Gun control

[eggsftw1]

lol he has such good points and is so funny about them

[Botre]

 *picture*

 

Sigh.

Everything in nature is lethal if enough force is applied or a large enough dose is administered, your point is just plain silly.

However; cars, kitchen utilities, construction tools and body members are fundamentally different from guns because their main purpose is not to kill, they are not weapons designed to harm other humans.

 

Also, directly from the FBI's site:

 

Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.8 percent) involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011.

 The fact that even one gun could remain existence means in the wrong hands it would be a very dangerous for all those without guns themselves

 

Law enforcement should always have access to the most powerful weapons to protect the citizens.

Inb4 the "corrupt armed government turning against the unarmed civilians" argument:

The USA government already has a billion-fold more powerful striking force (tanks, bombs, airplanes, boats, nuclear power) in comparison to all the private guns in the world, if they wanted to turn against the people they could easily already have done so (this is not a point politicians like to bring up ;))

 

 This is not acceptable and an important thing to remember is that most criminals are cowards who pick on the weak since they're much easier targets whereas those who can fight back effectively would be too much trouble to go after. Even in gun free zones like schools these shootings still happen because it all goes back to the fundamental fact that criminals by definition do not follow the law and those without guns are easy targets so why would they all of  sudden give up their guns?

 

Giving everyone a gun does not eliminate weakness or easy targets.

 

Criminals would acclimatize quickly and would, for example, start using even more deadly and illegal weapons to keep the upper hand. Now, when criminals start terrorizing the streets with bazookas, should we then allow common citizens to also keep bazookas in their car for self-defense? How about grenades, bombs, tanks?

 

 Whether or not making alcohol is easy is not the point; the fact is criminals can still get a hold of prohibited guns(some can make guns too provided, they have the knowledge/materials required). Even in America there's a black market of prohibited guns, and these guns are obtained internationally where the laws of the US don't apply and such bans don't exist. Even if a government had the Manpower to take all the guns away from people that doesn't mean they will cease to exist elsewhere in the world and then criminals can smuggle them into the united states and other countries as is done currently for explicitly banned firearms and other types of contraband. The prohibition argument makes perfect sense that is law-abiding citizens will obey the law, and criminals will continue not to obey the law and find ways around it and in turn take advantage just as was done in prohibition era, which created very serious crime problems for many decades.

 

 

Yes, it's inevitable.

As I said before, you can't eradicate them, but you can make them much less accessible.

In 2011 (USA), felony circumstance homicides (thieves, rapers, burglars, bank robbers, serial killers...)  represented 'only' 23% of all homicides. 43% of all homicide victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) [extremely high percentage when compared to countries with stricter gun policies]  and the remaining 38% of murders's circumstances remain unknown. 

 

Access to guns makes murder more accessible and easy for common citizens, there's no need for that.

Yes people would start stabbing each other to death, murder'll always be inevitable, but homicide rates would most certainly decrease if you take the most efficient, clean,impersonal killing tools out of the equation.

 

 Of course, life is fundamentally unsafe; it may be unpleasant to think about, but the world is an extremely messed up and dangerous place(this may be less apparent in modern nations such as America and most countries of Europe but even then bad things happen in those places). When going outside suppose there's a drunk driver wreaking havoc on the street, aside from running away there's really not much that we as individuals can do to stop the car other than run away and hide. These are the external forces I speak about which for simplicity sake can be divided into two groups,  the environment(such as natural disasters) and the actions of other people. The only way life could be 100% safe is to either other abstain from living or gain absolute control over the world which is impossible as much as governments of the world would love that. I never said there was no crime in America as there most certainly is, however, there would certainly be less if citizens had legal access to the same level of weaponry criminals have (because then criminals would be far outnumbered and actually have to make an effort to fight). Furthermore, if those with severe maladaptive emotional issues were not shamed for seeking help before it's too late, then very likely they would instead seek proper treatment for their maladaptive traits as opposed to killing/harming innocent people. Sadly, most of those who do have those issues are too afraid to admit they do for fear of persecution before even actually hurting anyone which leaves them to take the easy way and cave into their negative emotions. This isn't limited to anger issues either sadly but generally speaking people do not like to identify as having any mental health disorders for fear of social rejection even if they're not maladaptive in nature and just harm the individual like an eating disorder or depression.

 

I suppose this is a philosophical, difference of opinion.

 

I had to rewrite these answers a couple of time because I backspaced out of the thread (which made me really mad).

The next answers will be a bit more brief because I'm getting tired and can't be bothered to retype my previous answers.  

 

 Nope even if you took guns away there's a vast array of other weapons available for those troubled individuals to cause trouble. It's not wise to go after symptoms of an issue, rather it's important to get to the source and neutralize it which is too many people with severe emotional issues going without proper mental health care to contain their negative emotions. If everyone lost the ability to feel  anger, no one would care weapons existed because no one would have the desire to kill in the first place.

 

Homicide rates would most certainly decrease if you take the most efficient, clean,impersonal killing tools out of the equation.

But I wish we were able to make the desire to kill redundant. But yeah. If one day I get a free wish then who knows...

 

 Thank you for providing your sources however please keep in mind correlation doesn't exactly mean causation; just because violence in general has gone down in certain countries while at the same time strict gun control measures have been taken doesn't mean that just because of that legislation everyone is magically less violent. Besides who's to say the trend won't change in the future, and violence will go up even with strict gun control? There are so many other variables to consider and so many other possible explanations for example perhaps the people in those nations are more subordinate to their governments or those nations have better mental health care policies than countries with less gun control(that's not to say they got better by more gun control either).

 

I'm aware of that, however when correlation occurs almost without exceptions in cases distributed all over the world (which means different political systems, health care policies, etc...) I think it's relatively safe to say there's a causal link somewhere.

 

 I, Furthermore, would like to point out just because something is easier doesn't automatically mean it's the right decision; furthermore, using very strict Asian governments like China as a model to follow especially when it comes to human rights and safety is a horrible idea given their track record for violating human rights.

 

I was thinking of Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan. Sorry for the lack of specificity :p

 

 just wanted to point out I have nothing against you personally. I also would like to thank you for being mature in your argument and not attacking me personally like so many other people may have done in your position.

 

I like to argue, thanks for this.

I'm really pissed of for pressing backspace a couple of times while writing this reply though so I'm going to call it a day here and end this on a musical note.

 

 

 

[Ycd518]

guns ftw

[dirt]

always stay strapped ********a stay strapped while play rs u never know 

[Crippeh]

I don't see why it's such a big deal, I think bows are funner to shoot, personally. I'm not against guns though. I think it should be a bit stricter here.