Forums >General Running>'We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.'
Feeling the growl again
Agreed. It's utterly fallacious to argue that the possibility of other projectiles being used somehow obviates the need or purpose for gun control laws. That's like saying we shouldn't regulate nuclear weapons because someone could be killed by a bomb that isn't nuclear.
Well, what's utterly fallacious is thinking that any of the proposed legislation will have a significant impact on the availability of guns to criminals, at least those committing the majority of the crimes with them. Cocaine is illegal, single-use, yet there is an ample supply of it streaming across our borders (and actually plays a bigger causative role in urban violence than the guns themselves). A firearm is multiple-use and can stay on the street indefinitely. If there is demand, a market will be created and someone will fill it. Unlike cocaine, firearms...even complex ones...can be constructed in a garage with modest machinery and ability. To say nothing about future technology (3D printers).
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
No, what I'm showing here, is we've already tried to take away and regulate the greatest potential threat (fully automatic weapons) and it hasn't helped solve the problem. gun control for semiautomatic weapons is still just a bandaid that people who've never learned to handle a gun will think works to stop violent crime.
Know thyself.
No Talent Drips
gun control for semiautomatic weapons is still just a bandaid that people who've never learned to handle a gun will think works to stop violent crime.
I claim no superior knowledge on this issue. I won't grant you any either. I'd argue that you've over-gereralized here (above).
This ought to elicit a reaction. Just a touch of real world evidence in an otherwise largley rhetorical debate. Also too, funny.
Dei Gratia
So we should just throw our hands up in the air and not even attempt to regulate guns? Allow the manufacturers to sell to whomever they want because anyone can get guns anyway? Is that what you're proposing?
Interval Junkie --Nobby
Whenever I read/listen to these kinds of political arguments, I always wonder if both sides are disagreeing about the same thing. If I may take the liberty of distilling these perspectives into bumperstickers it sounds like this:
PRO GUN CONTROL: Gun violence is a problem. Taking away peoples' guns is the solution I would be happy with.
PRO GUN RIGHTS: Gun violence isn't a problem. Taking away peoples' guns will not solve the problem, and would make me unhappy.
But are the Pro-gun people really saying "Gun violence isn't a problem [that is worth addressing politically]?" Can both sides at least agree with each other that they have located the same problem in society, but their methods of solving it differ? That would seem a more constructive approach. Then you can discuss the merits of taking away guns without the Pro-gun control people retreating to a position where all they talk about is how bad the problem is again.
Or should the debate really be whether gun-violence is a problem worth addressing at all?
2021 Goals: 50mpw 'cause there's nothing else to do
Whenever I read/listen to these kinds of political arguments, I always wonder if both sides are disagreeing about the same thing. If I may take the liberty of distilling these perspectives into bumperstickers it sounds like this: PRO GUN CONTROL: Gun violence is a problem. Taking away peoples' guns is the solution I would be happy with.
For the record, taking away lawfully owned guns is a very extreme position on the gun control side of the debate. Not many on that side of the debate (myself included) are advocating anything that extreme. I for instance would be satisfied with tighter restrictions on manufacturers selling guns.
With that said, I don't disagree that there may be a better way out there to find common ground in terms of what the parties want/would find acceptable.
Whoa, hang on a second. A drug lab assembled in a house or garage, once set up, can produce large quanitities in a short time, that won't be the case with weapons, especially if ones of truly usable quality or complexity are needed. And 3d printers fall into a similar vein. If weapons from either of these avenues begin showing up in quantity, material sourcing will start being looked at, not unlike buying large quantities of fertilizer will garner scrutiny.
large quantities of fertilizer
Can we re-title this thread?
I say we ban their parents because they are obviously using their parent skills in manners not intended to be used by good parents. Then I say we find these 3 little bastids and kick the sheet out of them like they deserve.
5k = 19.48 10/1/13
10k = 45.28 4/16/13
Half Marathon = 1:38.53 Summer Sizzle 7/13/14
Operation Jack Marathon 12/26/12 4:39.11
Solo O Marathon 06/02/13 3:52:10
Operation Jack Marathon 12/26/13 3:40.34
not bad for mile 25
If parents are outlawed, only outlaws will have parents.
