Things besides guns we should ban to give ourselves the delusion of safety

Mar 9, 2010
2,722
0
0
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
I wish people would stop comparing guns to drugs. It's not an apt comparison. Banning the two has completely different effects.
Remember that time alcohol was banned and a massive crime wave occurred that involved a lot of gun related death?

OT: Yeah, don't try and justify gun related deaths. I'm not against guns but stop trying to delude yourself into thinking they're a benefit to society to have them in peoples pockets.
 

Spygon

New member
May 16, 2009
1,105
0
0
Yes i can not see why the world has not banned cancer yet.What is this world coming to we could save 567,628 peoples lives if we just banned cancer?
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Jonluw said:
Suki_ said:
Well what if you want to use the gun to kill a mouse and are to tired to properly put it away. What if you are a crazy American who thinks guns are useless if kept in a locker because how are you gonna shoot somebody for looking at you the wrong way if its locked up.
Introducing gun control to a country like the US is a gradual process.
You can't just suddenly ban all guns. That would leave a shitton of guns on the market, none of them legal.
You need to restrict what kinds of guns can legally be produced and sold and slowly increase the difficulty of getting a license to buy a gun.
Banning magazine sizes greater than what's needed for hunting, etc.
After a while you may ban handguns entirely.

You don't change the public's attitude towards keeping guns locked up overnight.
They tried exactly that kind of stuff (including the magazine size restriction) under the Federal "Assault Weapons Ban," which created a new category ('assault weapons') that would be prohibited. It expired some years ago and was no renewed, because it didn't have any appreciable effect on crime (very rarely do gun crimes include these "assault weapons" anyway).
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Ignatz_Zwakh said:
Pitch-forks. Because obviously there will be a redneck uprising in the near-future.
Oh gods.
I can totally see this scenario playing out in the south during Obama's speech when he's re-elected. Only with a tv instead of a magic mirror.
[sub]He even goes "If you're not with us, you're against us"[/sub]​
 

Ravinoff

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
310
25
33
Country
Canada
The Unworthy Gentleman said:
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
I wish people would stop comparing guns to drugs. It's not an apt comparison. Banning the two has completely different effects.
Remember that time alcohol was banned and a massive crime wave occurred that involved a lot of gun related death?

OT: Yeah, don't try and justify gun related deaths. I'm not against guns but stop trying to delude yourself into thinking they're a benefit to society to have them in peoples pockets.
And what about knives? Face it, no matter how afraid of guns you are, they're just tools. Britain essentially banned guns and guess what? The violent crime rate is on a steady rise ever since. Now they're trying to ban the carry of knives, so the local chav population are instead using blunt instruments, and cops in London are carrying MP5 submachine guns regularly.
 

2xDouble

New member
Mar 15, 2010
2,310
0
0
We get it, you like guns. Congratufuckinglations.

Those are some very specific statistics you're listing there. How many deaths are caused by guns and are NOT homicide? How many of those respiratory conditions, heart attacks, strokes, and "random" accidents (including vehicular and alcohol-related) were causally, related to use of firearms? How many suicides involve firearms, or the feeling of powerlessness because people who shouldn't have that kind of power own them? (a very real fear; it doesn't go away just because you also have guns.) From what country are those statistics taken, England? Switzerland? America has at least 10,000 shootings per week (though the number of fatalities are much lower).

If you're going to throw effectively random numbers copy/pasted from a FoxNews, NRA, or KKK website (like there's a difference...), you could at least verify them with some of your own research.

But, in answer to your stupid question, the only way for true safety and security is to have either complete control or none. One party must have absolute power. The only way to avoid turning that into oppression is to be that one. You cannot be secure unless you have the ability to control others' actions, or obey someone who does. That's how security works.

Ben Franklin said it best: "Any willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither."
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Dastardly said:
They tried exactly that kind of stuff (including the magazine size restriction) under the Federal "Assault Weapons Ban," which created a new category ('assault weapons') that would be prohibited. It expired some years ago and was no renewed, because it didn't have any appreciable effect on crime (very rarely do gun crimes include these "assault weapons" anyway).
Yup, handguns are what you should really ban (/restrict most strictly), but there would be an uproar, so you can't do that until later stages.
Placing restrictions on rifles and shotguns to only really be useful for hunting is mostly to keep criminals from turning to these weapons when the handguns are taken from them.
Although it is also useful to restric the impact a legal gun owner who suddenly snaps will be able to make.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Jonluw said:
Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.
Actually, no it doesn't, that's a myth. Study after study has shown that stricter gun control does not reduce the rates of crime or violent crime, and concealed carry of handguns decreases crime. Also, a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia passed a law requiring all homeowners to keep a firearm in the house, the burglary rate fell by 89%.
 

Guffe

New member
Jul 12, 2009
5,106
0
0
You know, heart attack and cancer are the two biggest reasons so we should just ban those two instead of guns. That would save a lot more people!
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
Worgen said:
The difference between guns and all the things you listed are that guns tend to be something we do to each other, everything else is mostly self inflicted to some degree.
I agree I also think it is worth noting that the lack of gun control in the US directly effects the amount of illegal guns crime in there neighboring countries. 90% of illegal guns in Canada came from the US and almost all gun related crime is with illegal guns.
 

WaysideMaze

The Butcher On Your Back
Apr 25, 2010
845
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
WaysideMaze said:
Is gun control the thread of the month now?
Yeah, it seems that way. What, you're not excited to get away from the gender politics again?

:D

Isn't gun control a much better topic to discuss?
Oh I'm definitely excited to get away from gender politics.

