The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.....
- Thread starter anthony87
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well....there would be more of us because of that....and that can just as deadly with the limited space and resources and the rate at which we are reproducing.J Tyran said:
As horrible of a thing it is to say, if it wasnt for WW2 our species could be in a much worse condition.
Lol I just realized that was a link haha.Naeras said:
Well for most people they keep their weapons in a lock box somewhere in their house that is easily accessible, even in that situation it is possible to get to your gun in time to stave off a burglary, and if you have your concealed carry permit you can carry your gun on you at all times unless your in a no carry zone. (which the movie theater was in)
after I typed the post did I realize that you had said per capita. I gave it more thought and here is another legitimate reason why there would be higher crime rate in the US then in other countries.
Now this may sound conceited, but thats not my goal.
As a country we are far wealthier then most. Money is a great motivator for crime. On top of that American are far more material as well, we are covetous, we are prideful, throw money and success into the mix and you have a formula for violence.
I disregarded his point of view if his arguments include "fucking stupid" in the text.anthony87 said:
Besides, the writer is kind of close minded.
Every year there are people trying to sue manufacturers of weapons and ammunition because they were used to kill a relative. Which is the same thing as suing Mitsubishi because one of your relatives was ran over by a Lancer Evo during an illegal street race.
"HURR DURR THIS GUY IS TRYING TO COMPARE GUNS TO MATCHES, LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH".
The guy was making a legit argument. Arsonists should be punished. Not the brands that make the matches, as those brands do not put some kind of evil spirit inside the match head.
Same with guns. Murderers must be punished, not the brand or the people that use them in legit ways.
Well, let's show how all 4 of these arguments are not "meaningless."
4. This one I actually kind of agree with, I do say guns people, but they don't MURDER people. A gun can misfire, it can go off unexpectedly, and can be the use of somebody to kill somebody else. A gun can kill, but it lacks intent. It is just a machine, and object, it doesn't care about you nor does it hold malice. It lacks Mens rea required to be legally considered a murderer. Also, modern firearms only misfire and it only kills if the user either did a terrible job maintaining it or ignored all the rules of gun safety (as seen here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/GunSafety ). The idea behind this argument isn't flawed, how it is worded is.
3. Now this depends on the philiosphy you have for the nature of objects. Yes, guns can be designed to kill people, or for target shooting, or for anti-matrial uses, or a ton of things besides JUST killing. I am of the school of the intent of the user, not the intent of the designer, is what matters.
2. Offense and defense are not that simple. Things that can do harm can be used defensively, things that can prevent harm can used offensively. Since this is a video game site, I will put this in video game terms. The Demoman's extreme defensive uses doesn't come from some high health level (he only has average health), some ability to boost up or protect allies from harm, or anything else that this cracked author considers "defensive" in the traditional sense, but his ability to do massive damage, killing the attackers before they can do anything. This would be what a defensive gun user would hope to stop. Conversely, the Medic's Ubercharge is the greatest offensive tool in the game because it allows you to push into the enemies defensive line, without them being able to stop you. A gun is also a very scary thing, and a lot of studies (I will post them if anyone wants to see them) have shown most defensive gun uses don't even involve the gun being fired.
Would a gun of stopped the Batman massacre? No, to dark, the tear gas would throw off anyones aim, and the body armor prevents most lucky shots, but many other cases these kind of things could of been prevented. Any school shooting that took place in broad daylight, none of which I can remember the shooter using body armor. There was one time where a crazed gun man locked all but one doors in a church, was carrying enough ammo to kill a lot of the people gathered there, and did kill two people on the way in, was shot in the back of the head (at point blank range) by a woman who had a revolver in her purse.
1. "Quite a debate" has only come to existence in the last century, and has been shot down again, and again, and again. For why in this ONE time would the "people" refer to a body or a group then the one which we agreed every other use of "the people" has been used? If you are suggesting we change the constitution, alright, there is a set way of doing so. The problem is, gun control is becoming increasingly unpopular, and since the amend the constitution you are required to have a super majority of the house, senate, and states all agreeing to do so, I don't think that is likely.
