Well, as both a video gamer, a metal music enthusiast AND a role player I’ll be the first to agree with you there, and on not letting the actions of individual nuts cast a shadow on entire cultures or subcultures.
That being said, I’d be curious about seeing actual stat comparisons between DUI related injuries and gunshot wounds (be they deliberately self-inflicted, accidental or deliberately homicidal); and the proportional lethality of either. Just because one spectacular incident isn’t justifiable cause to legislate an issue doesn’t mean baseline incidents aren’t. How many people were killed by gunshot wounds period on the week the Conn. massacre happened, as compared to DUI kills on the same area/scale ? Certainly the massacre will be an aberrant spike on the graph, but that’s no indication one way or the other of the trend of that graph, or its average relation to other graphs, hmm ?
There are probably more guns than there even are cars in the United States, and that’s really saying something. And while cars might kill sometimes, that’s not what they’re *designed *to do. Quite the opposite, in fact - every piece of a modern car is specifically designed and tested so as to cause the least possible damage in case of a crash. Therefore, and assuming similar number of reported incidents involving either, cars statistically should prove less lethal than, y’know, deadly weapons. Are there more car-related incidents ? Less ? Is my logic unintuitively wrong in practice ? Show your stats.
You’re being snarky, but for those playing along at home - no, you can’t own weapons of mass destruction. No, you can’t own a machine gun in some states. As far as Federal laws, as long as you pay the tax, they are perfectly legal. California bans them, but I regularly go to Nevada and get my rock and roll on at The Gun Store, which has dozens of full-autos you can shoot. As an interesting side note, there are no Federal restrictions on muzzle-loaders, so there a number of people who own and shoot legal cannons. Solid-shot only, because explosive shells are “Destructive devices” and rigorously controlled.
AAaaah, so des’ neeee. And why wouldn’t you count those, exactly ? How do you arbitrarily assess those would still be homicides without guns involved ? If the US has a higher murder rate than places with more gun control (which I believe it does, but feel free to correct me on this) then why would you assume gun control isn’t a factor in the discrepancy ? And if guns are virtually interchangeable with any other weapons (under the logic that “they’re criminals, if they really wanna kill people they’ll find a way anyway”) then surely guns should also be interchangeable with any other tool for self-defense purposes, correct ? They’re scared albeit honest citizens. They wanna drive away criminals. They’ll find a way. Right ? Or does that not work in that context ? Why or why not ?
And of course the same for hunters or target shooters - if they *really *wanna bag themselves a deer, there’d still be deericide even if there were no shotguns, so why should hunters need guns in the first place, really ? Why should their owning guns be an important thing or even a right to consider at all, according to *your *brand of logic ?
When you wish to kill someone or something, for whatever reason (be it self-defense, hunting, or the desire to shoot the other drug dealer who stole your corner), you choose the most effective tool for the job. I don’t think anyone is arguing that a gun is not the most effective such tool. That doesn’t automatically mean that next most effective tool is substantially less so and that all homicides would go away if guns did.
Target shooting (an Olympic sport in at least one iteration), Competition shooting (including things like Single Action shooting) collecting them for study and preservation… So lots of stuff which don’t involve firing them at people or with intent to kill.
What’s the next most effective tool ? A crossbow ? A knife ? A baseball bat ? A car ? A frying pan ? A cupful of poison ? A two handed axe ? I’ll guarantee that killing 25 complete strangers at a time with any of those is going to be tricky. Or, for that matter, carjacking with a fireaxe, doing a drive by with pepper spray or shooting up a theater with a boxcutter.
The idea that there even would be a debate regarding just how easier and more convenient guns make committing violence in the first place is pretty much aberrant to me. Of *course *a 300 rpm semi-auto is substantially more effective at harming someone than a zweihander, in just about any situation or tactical configuration and for whatever purpose or motive. That’s the point. And that’s why “well, criminals are gonna crime anyway” seems like such a pants on head retarded argument to me in the context of gun control debates. That, or it’s spectacularly disingenuous.
All of the arguments in either direction are fairly weak.
It’s in the constitution
No. It’s an amendment. Amendments can and have been repealed.
There are other, more accessible ways to kill people
Does that invalidate that guns kill people?
This is an reaction to a particularly shocking news story.
Does the fact that children died invalidate the arguments?
The argument at hand with all the bullshit brushed aside is do you value the “freedom” to own and operate a firearm over the however slight increased danger it poses on society. Some people think “Shit. I’ll play the odds. The increased risk is relatively slight compared to the other shit that’ll get me.” Other people think “Shit. I don’t even know anyone that owns a gun. Why the fuck am I at an increased risk (regardless of the level of increased risk) when I don’t even use guns.”
