Why not ban cars that go faster than 65 mph. No civilian needs a car that powerful. Only law enforcement needs cars like that. Those cars are really just penis substitutes. Those cars kill hundreds of toddlers per year. They are used in the commission of crimes. (see what I just did there?)
canât tell if serious⌠you know many cars come with legally mandated limiters, right?
3 Likes
3 Likes
Holy. Mother. Of. Crap.
That looks like child abuse to me!
Sigh - and yet millions and millions of people defying the laws of nature and not using their guns to kill people. There is a very large market of guns set up specifically for the shooting sports. Arguing against them because of their âpurposeâ is illogical when you can look at the REALITY of most guns arenât used for that at all. Reality is not what you see on TV and movies and games.
To use your absurd analogy, if 99% of assassin droids were re-purposed for knitting booties for orphans or fighting in battle bot competitions, i would be fine with it. Though in this far future, what separates an assassin droid from a regular one? Couldnât you convert a nanny bot into a terminator?
Can you explain why owning a gun is so important to you?
Really? Can you point me to the gun control laws that were violated by the kid that shot up all those babies in Newtown.
Does it matter? Why does something owned by someone else and hurting no one bother you?
I donât drink or smoke or do drugs either, but it isnât my business what you choose to ingest.
You mean the ones he STOLE from his mother who he killed?
You are aware of the topic of this discussion, are you not?
1 Like
He stole them from his mother? But no gun control laws were broken? Right?
1 Like
I am continually astonished to find that in a nation where there are more guns per capita than any other, the weapon of choice for homicide seems to be a gun. What is up with that?
Our homicide rate here in the US is of course absurdly low, compared to other nations in the world; here in the heartland of gun culture we simply are less likely to kill our neighbors (although in our economically depressed areas our citizens are ten times more likely to get murderous, almost reaching the high standards set by other nations). I contend this is due to the corrupting influence of Soviet Canuckistan, with their even lower rates of violence, directly to our north; their insistence that their citizenry should not be impoverished in the name of corporate profits is dragging us down.
But why donât people choose less efficient, more challenging means of achieving their ends, as they do in all the countries that have prevented citizens from owning guns? Does nobody have any grit any more? I would like to propose that all persons reading this take a solemn oath to commit all their murders with rocks and butter knives, in order to redress this sad failing, and save their guns for target shooting and occasional secret fondling and NRA parades.
Itâs clear that we need to redress the sad lack of non-gun violence in the USA, and thatâs why we need fewer guns. Guns donât need to be toddler-proofed as @xeni and @Mister44 might suggest; we simply need to raise our children to commit their murders is more appropriate, less efficient ways.
2 Likes
Well why arenât you making them mandatory? Think of the children!
When did this happen? Only handguns are banned as far as I can remember.
(I used to be a member of a gun club in the UK. Also a friend of my brother was killed by Derrick Bird and having a gun wouldnât have saved him. I wonât say anymore, I expect I would end up with both pro and anti-gun control people shouting at me.)
2 Likes
Stealing a gun is illegal. You could make any system you can imagine and as long as the guns exist someone could potentially steal them. He circumvented the system through theft so no amount of gun control would have stopped this (other than a complete ban).
I canât tell how satirical you are, but in the past one was more likely to settle an argument with fists, knives, and chains/clubs, etc.
No one should be okay with 15 dead toddlers, but at 15 dead gun violence with toddlers is not an epidemic. Heart disease among young children (1-4) kills more than 10 times that many, and we donât usually talk about a heart disease epidemic among toddlers. Iâm actually surprised at how low these number are, but I guess that even very irresponsible people know that they ought to keep loaded guns away from two-year-olds.
Still, there are states that have laws that discourage doctors from asking if parents of young children have guns in the home. While health workers remind parents about all kinds of things regarding baby proofing a house (including dangers of stairs and swimming pools) some states actively discourage doctors from doing the same regarding guns. A right to own guns is one thing, a right to not be told how to store guns safely is another. This is the kind of priority setting that drives me nuts.