4. This one I actually kind of agree with, I do say guns people, but they don't MURDER people. A gun can misfire, it can go off unexpectedly, and can be the use of somebody to kill somebody else. A gun can kill, but it lacks intent. It is just a machine, and object, it doesn't care about you nor does it hold malice. It lacks Mens rea required to be legally considered a murderer. Also, modern firearms only misfire and it only kills if the user either did a terrible job maintaining it or ignored all the rules of gun safety (as seen here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/GunSafety ). The idea behind this argument isn't flawed, how it is worded is.
3. Now this depends on the philiosphy you have for the nature of objects. Yes, guns can be designed to kill people, or for target shooting, or for anti-matrial uses, or a ton of things besides JUST killing. I am of the school of the intent of the user, not the intent of the designer, is what matters.
2. Offense and defense are not that simple. Things that can do harm can be used defensively, things that can prevent harm can used offensively. Since this is a video game site, I will put this in video game terms. The Demoman's extreme defensive uses doesn't come from some high health level (he only has average health), some ability to boost up or protect allies from harm, or anything else that this cracked author considers "defensive" in the traditional sense, but his ability to do massive damage, killing the attackers before they can do anything. This would be what a defensive gun user would hope to stop. Conversely, the Medic's Ubercharge is the greatest offensive tool in the game because it allows you to push into the enemies defensive line, without them being able to stop you. A gun is also a very scary thing, and a lot of studies (I will post them if anyone wants to see them) have shown most defensive gun uses don't even involve the gun being fired.
Would a gun of stopped the Batman massacre? No, to dark, the tear gas would throw off anyones aim, and the body armor prevents most lucky shots, but many other cases these kind of things could of been prevented. Any school shooting that took place in broad daylight, none of which I can remember the shooter using body armor. There was one time where a crazed gun man locked all but one doors in a church, was carrying enough ammo to kill a lot of the people gathered there, and did kill two people on the way in, was shot in the back of the head (at point blank range) by a woman who had a revolver in her purse.
1. "Quite a debate" has only come to existence in the last century, and has been shot down again, and again, and again. For why in this ONE time would the "people" refer to a body or a group then the one which we agreed every other use of "the people" has been used? If you are suggesting we change the constitution, alright, there is a set way of doing so. The problem is, gun control is becoming increasingly unpopular, and since the amend the constitution you are required to have a super majority of the house, senate, and states all agreeing to do so, I don't think that is likely.
Silly, R&P people don't set your family on fire. ^.^lacktheknack said:
We will simply skin them, rip out there heart, stick pins in there brains, and then send there souls to be tormented in all time so the Broken God [http://www.scp-wikia.netscp-882] can be restored.
It is easier to control guns on an island. . . Did your head burst? Anyways, I am sure it's fabulous and all that the UK does get so much cargo, and how difficult it would be to search through them all. . . but did you stop and think that the impossible to search through cargo amounts would apply to EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY WITH A PORT.J Tyran said:
Since America is prevelant in this particular debate, let's compare. Since I already know what the answer is going to be, you look it up:
1. Compare and contrast the amount of cargo the UK receives with the US.
2. Compare and contrast the amount of watercraft and aircraft UK vs US.
3. Add in the # miles of border with Canada and Mexico, factor in that the majority are left unguarded. ( as they would be with every country ever, with the exception of possibly Korea)
4. Subtract that the UK shares no border with anyone.
5. slap self in the face repeatedly until brain works.
Seriously though, if you take my points 1-4 and think about the nature of an island vs a bordered country, everything is easier to control on an island.
To the OP: I wasn't impressed by the article. It had hamfisted and mostly illogical points. . . but worst of all ( being as it is a comedy website) it wasn't funny. Don't take anything you read on Cracked too seriously, and it's best to completely ignore the politically minded comments. That's like watching the Daily Show and thinking it's an actual representation of journalism.