I feel a little lost in gun control threads though. I live in the UK, so it's all a bit foreign to me.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
WaysideMaze said:
shrekfan246 said:
WaysideMaze said:
Is gun control the thread of the month now?
Yeah, it seems that way. What, you're not excited to get away from the gender politics again?

:D

Isn't gun control a much better topic to discuss?
Oh I'm definitely excited to get away from gender politics.

I feel a little lost in gun control threads though. I live in the UK, so it's all a bit foreign to me.
That's okay, all you have to do is continually point out how because you have much stricter gun regulations than the US does, you're much better off, and the US should follow the example of your country.

Unless you're not trying to get into the middle of the flame war, in which case it'd be best to just avoid them entirely.
 

Guybythestreet

New member
May 31, 2009
26
0
0
@ The people saying gun control reduces gun crime: You are totally right, less guns means less gun crime. Except that doesn't mean anything because then other sorts of crime rise.

Unless someone is arguing that gun crime is fundamentally worse than any other form homicide or assault I don't see why they aren't after banning knives or any other tool that is great at killing people.

Then at the comment about gun related suicide: You think if guns were banned they wouldn't try to kill themselves? Over dosing, hanging, jumping off a bridge or tall building, I don't see suicide being drastically reduced because of gun bans.

Banning guns doesn't do anything besides lower gun related crimes. People will still find other ways to harm themselves or others. And there are more than enough ways to kill people as is.
 

Jynthor

New member
Mar 30, 2012
774
0
0
People who are planning to shoot people will find guns, legally or illegally. There is really no point in banning guns since you'd just be enlarging the black market.
 

Killertje

New member
Dec 12, 2010
137
0
0
We should ban stupid people, lunatics and psychopaths. Once they are gone there will be a lot less non natural deaths all around.
 

Shoqiyqa

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,266
0
0
How would we go about banning religious extremism?

Worgen said:
The difference between guns and all the things you listed are that guns tend to be something we do to each other, everything else is mostly self inflicted to some degree.
Using official data released by the Department of Transport, this map plots the location of every fatal road crash in Great Britain between 1999 and 2008, a total of 32,298 deaths. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm]

...

This is 11 years of deaths and injuries on Britain's roads. You can zoom around the map using the controls on the left or search for your town. Each dot represents a life. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/nov/18/road-casualty-uk-map]

...

369,629 people died on America's roads between 2001 and 2009. Following its analysis of UK casualties last week, transport data mapping experts ITO World have taken the official data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - and produced this powerful map using OpenStreetMap. You can zoom around the map using the controls on the left or search for your town using the box on the right - and the key is on the top left. Each dot represents a life. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/nov/22/us-road-accident-casualties]

...

Germany's federal statistics office Destatis reported on Wednesday, that a total of 4,477 persons were killed in traffic accidents on Germany?s roads in 2008, which is fewer than in any year since 1950. Compared with the previous year, the number of people killed in road traffic accidents was down by 472 or 9.5%. At the same time, that figure is only about one fifth of the number of persons killed in traffic accidents in 1970, the most dramatic year in accident statistics, when 21,332 people died on Germany?s roads. A ban on alcohol introduced in August 2007 for new drivers has had a positive impact.

Irish publicans are lobbying the ruling Fianna Fáil party to block moves by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey, to lower the drink-drive limit.


...

There were 10,182 firearms offences in the year to the end of September {2007} compared with 9,755 in the previous 12 months - an increase of more than 400 crimes, or more than eight every week.

The rise is the biggest percentage increase since September 2004, when figures showed a five per cent increase in gun crimes.

While gun-related deaths were down, from 55 to 49, the number of slight injuries, threats and non-injury incidents linked to guns increased.


...

Murders with firearms (most recent) by country {notably not per 100,000 population, just the total}


Rank Countries Amount // Population
# 1 South Africa: 31,918 // 50,586,757
# 2 Colombia: 21,898 // 46,927,125
# 3 Thailand: 20,032 // 69,518,555
# 4 United States: 9,369 // 311,591,917
# 6 Mexico: 2,606 // 112,336,538
# 11 Germany: 269 // 81,726,000
# 14 Canada: 144 // 34,482,779
# 25 Australia: 59 // 22,620,600
# 26 Sweden: 58 // 9,453,000
# 27 Bolivia: 52 // 10,088,108
# 28 Japan: 47 // 127,817,277
= 39 United Kingdom: 14 // 62,641,000
= 39 Denmark: 14 // 5,574,000



14 x 311,591,917 / 62,641,000 = 69.64, which is 0.0074 of 9,369. The USA firearm murder rate per capita is 134.5 times the UK firearm murder rate per capita.
 

WaysideMaze

The Butcher On Your Back
Apr 25, 2010
845
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
That's okay, all you have to do is continually point out how because you have much stricter gun regulations than the US does, you're much better off, and the US should follow the example of your country.

Unless you're not trying to get into the middle of the flame war, in which case it'd be best to just avoid them entirely.
I find them quite interesting to read, if you can find your way through the flames to the coherent posts anyway.

It always makes me laugh when people who live in different countries critisize the way another country does things differently. Or, like you said, compares.
 

Qtoy

New member
Apr 21, 2011
224
0
0
Eclpsedragon said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
We should ban sweaters on dogs.
They're already covered with fur, they don't need a sweater
(unless they're hairless dogs, or live in very cold places, those dogs get a pass).
As ridiculous and annoying as they are, my grandmother had one on her dog when, i shit you not, a hawk swooped by and tried to take the poor thing away.
The sweater prevented that dumb bird from taking that poor little jerk to its nest.