And my reply still stands as well: I’ll rely on nonlethal weapons on the same day the cops are willing to do so. If they’re not willing to rely solely on tazers and pepper spray, neither am I.
Oh, we’re you under the impression drugs and the drug business didn’t kill anyone? Damn, I don’t know how to break this to you…
Wasn’t really the point I was making though. Basically, banning something doesn’t magically solve the underlying issues, especially when a large percentage of the population wants what you are banning (like, you know, drugs). So, your little list is fairly ridiculous…which WAS the point I was making. Sadly you didn’t and probably still don’t get it.
Seriously, you can get a used CNC for pennies on the dollar (small manufacturers have gone out of business by the busload, leaving a ton of lightly used equipment out there) and again, it will make the same things. They’re sitting around waiting for you to buy them. There is nothing special about 3D printing when it coems to making things out of steel.
Come back when you have a response that deals with the fact that of the 22 children the guy in China stabbed, none died.
Previous stabbing attacks in China have killed multiple children (as many as eight in one attack). It’s quite possible to kill many people in a single attack with an edged weapon.
Except as pointed out over & over & over - Guns have many many uses, and very very few are ever used to kill anyone.
Hmm.
I could try to ban guns–with our country’s proven track record of bans meaning exactly jack shit for availability of the banned commodity–and still have (as proven in China) kids getting stabbed by crazy fuckers instead of shot.
Or.
Maybe just maybe we could devote some of the resources we’re expending on ineffectual and ill-advised gun discussions and try to address the actual underlying problem we have in the US with violence?
See, here’s the thing–if you ban guns, and we STILL have lots of school attacks with knives and homemade firearms and smuggled firearms, what the hell good did that actually do?
This is why the drug war argument is tremendously, painfully relevant. Cocaine heroin, and marijuana can still be had easily despite the US devoting an amazing amount of resources to confiscating it when it’s here and preventing it from entering the country in the first place. Why would guns be any different, especially given their ease of local manufacture?
I used to use guns in a professional capacity. I do not recall them having a great many uses. They had basically one primary purpose, which was to injure and kill human beings, plus sometimes they were used for practice to ensure we were skilled at injuring and killing human beings.
It certainly is a lot likelier you will be successful with a gun. That’s why they make them and why police officers and soldiers carry them.
well to start with they weren’t stabbed, they were slashed.
It all comes down to intent. If you have some evidence that mutilating someone is enough of a psychological release for crazy people then you’d have a point.
I’m sorry did we just skip to the future and no one told me about it? Please at least send me a text message next time we skip to the future where nothing good happens, I don’t want to be left out.
I’m not pro or anti gun. In fact, I don’t even live in the US, and I’ve never owned a gun, but I’ve had a license to own firearms, and I’ve shot many types of guns - pistols, shotguns, rifles, in target practice and hunting. I’m not completely ignorant about guns.
You guys in the US, you’d have lots less fatalities due to firearms if you had tighter controls on who had them. I’m just saying. You know it’s true.
On edit, I see RickJay has beat me to the punch on this one.
The amount of carnage would go WAAAAY down. Perhaps you do not regard this as a good thing …
I’m all for this. As stated earlier, there is no reason we could not ban guns AND look at the underlying problems we have in the US with violence. Plus, my personal opinion is that the beliefs of many gun advocates contain many of the seeds which provoke all that violence. The sense of Americans as lone heroes who ride into town and fight … fight … fight … for justice and goodness and their own personal success. And their general indifference to the wealth divide and their sense that the middle class is not important, cause, you know, they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Other forms of death dealing machinery are just not as readily available and/or effective as guns are now. It’s ridiculously easy to get your hands on a gun in America, even if you are a whack job. Fewer attacks will happen, those that do will be less effective.
I do not believe that there is the same appetite for guns as there is for drugs. Sure a lot of people buy them now when it’s stupidly easy. If they had to be imported, smuggled, used in secret, etc., I’m sure a lot of people would do it, but not NEARLY as many as take illegal drugs. Smoking pot or doing cocaine is inherently pleasurable, there’s not matching inherent pleasurableness to owning/firing a gun.
Well sure, they make nice planters if you put some dirt and seeds in the barrel, and you can hang them artistically on your walls, and if you’re locked out of the house you can shoot the lock, and if geitting up to flip the light switch to turn on the lights is a pain you can just shoot the …
you’re kidding, right?
- Ban guns.
1b. Watch illicitly obtained guns spread everywhere.
1c. For purposes of discussion, make guns magically disappear. - Permit tasers and pepper spray.
- Watch gang members and drug dealers kill each other with knives, and psychos go on rampages with machetes*. (see Running Amok)
*Especially after Hollywood makes lots of movies about antiheroes slaughtering their enemies with machetes.
My disagreement is rooted in the fact that our violence per capita is very out of proportion to our firearms per capita. That indicates to me that US society is generally more violent whether or not firearms are involved.
I’ve made the argument many times in this thread that the US has a problem with violence. It is my opinion that reducing the number of firearms will not reduce the amount of violence. It MAY reduce the amount of fatalities vs. maimings, but I don’t see that as sufficiently beneficial to justify eliminating something that is currently key to a fundamental right (that is, the right to effectively defend oneself), especially given the relative ease of acquiring or manufacturing firearms in a post-gun-ban world.
Especially, especially, especially, considering what the liberal/progressive movement SHOULD be doing (if they must spend this political capital) is to use this to argue for something that’s already near the tipping point–namely, UHC with some serious mental health provisions included. I flat out guarantee that such a thing will reduce violence in this country more than any attempt at a gun ban one might realistically get passed in this political climate.
In my personal opinion, even in an ideal world where we COULD implement any provision we cared to with a wave of our hands, improved healthcare and mental health services would STILL be the #2 way of reducing violence in this country, far behind #1 reduce systemic racism against and poverty among disadvantaged minorities, and far ahead of any specific ban on a specific implement of violence.
Not at all. First of all, Shooting is a Sport. It’s a Olympic sport even.
Next of all, guns are used for hunting. And like I showed conclusively earlier here, hunting is not only nessesary for a few dudes to eat, but it is nessesary are part of wildlife management.
Then there’s collecting.
Then there’s other hobbies such as Cowboy Action shooting.
If guns are indeed, designed only to kill people, they do a damn poor job of it- less than one gun in 20000 is used to kill another person.
Then why don’t all gun owners turn in their guns and start carrying knives? I mean, if they’re so good, seems like a no brainer… You start.