Yes, well that's your opinion, which is fine (it is also shared by many others as I am well aware). I just don't happen to agree with it.J Tyran said:
I suspect it comes down to personal philosophies and what we all think the point of life and being in this world is. I would at any rate like to hear specifics about why you feel the world would be better in that scenario. Ideally not personal reasons but broader global reasons, since I can certainly understand someone wanting less violence in their own life.
I agree with your underlying idea but I suspect you may be wrong about the actual example. WW2 was followed by one of the largest population booms in history. A bunch of people die and the remaining people just naturally seem to get busy having babies.Ryotknife said:
It of course all boils down to what-ifs and might-have-beens, but anyway...
Also, more people died from the massive influenza outbreak after WWI and from various other internal strife (like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and other communist and non-communist related discontent) than died in the actual World Wars.
I literally posted these exact arguments a few days ago ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.382695-Question-for-people-Pro-guns?page=9#15119785 ) but nobody still gives a fuck. The point is there is a debate to be had but first stop using these shitty arguments people! It's pretty much the same as people who still use the eye or a banana as an argument against evolution; it just goes to show how retarded they are.
Bingo here.Eclpsedragon said:
AH-UH-AH! http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/ Here's some stats for Norway currently. And then http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html for the United States.Naeras said:
I'm currently looking for other sources for the population of Norway that is more up-to-date but if what it is saying is true, Norway only [or over] five million people within its borders, while the US has over 314 million. The US, by default is going to have more crime because it has more people.
I am by no means sticking by anything but the POPclock numbers for the US since that other site might not be correct, but if it isn't, you have less crime not because there are less people with guns, but because your population is a lot smaller.
In conclusion, the argument "My country has less crime because we don't have guns, thus if the US didn't have guns they would have less crime" is that most people don't think about how big the US is, why guns are allowed in the US since its inception and don't often look at numbers relating to things like knife murders or blunt weapon murders, just guns.
You could but it would be harder. You could, in theory, go around mass murdering people with a pointy metal stick if you landed hits in the right places.Bhaalspawn said:
Removing guns from the equation does what exactly when it comes to slaughtering people? Makes it slightly more inconvenient?
Knights way back when had no issues slaughtering hundreds of other knights, and this was before the advent of guns, so how would removing a gun stop people from slaughtering hundreds of other people.
__________________________
With me, the most pointless argument against guns is that banning them will do anything but remove a shield from a citizen versus the sword of a criminal.
Well, and the fact that in the US were allowed to carry guns so that, in case a revolution is needed we can HAVE a chance to change the government back to serving the common man rather then the richest man.
Also, what I said above, anyone who uses the argument "well my country has less crime because of no guns therefore if the US has no guns their crime rate would drop" without ever looking at the differences in population, beliefs, the fact that removing guns does not suddenly mean less murders happen or that there are less people with guns.
In conclusion, most people [like the above] who argue without addressing things like population, the ideology of guns in the country their arguing shouldn't have guns, the fact that murders are declined because of a ban on guns but more weapons are used are reasons why I think its not sensible to outright ban guns.
I'll respond piece by piece to the cracked article:
Point 4: The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is not to be taken literally, the point is that guns are just tools, they don't get up, walk around, and shoot someone. People use that quote to point out the fact that you need to look at the core of the problem, ie. why are people doing this, before you look at means.
Point 3: Yes, guns are different than matches, cars, etc., but the overall point remains: alcohol for example, leads to far more deaths per year than guns do (and this includes innocent victims of drunk drivers), so if you're overall objective is to save innocent lives, why not ban alcohol? Because we tried that once and we saw what happened.
Point 2: You can use an "offensive" weapon in a "defensive" role, the author shows his ignorance with this one (and before anyone starts trolling, I'm in the Army, Combat Arms). Admittedly, it difficult to know exactly how often people use guns defensively every year, largely because studies have found that the majority of times that they are used, the gun is pulled out, the perp runs away, and no one is hurt and no real crime is committed.