If guns are outlawed, carpenters will have to push in nails with their thumbs.
The murder rate was much higher pre-1990, before high capacity, affordable semi-auto handguns were available. Criminals did just fine with revolvers.
PRO GUN CONTROL: Gun violence is a problem. Taking away peoples' guns is the solution I would be happy with. PRO GUN RIGHTS: Gun violence isn't a problem. Taking away peoples' guns will not solve the problem, and would make me unhappy. But are the Pro-gun people really saying "Gun violence isn't a problem [that is worth addressing politically]?" Can both sides at least agree with each other that they have located the same problem in society, but their methods of solving it differ? That would seem a more constructive approach. Then you can discuss the merits of taking away guns without the Pro-gun control people retreating to a position where all they talk about is how bad the problem is again. Or should the debate really be whether gun-violence is a problem worth addressing at all?
Pro-gun people are saying we have a violence problem in our society, and focusing on the inanimate tool rather than the real causes of the violence is a waste and a distraction from addressing the violence problem that we also care about. Personally I find it very frustrating the amount of time and political capital that has been wasted on gun control, when that effort and energy could have been put into addressing the problems of inner city culture that lead to incredibly violent areas (the tool used to conduct the violence aside) or towards largely under-enforced existing laws.
Yes, I am a lurker here.
And yes, I finally registered for the sole purpose of posting this, though maybe a little late and out of context:
I hear the “why are you trying to take my guns away but you’re not trying to ban cars?!” argument all the time, and it’s stupid. Here’s why. The specific laws may vary subtly in your municipality, but broadly speaking, in order to own/operate a vehicle legally, you must 1) be of a certain age, 2) pass a written examination of your knowledge of associated laws, 3) demonstrate your ability to safely operate a vehicle, 4) purchase insurance against any damage that may occur as the result of an automobile accident, and 5) register your vehicle, name and address with your local government and renew that registration on a regular basis. If you fail to do any of these things, you get in trouble. If you want to take your car to certain public places, like a parking garage or a toll road, you often have to pay a fee. If you’re caught doing something irresponsible with your vehicle, you often have to pay a fee. Sometimes, you go to jail and lose your right to operate a vehicle.
Cars are well-regulated tools that are intended to transport people and sometimes, usually not on purpose, kill people.
So if you’re going to use the “why are you trying to take my guns away but you’re not trying to ban cars?!” argument, you should, by logical necessity, be willing to submit gun ownership to the same level of regulation and scrutiny that cars get. I think that would satisfy a lot of the people who “want to take your guns away.”
Yes, vehicles are well regulated and still sometimes kill people. But imagine the number of automobile-related deaths if we were to reduce or remove the level of automobile regulation to match the level of regulation gun ownership receives. The "it won't do any good" argument is no reason to not enact legislation to try to prevent gun crime.
And really, to complete the analogy you’re using, we should differentiate between make, model and usage. For example, let’s equate a Glock handgun to a Ford sedan: they’re sort of the ubiquitous tool. They’re practical examples of common usage. So then we would need to equate assault rifle to a vehicle that is correspondingly specialized in its intended usage. Let’s say automatic rifles are like tractors. Now, are you at work? Look outside into the parking lot and count how many people drove a tractor to work. Wait, zero? That’s right, because that would be retarded. Most non-farming people don’t own tractors. Because they don’t fucking need them.
Flame away.
Spaniel:
Okay. So your position is that Violence is a problem in society, but methods of its execution, the ease of access to means that someone can translate their violence into a fatal action, are not worthy of concern. If someone is violent their access to a firearm has no affect on whether their future actions result in fatalities; they would find other means which are just as easy to procure, are just as quick to turn a hot situation into a fatal one and that the number of victims does not go up when a gun is involved.
In other words, violence is the problem that should be solved. [I think everyone agrees here]. But as that root cause has no clear solution, you do not think it valuable to pursue mitigating the means of violence as efforts to do so take away resources that should be dedicated to root cause. Furthermore, because removing guns will not solve the problem, it is not worth impinging on the rights of those who lawfully own firearms.
Is this fair, or a mis-characterization of your general stance?