Printable View
People don't kill people. Hammers kill people!!!!
Marissa Devault: The Hammer Killing Case | HLNtv.com
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles
"For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs."
I think we can all agree that hammers aren't a problem...
... it's those semi-automatic hammers that should be banned.
Well, I think all hammers are bad because some hammers have decided to kill people, but the semi-automatic ones are especially immoral creatures. Requiring a background check and a three day waiting period are what we need because they are the next steps toward all out banning of hammers. Banning hammers will get them off the streets just like banning heroin and cocaine got those off the streets. Then criminals won't be able to kill anybody any more.
This doesn't make you come across as intelligible, you know that right?
Drawing comparisons between a gun and a hammer (let along drugs) is absolutely absurd. Any heavy moderately sized object can be used a a blunt force weapon.
Guns aren't the cause of the problem, but they are part of it. There are too many guns in circulation in the USA, it's too easy to get hold of them. And the only argument you can come up with is that government might turn totalitarian one day.
You're right, all weapon controls are inherently absurd.
Legislation against carrying fertiliser bombs or dirty nukes around in public is also completely unnecessary.
Ha ha, what the Hell? My arguments against gun control go way beyond the need to be prepared for possible future of tyranny, but that too is an issue. Do you assume that the United States has magical automatic protection against going totalitarian like so many other countries have? The parallel between drugs and weapons here is that banning them only affects people who give a shit about the law. Can you explain how banning guns or hammers would stop the underground market? It wouldn't. Hammers and guns are small, simple weapons that cannot be taken off the underground market without having a police state. Banning them would just give the bad guys an advantage. I know lots of stories of good people defending themselves with guns. My father stopped two burglars with a gun when my mother and sister were in the house. Under your ideal system, my dad wouldn't have had a gun but the burglars would have. What a great idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
So, should we ban hammers? Why or why not?
Bombs are much easier to catch people with, and there is not a major market for them. The underground bomb market can actually be controlled to a significant extent, but even that isn't majorly controllable. The bigger issue is the assholes who want to bomb stuff. We concentrate much more on them than their weapons. That is a rational approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Explain how criminals give a shit about gun laws. Also, should we ban hammers? Why or why not? Hammers kill!!!
Attachment 6726
1. Media sensationalism that leads to the glorification and near-celebrity status of crazed gunmenQuote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
2. Lack of support for the mentally ill
3. A culture of confrontation
4. Mistrust of local (and federal) authorities
5. A "gun culture" born out of points 3 and 4.
These are the issues that need to be addressed if gun violence is to be reduced. There aren't nearly as many guns in circulation here in Canada, but it's still incredibly easy to get your hands on one. But we don't have nearly as many mass shootings (can't think of any in the last couple years), because we're not faced with problems 1-5 (at least not much).
Our gun violence would drastically shrink if we would end the war on drugs. Gang fighting for turf is a big time reason for gun violence. When alcohol prohibition ended, gun violence went way down, but it went way back up again when weed was banned. It went really bad when Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971. Also, the gang problem we have now, which is a much bigger version of the gang problem we had during alcohol prohibition, rubs off on the rest of society. Drug dealers have money and power, and that makes other people think it's cool to be "gangsta." With that image comes acting like a hard ass all the time, and violence is part of that. Violence is very glamorized by the gangster culture that is so out of hand because of the prohibition of tons of drugs.
Completely right, but none of that validates gun ownership. Guns should be regulated (not banned, nothing good comes from things that are banned), laws should be established that prohibits anything but the most basic gun possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Education and medical care for all is definitely the long term solution, as it always is. For now a temporary solution involving stricter surveillance might actually work. The middle step of a reform is always the toughest, for things to change, the people must adapt.
Dutchraptor, do you think you can answer my questions?
I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I'll answer this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
First let's assume that there's no radiation leaking out of the briefcase. So no one is being injured by radiation. The only injuries would occur in the event of an explosion. We need to make this assumption because otherwise I would agree with you, as the briefcase is harming people just by existing (radiation).
But assuming you're not dropping a trail of fallout behind you, I would say no. It should not be illegal. Setting off a bomb should be illegal, but carrying one doesn't hurt anyone. By your reasoning, driving a car should be illegal too, because it could potentially run people over. Or imagine an 18 wheeler. That thing could kill lots of people. How about an airplane? Some jihadists have already shown us how dangerous they can be.