Point 1: I've heard this "well back then they only had muskets and now guns are much deadlier" argument oftentimes, but it completely misses what the entire point of the 2nd amendment is, which is NOT having people be armed to stop criminals, but having people be armed to stop a tyrannical Government. In other words, the people should be able to be armed with weaponry capable of fighting back against their Government should it turn tyrannical on them. And before you say "oh well that's stupid because the Military has planes and Artillery and bombs" etc. I'd suggest doing some reading about the Jewish resistance during WW2, who held off large numbers of the Nazi Army with the few firearms they were able to acquire (subsequently, gun control was one of Hitler's big pushes). Also, if you need further proof:
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
-Thomas Jefferson
Oh, and for all the people pointing out how England is so much safer with no guns at all, I'd suggest having a look at Switzerland. Switzerland has the highest gun-ownership rate in the world and has a lower murder rate than England, so let's quite pretending that it's somehow all the fault of guns.
Point 4: The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is not to be taken literally, the point is that guns are just tools, they don't get up, walk around, and shoot someone. People use that quote to point out the fact that you need to look at the core of the problem, ie. why are people doing this, before you look at means.
Point 3: Yes, guns are different than matches, cars, etc., but the overall point remains: alcohol for example, leads to far more deaths per year than guns do (and this includes innocent victims of drunk drivers), so if you're overall objective is to save innocent lives, why not ban alcohol? Because we tried that once and we saw what happened.
Point 2: You can use an "offensive" weapon in a "defensive" role, the author shows his ignorance with this one (and before anyone starts trolling, I'm in the Army, Combat Arms). Admittedly, it difficult to know exactly how often people use guns defensively every year, largely because studies have found that the majority of times that they are used, the gun is pulled out, the perp runs away, and no one is hurt and no real crime is committed.
Point 1: I've heard this "well back then they only had muskets and now guns are much deadlier" argument oftentimes, but it completely misses what the entire point of the 2nd amendment is, which is NOT having people be armed to stop criminals, but having people be armed to stop a tyrannical Government. In other words, the people should be able to be armed with weaponry capable of fighting back against their Government should it turn tyrannical on them. And before you say "oh well that's stupid because the Military has planes and Artillery and bombs" etc. I'd suggest doing some reading about the Jewish resistance during WW2, who held off large numbers of the Nazi Army with the few firearms they were able to acquire (subsequently, gun control was one of Hitler's big pushes). Also, if you need further proof:
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
-Thomas Jefferson
Oh, and for all the people pointing out how England is so much safer with no guns at all, I'd suggest having a look at Switzerland. Switzerland has the highest gun-ownership rate in the world and has a lower murder rate than England, so let's quite pretending that it's somehow all the fault of guns.
I dont get what you are trying to say, it has nothing to do with being an Island. You just mention the US has greater traffic. The fallacy I am referring to is the one that makes people believe its hard to smuggle things into the UK because we have no land border.Imat said:
Where to start with this? this one is a real doozy. You're first paragraph and point one or two actually have nothing to do with land borders, you just talk about how smuggling happens via freight and cargo, small private boats and light aircraft. You also bring the American preoccupation with size into it to for some reason. The scale of smuggling in the UK is smaller because the population is smaller. The increase in traffic the US has because its MOAR! is balanced by the fact that you have more border control agents.Semitendon said:
Point 3 is a bit better, I cannot speak about the Canadian border but the security on the Mexican border is pretty damn heavy. Even the bits that look unguarded have specialist tracker teams to find the illegal immigrants and drug runners trying to cross on foot, about the only only thing they could do to make it more secure is build something either like the West Bank wall or the cold war IGB.
Even then that wouldn't stop them all getting over it somehow, smugglers can be some of the most creative off all criminals. Still in groups or as individuals these foot slogging guys are small time, they do not move a lot of stuff and they are only a problem when you factor in how many groups like this might be out there. Still they are small time, they do not carry nine tons of cargo like those submarines the cartels are using.
The other traffic across the border is road traffic, sometimes it will be cars or trucks carrying contraband. This is no different from ferries really, the land border in this context doesn't make much difference.
