against the ban handguns idea and how it will never happen is all.

Just because a reform is unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Unless you actually think it's better for handguns to be legal than illegal, why would you dismiss the idea of banning handguns just because a bunch of greedy companies would oppose it? That seems pretty absurd.

 

[Valerie]

Well, sorry if I'm having trouble following you right now, but I don't see how that was an argument in favor of guns. Just because guns aren't the sole method of homicide doesn't mean we should make them more readily available. That's kind of like saying, "Well, drunk driving isn't the main reason people die in car accidents, so we should be more lenient on drunk driving."

To get my view straight, I'm not in favor of lessening gun control, but I am opposed to making it more strict. Guns shouldn't be singled out when there are many other easier-to-obtain items to use to kill someone.

 

[Rob "Klister"]

Just because a reform is unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Unless you actually think it's better for handguns to be legal than illegal, why would you dismiss the idea of banning handguns just because a bunch of greedy companies would oppose it? That seems pretty absurd.

you can attempt all you want, it wont happen. money rules the world, in case you haven't noticed, and the gun mans have a shitload of it. its absurd to think gun mans aren't buying votes to thwart your little attempts.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Cigarettes are taxed extremely highly and they make a large amount of income though. Not everything that makes a lot of money is unregulated in an economic sense.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

To get my view straight, I'm not in favor of lessening gun control, but I am opposed to making it more strict. Guns shouldn't be singled out when there are many other easier-to-obtain items to use to kill someone.

I think the idea is that it's much more useful to single out guns than other things which are impractical to even restrict at all (i.e. knives, baseball bats, razor blades). Anyone can obtain a sharp or blunt object to attack someone with. But a projectile weapon is much more convenient, and also much easier to control since they aren't an integral part of our daily lives.

Of course, you may be referring to things like tasers, mace, brass knuckles, etc. I'm not really sure. You'd have to be more specific.

 

[Rob "Klister"]

To get my view straight, I'm not in favor of lessening gun control, but I am opposed to making it more strict. Guns shouldn't be singled out when there are many other easier-to-obtain items to use to kill someone.

how would you make it harder to obtain, say knives? they're everywhere. theres no way to regulate flow of any kind.

even if you couldn't buy one, you could make one. all you need is a piece of metal and a sharpening stone.

edit:ninja'd by vg