And consider someone who works in a quarry. They use explosives every day. Presumably those explosives need to be transported from somewhere to the detonation site. Therefore, someone, at some point, has to be carrying a bomb, or something that could easily become a bomb. Yes, they have a license from some government somewhere, but how does a license alter the physical reality that a person is carrying a bomb?
I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.
Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.
Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes. Explosives used in quarries are shipped in separate parts as well. TNT on one train, detonator(s) on another, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
It should. Those are actually controllable, for the reasons I stated. They also do not serve self-defense purposes, and they don't qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment. Do you think we should ban hammers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
When did you stop being an anarchist? You are arguing for laws now. I believe in laws too, but you used to say we shouldn't even have a government.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
There's nothing about anarchism that says briefcase nukes should be permissible. Not the kind of anarchism that I'd advocate, anyway. Anarchy does not equal anomie, and if I did, I wouldn't be an anarchist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
To answer your question, I came to the conclusion that getting rid of the state wholesale does not always yield immediate benefits with regard to increasing or maintaining liberties. I said in the other thread that I am pro-liberty before I am anti-state. I will support the argument that the government should legalize gay marriage before supporting the argument that the state should not even be involved in marriage, for example.
If a maximally free society is one where the state doesn't exist, I will advocate for that system. If a maximally free society is one where the state still exists, but is minimal, I will advocate for that system. I don't know which one is true.
Whether all of that still makes me a non-anarchist is unclear. I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society, so I believe I still am an anarchist. If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.
Besides, from a purely stylistic standpoint, purist anarchists never get anywhere in the debates I've seen (and been part of). If we argue about gun control or gay marriage, all they ever say is "get rid of the state, presto, problem solved." That's not feasible right now, so they achieve no benefits by arguing in that manner.
Then, who should the body of authority with a rule against briefcase nukes be? What type of rule would you like, if not a government rule? Wouldn't the body with a rule against briefcase nukes qualify as a government?
What do you think of gun control and hammer control?
It doesn't matter to me what kind of system it is, as long as it does it effectively. If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Hammer control is absurd, gun control is often ineffective and unethical.Quote:
What do you think of gun control and hammer control?
I dig this guy's videos on gun control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJf3aoR7MTo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh90sEYltV8
You just straight up admitted that you are not really an anarchist. I think we can move on now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
"Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World" Liberty Crier
http://libertycrier.com/why-switzerl...-in-the-world/
"The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols."
If you actually look at your original argument, you're now just engaging in special pleading. No, I don't think hammers should be banned. Carpenters need to use them. Or maybe somebody just has a DIY hobby or hammer-collecting hobby. Presumably you concur that these are good reasons for allowing the transportation of hammers in public. And yet these reasons have nothing to do with self-defence. So when you object to transporting bombs on the grounds that they can't be used for self-defence, that's an incoherent argument. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to carry hammers or anything else around other than self-defence. Maybe somebody has a bomb hobby. Maybe someone likes to build nuclear reactors. The fact is that your objection to people carrying bombs is currently inconsistent. Whether or not it's easy to hide something is also just special pleading again. This was never important for your analogy. People should be allowed to carry hammers because they are free to do so, not because hammers are easy to hide - that's a nonsensical reason. And what if the hammer wasn't easy to hide? What if it was big and shiny? Obviously this should make no difference. So again it is inconsistent to reject the carrying of bombs on the grounds that bombs are "hard to hide". And anyway, what about bombs which aren't? Hiding a fertiliser bomb in the boot of your car is easy. Based on your current justifications, fertiliser bombs in the boots of cars shouldn't be illegal. And yet presumably you don't actually think that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Try to come up with some consistent reasons why carrying hammers or guns should be legal, but not bombs.
Hammers can't be used for self-defense? Do you want to make a bet on that?
My point was that bombs can be successfully controlled for multiple reasons (and are) and that none of the arguments for gun legality apply to them. Size is just one factor in the bigger picture of that. You fallaciously assumed I was saying that any one part of that picture can work as a full justification for bomb illegality. The general arguments for gun legality do apply to hammers but do not apply to bombs.