The UK being an Island makes almost no appreciable difference to the difficulty of smuggling. The only thing we do not have to deal with is the guys with backpacks going it on foot. Considering the amount of stuff pouring in from all of the other ways having those guys wouldn't make a difference, it would even bring in a fraction of what already comes in.
Also, Americans /sigh. My post was not about you or the US so why try and make the subject all about the US? If you want to refute it on its merits I welcome the discussion but I wont be responding to anymore Mericuh is MOAR! posts.
1. Blades can do as much damage as a sword in the right hand, for god sake there are people who train in blades that could cut off limbs with a few precise swings on a dummy, I'd hate to see them fight a real person.Witty Name Here said:
The argument "They were a medieval tank" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that they are a higher tier of fighter, now a well placed shotgun round would kill them. My point was that, if we take away guns there would be people running around with knives, some crazy ones swords and axes and we would be back to the same thing twenty years down the road when some maniac takes out a diner using only a greatsword.
2. Guns also allow us to kill animals more easily. Guns also are for the sport of Trapshooting. If you want to get into it, a gun is a tool, not a murderer which your screaming here. A gun, just like a sword can be used for more then murder and thinking that any gun owner buys a gun with the intent of murder is a silly notion.
Also love how you pull the columbine shooters in here, they, believe it or not, bought their guns illegally, the same exact events would have come about whether or not guns were banned. The Aurora Movie Shooter actually bought his gun legally, however there are hints that he used a type of tear gas to make the killings easier.
Finally on this point, people are not all chivalrousness knights, in the type of event such as the columbine shooting, I would wager that they would have ran from the man who just chopped three people's heads off. [Blades, in well trained hands, similar to guns CAN be very deadly, if not more so in close quarters]
3. Its not my argument, it is not only stated by the writer of the declaration, which is the same one that allows us to bear arms. The issue with this statement is that the above you just stated that the Aurora Movie Shooter / Columbine shooters could not kill that many people without a gun, followed by making the statement that gun enthusiasts [typically people who own a gun use it in places where they can either hunt or practice their aim] could not harm a infantry unit. Let me ask you this, if the Aurora Movie Shooter could get a extended mag for his sub-machine-gun, a shotgun and plenty of ammo for that with ingredients to make several fire-bombs for his apartment and tear gas, how could many people who are resisting their government not do the same?
This final statement of yours is essentially going back to several other presidents that have been murdered. They don't need someone to tell them too, someone eventually WILL murder the president.
Overall, you do try and argue that "Guns are bad" but quote terrible cases such as Columbine shooters, who got their guns illegally thus banning guns would have solved nothing. Trying to change the subject by saying that knights, highly trained people, were tanks and as such can not be compared to a mad man with a gun when my point, if you now understand, was that if we ban guns murderers will just move to another weapon, we ban that one and they go on to the next one, rinse and repeat until were taking out babies teeth, cutting off their hands and feet just so that they can never commit a crime.
A gun is a tool, like a sword, someone highly trained in it could do some major damage, however so can somebody who is highly trained in any other weapon. All the arguements, including the above, usually boil down to "Guns are pointless and are only made to kill" which is 1. Not true and 2. If they are meant to kill is a citizen killing a mugger with a gun something to arrest the citizen for? Its always on a case-by-case basis that you have to take these things and you have to face up when suddenly knives become the next big murder weapon.
EDIT: Sorry, forget to finish a thought.
"Well I'm sorry honey, I couldn't bring back any meat. Our car is out of gas, were stuck in the wild, I have a rifle in the back but because bullets cost so much were going to starve to death."Witty Name Here said:
-death
Also
"Well I want to shoot up my classroom, lets look on Ebay for some ammunition to my shotgun.... Well 1,000$ is a ridiculous price.. OH 2$ for a clip from some guy in Europe, its a steal."
Do you get my point here that this wouldn't solve anything and would only hurt few.
God, when I log back on in 2 hours I'm sure my inbox will make me thouroughly regret jumping into another of these, but here we go.