Now take your stance as you’d like but honestly is there a good excuse for why it’s an amendment in the constitution though? It’s an issue of ownership. Taking away the amendment would have no direct influence on if people can own guns or not any more than the lack of an amendment guaranteeing the right to own pets or the right to have wall-to-wall carpeting doesn’t necessarily mean NO PETS or NO CARPETING.
I think in answering that question, you’ll hit the truth that we all know deep inside.
But that brings back the drug thing on the table, doesn’t it ? Target shooting is mighty fun, but it’s not exactly a societal imperative. LSD is mighty fun, and it’s not a societal imperative either. In the latter case, society says the potential risks and “immorality” of it mandate LSD being very much verboten. In the former case, it seems you’re arguing the fun of it justifies guns being legal despite the potential harm or “secondary use” if you will.
That doesn’t make sense. If it’s an amendment, the answer is yes, not no. Amendments are actually more powerful than the original text since they all came later (if something in Article II contradicts an amendment, the amendment wins since it’s newer).
I should mention that I’m not in the US, and Australia/NZ have an extremely different gun culture to the US (you can’t own a gun in either country for self-defence. At all. No exceptions.)
The thing is, there’s a lot of dangerous things you can legally do that have no societal imperative. Alcohol has already been mentioned copiously and at length as an example. Also skydiving, making model rockets, jetboating, smoking cigarettes, playing rugby, riding horses… you get the idea.
Most cars can drive faster than 120km/h - but there’s nowhere in Australia you can legally drive that fast (except the Northern Territory, population 230,000 in an 1.4 million square kilometre area). Right now, anyone with a driver’s licence (and the appropriate funds or credit) can go and buy a V8 performance car with insane amounts of torque and Kilowatt power output levels one would expect from a hydroelectric dam.
Can you imagine the frothing-at-the-mouth outrage that would issue forth if there was a serious proposal to mechanically limit all cars to the speed limit (and not a km/h over) and ban the sale of V8s since no-one needs “that much car”?*
Yet what’s the societal benefit argument for allowing them?
Addressing your earlier point - to the best of my knowledge, there’s no recognised sport of “LSD taking”. Target shooting has a 500+ year history. It’s at the Olympic & Commonwealth games (and innumerable national/state/local competitions). They’re not, I would suggest, the same thing or comparable.
Yup. But alcohol I would consider an aberration, actually - based on current trends and thoughts re: drug use and so on, it should by all rights be heavily restricted. Heavily addictive, causes long-term physiological deterioration and short-term puking your guts out, bouts of violence, delirium, loud arguments that make no sense, encourages promiscuity, leads to memory loss, heavily used for date-raping purposes… are you kidding me ? If humans had not had an eight thousand years history of getting good and smashed, if entreprizing young men were just today discovering how to make and distribute vodka in their basements the way they’re finding out how to make crystal meth ? That shit would be class IV controlled in a New York minute.
The only reasons you can buy Johnny Walker today is because it was grandfathered in ; because a lot more people are familiar with it than any other drugs ; because it’s a huge industry, because attempting to actually restrict it turned horrible ; and, well, because it’s OK really, when all is said and done, risks and all.
But that only underlines just how absurd it is to have made all the *other *drugs illegal. And, if your point is that alcohol *oughta *be made illegal just like all the other drugs based on its lethality alone (or its lethality coupled with its “uselessness” to productive society), then it follows that by the same line of argument recreational guns should be, too.
I can imagine the outrage, but it would be just as irrational as the outrage raised by restricting guns. The fact is, objectively, no one *needs *that much car.
In fact, I’m quite puzzled by the fact we do let manufacturers sell (and boast) cars that can go far above the speed limits, and let those cars be street-legal since the only use of that is to… break the speed limits. So bipolar. Either cut that shit, or go full Germany and abolish the speed limits on speedways, I say !
That being said, I do get your point, and I agree - we do allow ourselves lots of “pointless” dangerous stunts and things, and as well we should because otherwise life’s no fun.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t regulate these things - driving involves aptitude tests and securing permits, skydiving is subject to safety regulations (and possibly mandatory doctor visits - I’m not familiar with that particular sport, but here in France and as a non-professional I know I had to get my physical health rubber stamped by a GP before I got to go SCUBA diving for example), rugby has rules - well, maybe not the Australian one, admittedly -, etc…
I assume the same to be true in America… except when it comes to guns, where all bets are off for some reason. That’s very weird to me.
More’s the pity. You better believe I’d watch that shit.
Drunk, of course. I imagine it’be positively dreadful watching someone write the same sentence four hundred thousand times, crying all the way, while sober yourself :).
See above, my response to the alcohol example. The fact that it can boast a tradition has, objectively speaking, no bearing whatsoever (or rather, shouldn’t have) on whether it’s acceptable or not to modern sensibilities and in modern society.
-, etc…