Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 129. (Read 450482 times)

Tools that mostly fail to work as YOU claim they are intended to work.

But we do, all the time, by not supplying them with guns equally. When we give them guns, we often turn them into something like Al Qaeda, or ISIS.

Im going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you believe guns are tools, then they are tools to kill people. We cant put the lives of innocent people at the hands of anyone who pleases (literallly).

Mexico. Try again.

Really? Glad it's so easy.

But it's funny, after looking up for a small amount of time I found Texas having such a strong amount of rapes and murders while having one of the most homogeneous population of USA (85% whites, 14% blacks) and one of the highest rates of gun property and the most freedom concerning guns.

Would you care to detail where is the link with racial diversity in Texas?

Discriminating against people with mental health issues is something we don't want to do, believe me. The government should not have access to people's health records when making a determination on this.

Would you care to explain why Texas got so much rapes and killings while having a population mainly white? (85%)

Good post. Thanks for bringing this up, I feel it is a very important point people consistently overlook.  Anyone who spends any small amount of time looking over crime stats will find that there is a high correlation between crime rates and the amount of multiculturalism in an area. It is a fact that the more you put people of different classes, races, religions, etc in an area, the more they conflict, thus resulting in higher crime rates. Even in Europe they still usually have an ethnocentric core of a native population that serves as the foundation for their nations. In the USA there is no such thing. Everyone except for the Native Americans and the Mexican indians came here from somewhere else. You could argue that Caucasians are largely in control and serve as that same core, but even if that were true to an extent, those Caucasians often come from very disparate places all over the world and do not necessarily share a common culture or heritage. In my opinion this is the crux of the reason why USA suffers from higher rates of crime, and as a result depends more on gun ownership to control that crime, because as you said guns are the great equalizer. Even granny and little Timmy can fight off big 300lb assailants if they know how to use a firearm properly. Good luck doing that without a gun.

Guns are actually kind of boring.   There are no "lovely gun slanging Cowboys here."

That's not the cause of gun control law, it's the cause of cultural homogeny.  America is, shall we say, much more 'multicultural' than Japan or South Korea is, which leads to a greater amount of violence as these cultures, naturally, do not get along (and some are just plain more violent than others, I'm sure I don't need to mention which ones specifically, just look at the crime rates between each of these cultures.)  Take that out of the equation, make America as monocultural as Japan and South Korea is, and you'll notice the crime rate plummet, which includes the rate of mass killings.  Only true difference between these nations (Japan, SK, China, NK) is that their mass killings occur usually with stabbings, what I presume is the 2nd best thing next to guns to injure others.  So clearly the issue does not rest with guns, even in these societies where everyone ought to get along with so much in common, they still fail to.  So I guess if you really would rather be stabbed to death than shot, banning guns might help you out, but I sincerely feel the distinction is minute.  That's not to mention the power shift between those allowed to have guns--usually only those in the oligarchy--and those regular folks who have no sway over what is and is not acceptable for gun ownership.  If you feel this won't be abused for the decider's benefit, it is due to your naiveté towards power games.

And then there's the fact that, in the case of someone overpowering me to stab me (rather than shooting me), I am at a severe disadvantage since I'm not as strong as most people, and this is the case for many.  Firearms heavily level the playing field here.

Further, Europe has far more stricter gun laws in general than America does, and yet has mass killings on par with, if not greater than, America.  Also notice that Europe is also multicultural.  I hope the pattern is becoming clear to you.

It's identical to computer control, to limit who can have access to a computer and who can't, to prevent hackers from hacking and to prevent pedophiles from sharing CP etc.  Is the computer the problem?  No, it just facilitates action, it is neutral.  I can make this argument for just about anything.  What about encryption control?  What if some bad guys use encryption to hide their plots?  The harm in banning or controlling such far outweighs the benefit.  And hackers would still get their computers, and encryption is simple enough to do on your own anyway so that'd be hilarious to attempt to control.

Let's say that you have never used a computer in your life.  You feel that life is perfectly fine without computers.  You notice that computers are often used to do terrible things, and have been used to ruin many people's lives daily.  The odds of you supporting computer control skyrocket.  However, because--chances are--you do use computers regularly, you would feel personally infringed upon to have this right to computers tampered with.  You are far less likely to support such "Orwellian" measures, because you would personally feel the negative effects of that control.  What right does the government have to tell me whether I can use my PC, my laptop, my smart phone, my gaming console?  And I can guarantee you, if you tried using firearms, if you got comfortable with their presence, if you learned how to personally control them, you would not project your own feelings of being out-of-control with firearms onto a political agenda.  You feel the need for others to control firearms because you do not feel you have any control of them, and that makes them very scary.  You should learn how to use guns, your mind will change very quickly.

The gun problem is that so few people have the more effective "big" guns. And ammo is a little in short supply. And the biggest problem is that government is trying to keep people from having guns. So, yes, we have a gigantic gun problem in America. But it is far better than most other places in the world.

But when they are, if they harm anybody because of a mistake the car makes, the people in government who authorized their use are responsible.

Same with guns. It's a "people" problem, not a gun problem.

And I wasn't contradicting you... just extending. I am much on your side in this issue.

Because driverless cars, also known as State controlled and operated cars, are not yet widely available?

What we really need is the police to crack down on criminal activities, not try to take away our legal weapons.

Criminals always have guns. It's the law obiding citizens who don't have any protection.

Yabut, but, but, but... Then a bad guy just might bring one in.  

Exactly. I wonder why no one is demanding a car ban. Cars kill far more people every year than people murdered with guns or even by gun accidents. Clearly cars are useful, and banning them is not an option. Gun control advocates aren't arguing that gun deaths need to be stopped, they are arguing that guns serve no purpose according to their own pacifist world view in their safe little homogenized suburb. You don't get to tell other people what the value of their own life and the lives of their loved ones is worth. You are not in a position to make such choices for others, only for yourself. If you don't want a gun in your home DON'T BUY ONE.

Its a VIOLENCE problem. Would you also say that because of car accidents, cars should be banned? NO. Use your brain for a change and figure out ways to reduce gun deaths without becoming fascist.

Basically this creates a firearm which is okay for killing game like squirrels or rabits.   The idea is that one shot is fired, everything hides or runs, so there is no need for more than a couple rounds.

That has nothing to do with defense against armed humans.  Different subject entirely.

Incidentally, it has nothing to do with defense against large animals, either.  Think hog, bear, etc.

And who exactly is "the WE?"

You mean like how the brain cells in your skull are limited to two really small sized neurons?