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

[Nannernade]

Let's ban those things hollywood calls "movies" now a days, we don't need to pay our hard earned money to see a remake of a remake of a remake of a sequel of a remake.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Ban bears. We should send them all to countries that ban guns.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-faces-2-years-in-prison-for-shooting-grizzly-while-defending-family/

Obviously banning all guns is a bad idea. Farmers and such need them to protect there livestock etc.

And as we know, bear filled places like Alaska are known for their rich and lively farm communities...

 

[tobi the good boy]

a majority of the world's other developed countries do x

Ah, the old "argument from popularity" fallacy. You fail logic forever. Thank you and have a nice day.

Ahem *http://www.videojug.com/interview/international-gun-law-comparisons-2 * perhaps I should have put a link to further my stance.

 

[kommando367]

Ban Cynicism and complaining on the Internet. I just want to see what happens.

...there would be no more Internet :\

Yea probably. Make that a ban on "excessive" complaining, like everyone gets 2-3 complaints about each problem and then they have to shut up.

Fuck if I know how to enforce that though...

 

[Jonluw]

Dont forget about all of those accidental gun deaths. You know all the four year old blows his head off or shoots dad ones.

Granted, those can be stopped without even enforcing anything like strict gun control.
All that's needed is to implement a law that requires every gun owner to store the weapons in locked firearm boxes, and without being completely assembled.
Like pretty much every other country that allows gun ownership does.

if people wanted to keep guns for personal safety, what would be the point of having the gun disassembled, not loaded, and locked in a cabinet somewhere... I'm pretty sure that kind of defeats the purpose if you randomly get a break in at 3 in the morning, the last thing you want to worry about is finding your key, putting the gun together, and loading it before you can use this. All of this likely in the dark and half a wake...

In countries where the gun control enforces a locker rule, guns aren't kept for personal safety. (And, surprisingly, people aren't constantly dying in robberies and the likes)
They're pretty shitty for self defense anyways.
Granted, for home defense, they're alright. Although pretty useless if you can't get a drop on the criminal.
In a society where guns are controlled, you're better off just defending your home with a bat, or calling the police.

 

[AngloDoom]

you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

 

[AngloDoom]

you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

You just contact whichever authority the gun is linked to, when the guns needs to be serviced (two per annum, once per annum, whatever it may be) and basically make an appointment to service your gun. You are given six hours in which to service that gun before it must be returned to the safe. If it is not returned to the safe within six hours then alert the shitstorm brigade. If any gun related crimes occur in that area around the time, you now potentially have a much smaller list of potential suspects.

Captcha: that's it

Again, this is clearly from someone who has no idea about guns so you'll have to tell me if I'm clearly missing points - such as the whole servicing thing.

 

[FalloutJack]

Hey, let's ban death! That'll work!

 

[Mathurin]

you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.

but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.

If you think this is halfway then you have no idea what my position is.

1) How will you enforce this?
2) You know very little about guns, correct?
Guns are not generalist devices, they tend to be very specialized for their tasks, collectors dont collect just for kicks.
3) Telling me how to raise my children eh?
When I was about 14-15 a friend came to my house, as we walked through the living room he saw my dads gun and picked it up. I immediately told him to stop, took it from him and unloaded it. When you raise kids with knowledge about firearms you dont have to worry about them being stupid with them. From the age of 7 or so I knew where a gun was, it was no mystery, I had already learned to shoot it and could do so anytime, I didnt have to sneak, I just had to ask.
4) Excellent area for a backdoor ban, just make the tests too hard to pass, also, literacy tests have already made a precedent in the US, you may not test someone before they are allowed to access a right.

How about this for halfway
A) Increased sentencing for anyone caught committing a crime while in possession of a firearm
B) Felon in possession = 10 years
C) Knowingly providing a firearm to a felon or for use in a crime = 10 years.
D) Theft of a firearm = 10 years
E) Mandatory firearms training, as part of high school education.

Punish individual criminals, not collective society.

To clear out prison space I suggest we legalize drugs and prostitution, which will also deprive gangs of their income.

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And I want to similarly lock your garage, because your car is polluting the world and causing climate change.

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

You just contact whichever authority the gun is linked to, when the guns needs to be serviced (two per annum, once per annum, whatever it may be) and basically make an appointment to service your gun. You are given six hours in which to service that gun before it must be returned to the safe. If it is not returned to the safe within six hours then alert the shitstorm brigade. If any gun related crimes occur in that area around the time, you now potentially have a much smaller list of potential suspects.

Captcha: that's it

Perfect, except for all the unregistered firearms out there, there will be no end to them since the US has such long and unsecured borders.

Again, this is clearly from someone who has no idea about guns so you'll have to tell me if I'm clearly missing points - such as the whole servicing thing.