Guns can be used for more than self-defense also. They can be used for hunting, for shooting targets, as props in movies and plays, as hammers, and for other things.
With that in mind, try to consistently justify why hammers should be legal and guns should not.
Please read my posts in the context of the point I was trying to get across. I very clearly previously said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society[.]
But I am not certain in that. I very clearly express my uncertainty, as one should, and reiterate my position of being pro-liberty before anti-state.
If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.
I think my posts are being written clearly so if you could spend a little more time trying to understand what I'm saying, this discussion will go more smoothly. I'd rather not have to repeat myself because you took a single snippet of my post and took it for the whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Then you are not an anarchist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
https://www.google.com/#q=anarchist+definition&safe=off
an·ar·chist
ˈanərkist/
noun
noun: anarchist; plural noun: anarchists
1.
a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.
Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
an·ar·chy
1
a : absence of government
If I understand you correctly, in order to align oneself with a particular point of view, we have to have absolute certainty that it is true? Is that what you're saying?
No, but you have to believe it. You are on the fence, and you said you don't care if the state exists and don't care if it tells people what to do. Anarchists care if the state exists and want it not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I have no interest in a discussion if you're just going to make blatant troll statements like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Read my posts with more care, please. Repeating myself is becoming very tedious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Expressing uncertainty about whether something is true or not is not the same as being on the fence. I very clearly said I see no reason why a state MUST exist for there to be a maximally free society. If you still don't understand: I think we can achieve a maximally free society without a state. This is the core of the libertarian anarchist philosophy. But I recognize that I could be wrong. Maybe in order to have a maximally free society, we do need a minimal state. If that ends up being the case, then so be it, I'll be a minarchist. This is why I say I'm pro-liberty before anti-state. Your short-sighted dictionary definitions do this discussion no justice.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Do I need to clarify anything else?
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You didn't mention the relevant fact in your list of reasons for keeping hammers legal. Self-defense is a virtue. It is a reason to keep hammers legal, and it is a reason to keep guns legal.
Yeah, those damn dictionary definitions screw up everything. Look at what I boldfaced. That is called being on the fence. Also, notice that you have said not one word of support for my points on the problems with gun control in any of my threads about it. You have only opposed me. You are not an anarchist, and you are not a libertarian. There is a reason that you are trying to pretend otherwise. What is it? You have been trying to play two roles that contradict each other lately, and it is not working.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Pro gun rights here because even if I don't carry a gun I don't want any potential muggers or home-invaders to know in almost complete certainty that I don't carry a gun. On the other hand, I'm perfectly comfortable if they're certain I don't own a dirty bomb or a flame thrower.
Why would you need anything more than a small revolver for self defense? It makes no sense why so many states still allow assault weapons. I think a single bullet will do against an intruder, you don't need 40.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Same goes for shotguns, there is absolutely no reason anyone should use a shotgun for self defense.
I could really not care that much for taking guns off the people completely, I just find it absurd that so many states still have absolutely no regulation of their guns.
What if you miss the burglar or attacker? What if there are five of them? What if there are ten of them? I want at least a semi-automatic for that situation. An automatic like an uzi would help a whole lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
What does regulation do? Can you provide any evidence that it shuts down the underground market for criminals even one bit? It only works on people who care about the law, and that puts the good guys at a major disadvantage.
Self-defence is not the main reason that hammers are legal, nor rolling pins, nor flower pots. They are legal because they are a useful tool for hammering stuff. So far you haven't mentioned that hammers can also be used as paperweights. This doesn't demonstrate that you don't understand hammers can be used as paper weights. You're very bad at logical reasoning, or you were trolling. Pick one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
What you didn't comprehend is that there are multiple reasons for guns and hammers to be legal and one of the key reasons guns need to be legal also applies to hammers. It is important that you understand the analogy parallels involved here. Do you understand that, or do I need to dumb it down for you even more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Did you see the stats I posted concerning Switzerland? They have one of the highest rates per capita of gun ownership in the world and also the lowest violent crime rate per capita in the world. Is that just a coincidence? What is your analysis?
Can you explain how gun control substantially hinders underground gun markets? Also, why isn't gun control working in Mexico, Chicago, Detroit, or Washington?