I saw @mister44 ask what laws ought to be reformed. Here is what I think:
- Get rid of laws that protect gun owners from exposure to the idea that guns are dangerous like the doctor-patient communication chilling laws
- Get rid of laws that shield people from the consequences of actually shooting another person with a gun and that encourage escalation of violence like stand your ground
- Get rid of open carry laws that prevent private property owners from setting their own policies regarding carrying guns on their property
- Get rid of the majority of laws regarding guns because 22,000 is far too many (and sounds like one of those Three Felonies a Day things). Much of this would probably be done by harmonizing laws between different jurisdictions, but it would also include add-on boutique laws regarding using a firearm in the commission of other crimes (which could just be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing by judges instead). A reasonable person ought to be able to understand the rules.
- Have laws that restrict people from using guns under the same sorts of conditions you wouldnât be allowed to drive (when you are drunk, if you are blind, if you are prone to unpredictable seizures, if you are three years old)
At the same time, the government could use non-legal channels:
- Have regular amnesty programs in areas where gun violence in common so that people who want to dispose of weapons have a safe way to do so
- Use advertising campaigns to promote responsible gun ownership similar to anti-drunk driving campaigns (i.e., the goal is to create a broad public belief that it is wrong to ignore gun safety, and that friends donât let friends ignore gun safety)
I feel like that is a fairly reasonable list of things that would probably reduce gun injuries and fatalities, actually make life easier for gun owners who donât shoot people, and improve relationships between gun owners and non-gun owners (who would regard the situation as less insane).
I donât think that a single one of those things could happen in America in the current political climate except for possibly a policy of gun amnesty (but even then, Iâm sure youâd get a few âfuck youâsâ). I donât even think you could get gun safety advertising on the air because it would be seen as a warning shot in a war.
Of course, if America really wanted to reduce gun violence (as opposed to specifically reforming gun law) Iâd recommend:
- Legalization of all drugs
- Outlawing for-profit prisons
- Universal income (~$15k to $20 a year to each citizen)
(And, as stepping stones, fulling publicly funded election campaigns, amended statutes to clearly state that while corporations may have the powers of natural persons they are not people and donât have rights, and at least 85% tax on top earners)
13 Likes
Thanks for proving my point. Oh, they let them keep a few classes of weapons. so generous of their kind and gentle masters.
So I guess if we were being honest it would be âNo one wants to take ALL your guns away.â I think with the UK laws I would be allowed to keep 2 of mine.
This is where Iâm one of those pro-gun people who facepalms the current state of the NRA. When I was a kid, the NRA mostly existed to promote gun safety and training, sponsored target shooting, helped provide responsible materials on hunting, etc. My parents owned guns, always kept them safely locked up, and taught me age appropriate levels of handling (starting with âDonât point anything that looks like a gun at another person â ever!â).
Now itâs all Wayne LaPierre getting red in the face about âa good guy with a gunâŚâ and blaming evil liberals for wanting to take your gun away (which then leads to a shitload of gun sales). If theyâd go back to âHey, donât be an idiot, hereâs howâ, weâd have a huge advocate in preventing this sort of tragedy. Itâs disappointing, and while Iâm sure the NRA still does a lot of work in this direction, their spokespeople are too busy bloviating on TV to get any recognition for it, in turn solving no problems at all.
This is all opinon, but I truly believe this would be way more helpful than new, unenforcable laws.
As for mass shootings and the like, thatâs another story, as I believe there are many deep issues there, only one of which is access to guns, but there is also mental health, the media blowing it up every single time, inherent violence in our culture, issues with our school systems (in those cases), etc. Then again, note that we still have way more people falling off ladders and dying than we do people getting shot by toddlers, in mass shootings, or by domestic terrorism, but thatâs not sexy.
5 Likes
Iâm fine with sport shooting. Letâs just only sell bullets for the guns at ranges and you canât take any live rounds home with you. You get your hobby and no one has to fear that your lethal weapon will be stolen and used in a crime or suicide.
2 Likes
What this says to me is that although more stop and frisk would definitely reduce some gun deaths, you are opposed to it because it would lead to some civil liberties violations.
Okay.
Youâve convinced me.
I think weâre more on the same page than we were yesterday.
1 Like