6 months is about right if you never do anything with your firearm but clean and reload it.


The most important thing to learn about gun owners is that we consider the owning of arms to be a right, second only to a right to free speech.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

1. If you start to regulate guns really strictly in the US right now it probably would create a huge black market, simply because guns for personal use are demanded there. However here in Europe there is no big black market even though guns for the most part are very regulated. The difference as always is cultural, and culture takes a while to change. That does not mean that it shouldn't be however. And looking at the statistics, the US could benefit on some change in that area.

2. Comparing drugs to guns is not valid. Drugs only harm the user directly,but the only functional purpose of guns is to harm others directly. That, to me, legitimates a more stirct approach.

3. There are some validity to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Though it's validity is very limited. Knifes are very common and they are relatively easy to kill with. However I do not go about knifing people to death even though I could. Odds are I would not go about shooting people if I had a gun. BUT: killing people is much easier with a gun. A lunatic isn't that much more dangerous with a knife, but he is with a gun. It's a bit like nuclear weapons; in the hands of rational people they can be very useful, but one can't gatarntee that they stay in the hands of rational people, hence it would be best if they didn't exist. And hence it would be best if guns where strictly regulated (not banned alltogether, they have their uses after all).

4. Lunatics that want to kill alot of people with a guns probably will succeed. Here in Norway we have very strict gun-laws, but we also had one of the worst shooting-massacres in history very recently. That does not legitimate leaner regulation - it would probably have been easier to get hold of the weapons used in said massacre in the US.

EDIT: In #1 I am talking about a market for private, non-criminal citizens.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

Once again, humanity defends humanities's right to kill other.
We don't NEED guns in a civilian environment. If you want to play the "People die all the time" card, then, as this is the case, why does anyone need a gun to add to the people dying anyway.

Get rid of the guns permanantly in civilian situations, you knock a massive chunk off of the yearly death list. Look at england and Japan. Some people still have guns, but barely anyone is killed with them.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

Hey, let's ban death! That'll work!

Y'know emperor Caligula actually did ban death because he was dying?
Then He died.

At least they couldn't give him the death penalty (Which I think was the actual punishment)

 

[AngloDoom]

You know those red pully-chord-things some elderly people have in their bathroom they can pull, so it immediately alerts a carer or the emergency services that they are hurt or injured?

Have something like that inside the safe - if you open the safe, an alarm goes off somewhere and a record is made that at 19:07 Jim Sterling took his gun out of his safe. If Jim here is in danger and defending his life, he should be reassured knowing the police are currently rushing to his home to help. If Jim, however, removed the gun because he's drunk and wants to scare them damn kids off of his lawn, then Jim will soon be in the shit.

That's what I'd like to see.

And I want to similarly lock your garage, because your car is polluting the world and causing climate change.

Can we drop the comparisons between guns and cars? Yes you can kill someone with a car, but you can't drive to work on your gun. Many societies could exist with strict gun-control or absolutely no guns, while many more societies would face difficulty if cars were gone.

Nail-bombs and medieval cannons kill less per year than cars, that doesn't mean we should legalise them and let average Joe have them in his home: trivialising the argument like this doesn't assist anybody.

And how would you disable this alarm so one can take the gun out for purposes of routine service?

You just contact whichever authority the gun is linked to, when the guns needs to be serviced (two per annum, once per annum, whatever it may be) and basically make an appointment to service your gun. You are given six hours in which to service that gun before it must be returned to the safe. If it is not returned to the safe within six hours then alert the shitstorm brigade. If any gun related crimes occur in that area around the time, you now potentially have a much smaller list of potential suspects.

Captcha: that's it

Perfect, except for all the unregistered firearms out there, there will be no end to them since the US has such long and unsecured borders.

Agreed, something I have previous addressed in my previous post about this topic. However, I'm talking about the rings home-owners should jump through to use a gun, not street-gangs and criminals. If you want to play the game of Keeping Up with the Joneses with criminals then you always be out-gunned; I'm sure automatic weapons are not legal in all states of America, but I'm sure some street-gangs have automatic weapons, should we then legalise automatic guns because criminals have them?

No, of course not. You don't legalise something because criminals use it to their advantage - quite the opposite. If everyone has a gun, doesn't it just devalue the usefulness of the police?

Again, this is clearly from someone who has no idea about guns so you'll have to tell me if I'm clearly missing points - such as the whole servicing thing.

6 months is about right if you never do anything with your firearm but clean and reload it.


The most important thing to learn about gun owners is that we consider the owning of arms to be a right, second only to a right to free speech.

Unfortunately I can't understand that ideal at all, as a result of not being a part of your culture. I don't understand why having a weapon should be anywhere near the same class as protecting your right to voice your opinion and be an active member of your society. Personally, I think claiming them to be anywhere near the same degree of right is an insult to those rights. I understand, however, this view isn't shared by everyone and I come from a place where if I hear a bump in the night the worst I expect is a man with a knife.