I'm not giving any analysis and I'm not participating in this discussion any more. You posted an obvious and intentional logical fallacy, and rather than have the maturity to admit it you went on the offensive and tried to blame it on my own stupidity, however that works. Why do you think I would want to have a conversation with someone who's just going to be rude and disingenuous? It won't be pleasant and it certainly won't achieve anything. See you in another thread.
http://img.pandawhale.com/28465-Jerr...s-gif-yxqm.gif
While I want to bring up that I never actually condoned, specifically, the legalization (and deregulation) of big guns, shotguns are awesome for self defense. You get a wide spray so you don't need to aim and the shells have little chance of passing through walls and injuring neighbors (unlike an assault rifle).Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
I want a semi-automatic rifle one day, personally. I also want a sizable chunk of land to start my cult--er commune--intentional community--and I want to hunt it, and have the option of aiming at intruders from far away. And also, zombie apocalypse. Or, more likely, extreme water shortage or some other massive depopulating crisis that would cause people to attempt to raid my land and steal my stuff.
In other words, you're stumped. Your excuse is worthless because I countered your points about my supposedly fallacious comments and because I am not the only person reading this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
StephL, I keep seeing you like comments that insult me although you make no comments regarding the discussions. I challenge you to chime in and give an analysis. Try to answer my questions that Xei can't answer.
It is a futile errand to attempt to prevent crimes and murders by controlling the means.
Rather than trying to control the means, we should be trying to address the will. The problem is not that people CAN violate one another's rights, but that they have the DESIRE to.
Human nature is the issue here, not human tools.
I agree. It reminds me of the war on drugs. That's another policy aimed at the supply of inanimate objects instead of the human demand to use them.
This is actually a quite difficult topic.
And you did it a disservice by bringing up this hammer-business, Universal Mind, and getting lost in arguing this artificial concept.
Being from Germany - that's probably going for most of Europe as well - I fail to really understand the importance Americans attribute to being personally armed. The culture of admiration for the strong man with his weapon ready for everything seems like having a life and dynamic of its own.
I am aware of the historical context - but going from my belly-feeling/intuition - it alienates me - it looks like national craziness.
For me this supposed threat you seem to feel lurking everywhere looks to be mainly paranoia.
Your argument is valid, though, that restriction of weapons in private hands would give the people who don't care about laws and use them for their criminal purposes anyway - headway in the "arms race".
But is it appropriate - realistic?
It's a vicious circle - being a criminal in America - you are well advised to go armed, because so many private people do not only own weapons, but feel it justified to shoot an intruder for example, without an actual violent threat being clearly at hand.
This is completely illegal over here and seen as lynch-justice - you are supposed to run the heck away if at all possible and call the cops.
How many criminals come into your home and don't want to only steal things, but rape your wife and kill the kids and you?
It is also quite likely that weapons get used accidentally against innocent people, being mistaken for vicious enemies or used in intra-family conflicts, even.
I needed to see numbers on how many people do use their private guns to actually protect themselves, and it works, and is justified as the only means, that would have been possible to the same effect.
And why a simple gun would not have been enough for that.
How many gangs come in on private people in bunches in order to do violence to them??
The usual intruder is going to try to not come across anybody and be undisturbed.
And you sound, as if all guns were about to become illegal - what is being discussed here, is if the ownership of heavy-duty stuff - automatic and assault weapons - so the thing seems to be blown out of proportion.
Remind me - what is it, that will actually change - besides the regulations you already have?
Maybe America is still wild west and completely different from say Germany and also Switzerland.
Switzerland doesn't have a standing army, but instead private people get drafted to practice with their own military gun regularly.
But Switzerland is a whole different can of worms than America - I've been living there (also in Chicago for several months by the way).
Not only is a mentality of trust in government and general law-abiding and duty-fulfilling, cleanliness and peacefulness something widely pervasive - it is an extremely rich country, it controls immigration very rigorously, and it is strictly regulated, how to store and secure your rifle and illegal to use it for anything than to defend yourself against armed violence.
One main factor, why the crime rate is so low in these few million people, is that people live in villages and really small towns - even Zürich is no comparison to Berlin or any American metropolis. People know each other and you don't get far.
These are much stronger arguments for the low crime-rate than private gun-ownership.
Maybe it is already too late - the constitutional right and historical pride and whatever else - has lead to this arms race - private people drawing on their own guns leads to criminals also going armed with more than knives or use blunt hammer-like things on the spot.
