This is an issue that I am an admitted radical on. I think personal ownership of firearms is a barbaric and idiotic relic of a bygone era. But I am not your average gun control advocate, I’m a foreigner from a country that doesn’t have a real gun culture (we have a draft, and most people work through their little-boy-Call-of-Duty-Guns-Are-Awesome phase in the service; they treat guns as deadly and dangerous tools of war, not toys)
Ouch. Burned not even three posts before you posted:
You’ve really got to read what people are posting about not having guns in the country.
Considering what you are actually responding to (the idea that all we need to do is copy another country’s gun laws) I’m not sure what point you think you proved.
And note, just because I think guns and private gun ownership are stupid ideas in the 21st century doesn’t mean I think we should ban all guns in the US tomorrow. Ideally we’d have similar laws to the UK or Australia, and over time we can put aside our childish obsession with guns as a nation, so that even if they aren’t illegal, many fewer people are so enthralled with them.
Just like how heroin is destructive to society and to individuals and we’d be better off without it, but flat out bans aren’t the best way to go about that.
No, the discussion about secure firearm storage (or lack thereof) was a tangent that someone else introduced instead of responding to my original point. Keep reading.
Just that:
Isn’t a crazy position. For some reason @Half_Man_Half_Wit wants to quibble there is a difference between some people wanting all and some countries implementing 95% reductions, while ignoring the fact it is a reasonable point to hold that people do want to “ban them all!”
Again - are you under the mistaken impression that implementing the UK’s laws would result in 95% of guns being illegal?
Are you holding out for the ammosexual that will someday make a coherent argument?
It is like debating a catholic on the nature of Maria’s conception—it doesn’t have to make sense. Numbers and facts just confuse the matter.
The argument is “I like the feeling I have when I hold a gun” everything else is transparent bullshit.
Outvote, out lobby, out fund and out shout them. Convincing them is not a path to a solution.
This is a great example of how your emotional response to this topic colors your perspective, since by far most gun violence is committed by poor criminals who can barely afford one gun, let alone a collection of 17.
What scenario do you think you would prevent by, say, restricting each household to ownership of 2 guns? “Gee, I would like to shoot someone today, but I only have two guns to do it with, I guess I won’t.”
Or maybe it’s:
“Gee, I would like to illegally buy a few extra guns for my shooting spree, but it’s illegal to own more than the 2 guns I already have, so I guess that plan is out. It would be illegal to report those guns as stolen and buy two more, so I’ll just sit here and sip my lemonade by the pool instead.”
For most people, 90,000 deaths per year is okay because “I like the feeling I have when I drink alcohol.”
And what point do you think you’re making here? That I’m somehow to be held accountable for everyone’s views on gun regulation? That if somebody calls for a total ban, everybody calling for greater regulation must be beholden to that call?
No: I argued that virtually every policy currently enacted works better than that in place in the US.
67% list self defence as the reason they own a gun and that is disallowed in the UK. that is completely disallowed. Before we get into quibbles about the 38% of people who own guns for hunting and 30% that own them for sport shooting and how many of them would be approved as a “good reason” and what the overlap is with the 42% of guns that are handguns and so disallowed. I don’t have the data to go through every gun in the US to determine how many would be banned but it would certainly be above 70% and considering only 5% of guns are work related its likely the number will get near 95%.
At this point we’re debating if the prefered gun policies would bad 70% or 95% and how distinguishable that is from all. It seems fairly pointless to me since none of those will be enacted but it certainly give the gun nuts reason to think you’re coming for their guns.
Just enjoying the tangent you’re running down. As I said it doesn’t affect my argument at all because its hard not to read these gun control debates without literally seeing people talking about taking “all” guns.
Think of it this was when a racist republican says “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” it makes it really hard for other republicans to say we need to minimize illegal immigration without people saying they are as racist as the first person.
No point then, thanks for clearing that up.
You would certainly want to make sure that there is little to prevent your product from getting into the hands of criminals.
Not only is that a sale that you profit from, but as long as criminals have easy access to guns, you can also point to all these criminals who have guns as a reason why one needs to be afraid of these criminals who have bought your guns, so must go out and buy guns themselves.
I would be. While it’s true that rifles are handy for mass shootings, most gun deaths aren’t from mass shootings. And rifles are hard to use for suicide, and are hard to hide on the street, and are generally less handy for commiting crimes and killing your relatives. On the flip side, rifles are much better suited than other guns for hunting, for killing vermin, and are just fine for target shooting.
I have found that pretty much anytime a poster starts with this, they know very well that the poster does not agree, and they are just twisting words in order to try to win internet points.
And the twisting of words:
You do realize that you have failed to make a coherent argument that your premise has any validity whatsoever, right?
It’s probably because I’m at the end of a long day but this makes no sense to me.
Somehow me quoting
and saying that they want to ban guns just like most other “successful” countries have done is not coherent? Valid? Something?
Can we quote serial killer’s views on guns and use them to broad brush all gun owner’s views?
If so, great, I’ll have fun with that. If not, then why do you think that it is a legitimate tactic to use the words of someone who admits that they have a more radical view than most on guns, and isn’t even a US citizen to accuse other advocates of less gun injury and death from guns of having some same views?
Well, yes, because if you picked a random country, and we can even limit it to the ones that have far less gun violence than we do, then you are very unlikely to find that they have banned guns.
Your argument is not based on actual reality, therefore it has little validity.