I just think a society where people feel the need to constantly carry a lethal weapon to feel safe a bit paranoid.

 

[Daveman]

I believe that a gun is the ultimate symbol of power. A person with a gun will always have power over a person without, and to make laws that ban people from having guns is to make laws that ban civilians from having power. The United States is a country founded for the people by the people. The power should rest with all of us equally

So somebody with a tank will always have power over somebody without a tank. Guns are hardly the ultimate symbol of power. I can hire a bunch of goons and buy them guns and then I'll still have power over other people with a gun. Would it not be truer then to say that, if we followed your idea, people with the most money should have power over everyone else. A cynic would say that's already the case.

People have no right to power.

And just because we can never prevent every bad thing from happening doesn't mean we should give up and just let it happen. We responded to the threat of terrorism with increased airport security measures. Learning from our mistakes is the only way to make any sort of progress, not cling to outrageously outdated ideals.

 

[Mathurin]

1. If you start to regulate guns really strictly in the US right now it probably would create a huge black market, simply because guns for personal use are demanded there. However here in Europe there is no big black market even though guns for the most part are very regulated. The difference as always is cultural, and culture takes a while to change. That does not mean that it shouldn't be however. And looking at the statistics, the US could benefit on some change in that area.

Most of americans gun crime can be blamed on gangs, mostly linked to drugs, and no amount of laws will prevent dealers of smuggled substances from getting their hands on smuggled hardware.

Further differences between the US and europe explain the crime difference as well, being founding by paranoid nutters we have a strong tradition of hobbling government authority, especially in the justice department since that was heavily used against the colonists by the British, this makes it harder to catch and punish criminals.

2. Comparing drugs to guns is not valid. Drugs only harm the user directly,but the only functional purpose of guns is to harm others directly. That, to me, legitimates a more stirct approach.

3. There are some validity to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Though it's validity is very limited. Knifes are very common and they are relatively easy to kill with. However I do not go about knifing people to death even though I could. Odds are I would not go about shooting people if I had a gun. BUT: killing people is much easier with a gun. A lunatic isn't that much more dangerous with a knife, but he is with a gun. It's a bit like nuclear weapons; in the hands of rational people they can be very useful, but one can't gatarntee that they stay in the hands of rational people, hence it would be best if they didn't exist. And hence it would be best if guns where strictly regulated (not banned alltogether, they have their uses after all).

So comparison to drugs is not valid but comparison to nukes is?

Lets make this clear, nobody should have nukes, they exist already so we dont have a choice, but nukes only did 2 'good' things
1) prevent the US from needing to invade japan (arguable)
2) prevent the cold war from escalating to total war

Guns are tools, destructive tools yes, but just like an axe, destruction used correctly is extremely important, without firearms we would still be under the heel of feudal lords.


BTW, mass knifings do occur, pretty frequently in Japan and I saw a story about a chinese fellow who used a butcher knife on a kindergarten class.

4. Lunatics that want to kill alot of people with a guns probably will succeed. Here in Norway we have very strict gun-laws, but we also had one of the worst shooting-massacres in history very recently. That does not legitimate leaner regulation - it would probably have been easier to get hold of the weapons used in said massacre in the US.

EDIT: In #1 I am talking about a market for private, non-criminal citizens.

Bombs are way more effective, and impossible to effectively ban

 

[Deadyawn]

Well yeah, but you have to admit that there would be less dead people if there were less guns. That's kind of the pivotal argument here.

Also, your premise would appear to be slightly contradictory. You say that "People just want to feel secure; they want to feel safe in a world without safety, and they are willing to sell their freedom away to the government for the PROMISE that the government will make the bad people go away" but also say "Having a gun next to your bed, can help you rest easy knowing that if someone tries to break into your home you will have some sort of power over the situation" which is pretty much the exact same thing, a feeling of safety.
You can't really disparage the concept of security while also promoting it as a positive feature in the possesion of a gun.

To be clear, I'm not advocating any particular course of action but I'd like some sort of clarification on your position.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

It seems we agree on a lot of things. The gang problem in America is obviously the product of a lot of complex causes (the war on drugs, urban poverty etc.) not just the lack of gun control, and we do have similar problems in Europe.

So comparison to drugs is not valid but comparison to nukes is?

I think the comparison is valid. Like guns nukes are made to directly harm other people, and drugs are not.

Guns are tools, destructive tools yes, but just like an axe, destruction used correctly is extremely important, without firearms we would still be under the heel of feudal lords.

This is a far too simplified view of history. Handguns began to be common in Europe about 1500 AD. It took almost half a millenia for demcracies to develop.