The threshold to actually use those is much higher, since it can only be done at close quarters.
Maybe it really deters potential assaulters - the knowledge, that they might be shot at.
More likely it doesn't deter them, but they will keep pace and get more and more heavy weapons of their own.
The more massive armament gets - the more incentive is there to use it, unfortunately.
I do agree with your opinion on the war on drugs by the way Universal Mind.
There is a much more powerful positive possibility - stopping the madness inherent in it - than how much firepower up to extremes an individual may have.
Concerning this very topic and concerning more aspects besides.
That's an argument - but in the meantime - there's no need, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
If it comes to such a situation - either controls fall or fail and everybody uses the black market for anything anyway.
Good argument for shotguns and against assault rifles - the wall-penetration, by the way.
Okay - my fazit - America might have a problem at hand, which originates from several cultural aspects - and it might be, that it is too late to regulate the situation properly - but it really rings wrong to me to officially support an arms-race within the population.
And I feel the perceived threat is blown vastly out of proportion - but who am I to know..
Then please do the service of explaining why the analogy does not work. Hammers are used to kill more Americans every year than rifles are. "Assault weapons" are just one faction of rifles. Why do you think hammers should be legal?
It is not about some macho contest. We really do have a violence problem over here, not just with guns. Nobody ever explains how gun control will keep guns away from violent criminals. Can you? My brother has been robbed at gun point twice, my sister was assaulted in a bar parking lot and got her ribs broken, my cousin was shot in a bar parking lot for talking to his ex-girlfriend, my dad's friend's wife was shot in the hand at a stop light, my dad stopped two intruders with a gun when my mother and sister were in the house, one of my sister's best friends was a stop light when a gang of thugs went up to his car and one of them smashed out his driver's window with a HAMMER, I know several women who have been raped, and this stuff goes on with other people. Am I really paranoid for acknowledging that? This stuff goes on. Attackers and intruders are a threat to a victim's life. Intruders do rape women sometimes, and they do murder people sometimes. Guns are excellent for defense against that scum. If you take them or any type of them away from the good guys, you take away an important choice.
Not everybody can run away, and the police can take a really long time to get to a person's house. Not everybody has a chance to call the cops. Why screw up the last line of defense? The intruders and attackers are still going to have their guns. They don't even buy them legally as it is. They buy them on the streets.
Stats Prove Gun Control Does Not Work
Attachment 6781
Attachment 6782
Attachment 6783
Attachment 6784
Attachment 6785
Suicides account for most gun deaths | Pew Research Center
Do you think not being able to find a gun would stop somebody from committing suicide? Guns are just a convenient way to do it. They definitely are not necessary for suicide.
Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
shot burglar - YouTube
The Man Who Would Be "Rapist" shot 9 times by his would-be victim | Christopher di Armani.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=682JLrsUmEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HNPyguIcEE
I don't understand your "mentality of trust in government." You're German? Are you aware of how the German government has gone wrong in the past? The Nazis, then the Soviets. German public trust in government is what allows such things to happen. Next time, you should all get guns and tell the totalitarians to fuck off. That's our mentality, and it is part of why we have never been taken over. We have rules the government has to follow. This is one of them:
Amendment II
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.
That makes gun control out of the question. What you are saying has that obstacle. We would have a second revolution before we would ever give up the Second Amendment.
I am glad you agree with me on the war on drugs. If you realize that drug control does not work, what makes you think gun control does? How is it working in Mexico? What about Washington, Chicago, and Detroit?
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/me...tighter-gun-co
https://gunowners.org/sk0601.htm
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/chi...d-gun-control/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22...of-gun-control
I want to mention one more thing. The very liberal leaning art district of my city is called Fondren, and it is near another neighborhood called Belhaven that is named after the college in the neighborhood. It is a liberal area too. Those two neighborhoods are getting their asses robbed blind. It's because the people who live there put themselves out there as people who think they are above guns. That makes them targets. Meanwhile, the redneck neighborhoods don't get screwed with because everybody knows there are more guns than people in them. If you rob a house or try to break in and rape a woman in one of them, you won't just be dealing with the people who live in the house. The whole neighborhood is ready to come out and blow somebody's brains out for pulling something like that. This truth is well known. That makes them safe neighborhoods.