4) I don't even see how you can claim this is a meaningless argument. It's perfectly valid. People have been killing the shit out of each other long before guns came around, hell, we've been killing the shit out of each other since before we were people. Also, guns aren't even the best tools for the job. You've got poisons, incendiaries, bombs, cars, ect. I bet if you think about it, every single one of you could think of at least 3 ways to easily kill a human being without using just these listed methods, from scratch, using things you can legally buy in your country. That's not even counting knives, bows, spears, ect. ect. ect.
3) Guns have numerous legal uses as well. Collecting. Sport shooting. Hunting. Self-defense. Varmint control. Dangerous animal control. Sporting competitions(I mean for fuck's sake there is an olympic sport that is 1/2 about firing a gun).
2) 2.5 million may come from one study. But another study found just short of one million. Another found 1.5 million. Several educated estimates say somewhere between 2 and 3 million or just a share higher. Even if it is only 1/2 of the lowest number, you still have 500 thousand DGUs. That's over 10 times more than all gun deaths in the US, including suicides, and that's at a very conservative estimate. More than enough reason to validate the statement: Guns save lives.
1) This one I actually do agree with, in a way. any self-respecting American should despise every single gun law on the books(or nearly all of them) because they represent legal precedence to ignore your individual rights from the bill of rights without compelling reason. However, the debate would still exist, because our constitution can be Amended, so the argument would just be how much we want to amend.
Although, I will mention that the argument that the 2nd amendment refers only to the national guard is mentally retarded. I know some of you probably use it, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm saying you're using a stupid argument, so calm down.
Every single time the phrase "The people" appears in the declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights, or any amendment to the constitution, it refers to an individual right. To assume that this one time was an exception when all the evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, as well as the grammatical structure of the sentence, shows unequivocally that they meant for it to be an individual right is absurd.
The man who wrote more of the bill of rights than any other, when speaking about the 2nd amendment just a few years after it was written said that the "militia" was every single male in the US capable of performing military duties. So, the only citizens who wouldn't be protected, even if we made the giant, unfounded leap that "the people" only refers to members of the militia, would be the handicapped and women. Nobody wants that.
Also, if any of you want sources, find one of the hundreds of posts I've made on this subject over the last few days. I've linked it all here and there, and I'm not going to dig it up again just so you can have a source for the obvious.
4) I don't even see how you can claim this is a meaningless argument. It's perfectly valid. People have been killing the shit out of each other long before guns came around, hell, we've been killing the shit out of each other since before we were people. Also, guns aren't even the best tools for the job. You've got poisons, incendiaries, bombs, cars, ect. I bet if you think about it, every single one of you could think of at least 3 ways to easily kill a human being without using just these listed methods, from scratch, using things you can legally buy in your country. That's not even counting knives, bows, spears, ect. ect. ect.
3) Guns have numerous legal uses as well. Collecting. Sport shooting. Hunting. Self-defense. Varmint control. Dangerous animal control. Sporting competitions(I mean for fuck's sake there is an olympic sport that is 1/2 about firing a gun).
2) 2.5 million may come from one study. But another study found just short of one million. Another found 1.5 million. Several educated estimates say somewhere between 2 and 3 million or just a share higher. Even if it is only 1/2 of the lowest number, you still have 500 thousand DGUs. That's over 10 times more than all gun deaths in the US, including suicides, and that's at a very conservative estimate. More than enough reason to validate the statement: Guns save lives.
1) This one I actually do agree with, in a way. any self-respecting American should despise every single gun law on the books(or nearly all of them) because they represent legal precedence to ignore your individual rights from the bill of rights without compelling reason. However, the debate would still exist, because our constitution can be Amended, so the argument would just be how much we want to amend.
Although, I will mention that the argument that the 2nd amendment refers only to the national guard is mentally retarded. I know some of you probably use it, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm saying you're using a stupid argument, so calm down.
Every single time the phrase "The people" appears in the declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights, or any amendment to the constitution, it refers to an individual right. To assume that this one time was an exception when all the evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, as well as the grammatical structure of the sentence, shows unequivocally that they meant for it to be an individual right is absurd.
The man who wrote more of the bill of rights than any other, when speaking about the 2nd amendment just a few years after it was written said that the "militia" was every single male in the US capable of performing military duties. So, the only citizens who wouldn't be protected, even if we made the giant, unfounded leap that "the people" only refers to members of the militia, would be the handicapped and women. Nobody wants that.
Also, if any of you want sources, find one of the hundreds of posts I've made on this subject over the last few days. I've linked it all here and there, and I'm not going to dig it up again just so you can have a source for the obvious.
Seriously??? Completely. Missed. The. Point. Out of personal interest, How old are you? Anyways, let's go at this one more time, and address your concerns one by one.
I understand not wanting to talk about America. Obviously it is not a country you have any real knowledge of.
But, it is what I know best, and when talking of gun control, most of the countries that are represented on the escapist already have bans on certain guns, whereas America does not have much in that way, and thus when talking about gun control, America is a highly relevant country. Also worth noting, and as stated in my original post, my points about countries with ports and land borders vs countries with just ports, is applicable to most of world, not just America.
p.s. just in case you've forgotten since the beginning of the post, how old are you? just curious.
Only for you evidently.J Tyran said:
Ok, this is the big one where you missed the point. It's not about size. The point is, that all of the water and air based smuggling can be applied to almost anyone, including when you adjust for size of the country, population, whatever. The point is, your point about the UK having smuggling issues is rendered irrelevant. While this point does not specifically address land smuggling, what it indicates is that the addition of land smuggling to one side of the equation is objectively, factually, and emperically provable that it is easier to maintain an island. Which as stated, is the point you seem to be missing.J Tyran said:
If by "heavy" you mean, has patrols in some areas, but not most.J Tyran said:
I don't know where you are getting your information, but the US/Mexico border is largely unguarded, and there are no elite teams of Superman powered soldiers running around either.J Tyran said:
Ok, I seriously doubt there are that many smugglers hoofing it on foot, when they could just drive on the many, many roads/paths that have no guards or fences. So, yes, it does present a significant amount of smuggling when they are using an eighteen wheeler to move across the border. I don't know why you are bringing up the submarines and ferries, it's already been established that sea craft is used exstensively in countries with ports.J Tyran said:
So to recap, America has all of the same sea and air smuggling problems, plus all of the land potential, which means that it is objectively easier to guard an island. Also, the US border is not guarded 24/7 by elite teams that watch the entire border. The truth is the border is largely unguarded with the exception of a few high traffic areas, and is monitored by underpaid, overworked, and understaffed crews who try their best but still miss quite a bit that goes on right under their noses.J Tyran said:
I understand not wanting to talk about America. Obviously it is not a country you have any real knowledge of.
But, it is what I know best, and when talking of gun control, most of the countries that are represented on the escapist already have bans on certain guns, whereas America does not have much in that way, and thus when talking about gun control, America is a highly relevant country. Also worth noting, and as stated in my original post, my points about countries with ports and land borders vs countries with just ports, is applicable to most of world, not just America.
p.s. just in case you've forgotten since the beginning of the post, how old are you? just curious.
Yeah, but in the UK, ANY gun-related assault/murder is massive news, all over the national TV and papers - it's a big, big deal. In the US, people don't seem to bat an eyelid when thousands of people die from gunshot wounds annually, it just seems like part of american culture. What I don't get is why arn't people starting to ask for tighter controls, licences, tighter restrictions and such - it's not the ban the US so desparately needs but it'd be a step into the 21st centuary.The_Critic said:
The purpose of the second amendment is a well-regulated militia. As this is the only real valid argument for why we own guns in this country, why wouldn't you have a legit reason to own assault rifles?Jack the Potato said:
Additionaly, Ted Nugent may be a serious minority, but the NRA has massive lobbying power and has expanded beyond merely gun rights.
Damn you, why did you link me back to that internet spider's web?anthony87 said:
As long as there are guns, people will find a way to get hold of them. I don't know what solution this entails, and I'd rather leave the details to people more intelligent and wise than I am.