Attachment 6786
Attachment 6787
Attachment 6788
Please note that this mentality I was talking about was about Switzerland.
I really find, I was quite sympathetic with my above post, by the way.
Once more - hammers, same as knifes, have a much higher threshold to use them as weapons.
Somebody has to be within your reach and you in his.
You support my conceding that it might be too late for sensible intervention with your horror-stories.
You're from Germany but live in Switzerland? There might be an advantage to the village arrangement, but that and the other factors you mentioned could not explain by themselves why Switzerland has almost no violent crime in a country where such a large faction of the population owns guns. Most gun control arguments would suggest that Switzerland should be an extremely violent country. Reality is that very few people want to screw with people they know are armed.
No matter what the threshold for using hammers is, they are used in more killings than rifles every year in the U.S.
Not any more - I am German and live there - but I spent almost two years in Switzerland.
I find this threshold an important argument in your analogy - if you want to hold on to it. And consider, that it's not only hammers as in a tool for hammering, which killed so many people - there are blunt other things included - say base-ball-bats or lamps and what not.
What can I say?
Stop that stupid war on drugs and both sides will feel much less need for guns - besides it has effects even over here - our treaties with the US force us to classify substances the way the US does, and that hinders science considerably - therapeutic potential of psychedelics for example.
Switzerland is independent and has a lot to show meanwhile in that sector - you need a strongroom and a policeman in front and years to fight for your project, if you want to do something here - and what is the main hindrance - these treaties with the US.
All the luck with that! :)
We can agree that the war on drugs is the major problem behind the U.S. violence problem. Our welfare state is another big factor. Blaming it on the tools the psychopaths use instead of the psychopaths themselves is absurd.
I don't agree with everything about the Swiss government. I don't agree with Kennessaw, Georgia's former gun ownership requirement either. I just used those to make a point about gun ownership's affect on crime. I believe in the right to own guns, but I also believe in the right not to own guns.
The following numbers paint a quite different picture, when it comes to gun ownership - problems far outweigh "benefits" for the public:
Surgeon general nomination: Vivek Murthy on guns and public health | New Republic
As Olga Khazan pointed out at The Atlantic, suicide rates are higher in states where gun ownership is more common.
In 2010, 19,392 people took their own lives with guns, while “justifiable homicides”—self-defence shootings that may have saved a life—numbered only 230.
Over two-thirds of homicides and over half of successful suicides involve the use of a gun, and accidental gun deaths average about two a day.
Then there are the less obvious health effects of gun violence: Lead in the ground from ammunition. Loss of hearing from gunshots. Widespread PTSD that effects everyone from shooters, to victims, to bystanders. “Gun violence traumatizes whole communities,” Hemenway told me. This creates a cycle: “People with PTSD in inner cities often don’t have good access to mental health care, and it makes them more likely to be aggressive.”
When was the last time a hammer got up off the table on its own accord and came over and killed a person without anyone making it do so?
The article says nothing about the deterrent factor. There mere knowledge of common gun ownership keeps a lot of communities safe. That is something the gun prohibition advocates never acknowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
What is your explanation for why mandatory gun ownership always lowers crime rates substantially?
The prevalence of guns does not cause suicide. A person determined to commit suicide does it. There are many ways to do it, and guns are not necessary at all for it. I have been suicidal, and whether or not I could find a gun had zero to do with whether or not I was going to go through with it. A gun is just a convenient instrument to use. If one can't be found, it changes nothing but the means. Correlation does not prove causation, though sometimes it results from it. Common gun ownership could result from the same factors that are making people more suicidal.
Plus, people would have a right to at least have a chance at defending themselves even if the deterrence factor and the occurrence of self-defense with a gun were extremely low, which they are not.
I want to stress again that gun prohibition would make bad guys with guns much more dangerous. We can't give them the advantage.
Exactly. And it's good to see you again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadDollKitty
Politicians telling a state or nation that they want just a little bit of gun control are like a womanizer telling a hot woman that he just wants to give her a back rub.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoV7TgAXKO8
This U.S. Senator says flat out what her goal is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJHzmB1JuE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtAAI4xnmzE
Check out this peculiar choice of words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0
Here is another fascinating bit of talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covBtaBoR1g
