@zombieseesmeat @willzihang "Hey with your logic they pass a law tommorow Guns just vanish right?" Who said that? not me. You can't just insert false remarks and put it as an argument.
Strict gun laws try to make it much harder for criminals to get weapons-- is this a good cause? I think so. It will take a long time, yes. The guns will remain in abundance after a law's passing. It has to start somewhere
Actually-- you need to word that better and more completely: I don't think you should be able to carry an object, that is purely a weapon, because of the risk of it falling into the hands of someone dangerous, or the chance that you or someone else might make a mistake with it (you admit to not being perfect yes?) and cause accidental harm.
Once again you make the mistake of me thinking my country is great, I do not. I think societies, no actually, evidence shows-- that societies with long histories of gun ristrictions as a result have far less gun crime, as oddly enough - now this is logic here - less guns equals less gun crime, as there are less guns. A LOT less.
If that means I want someone take take away your gun so you won't be able to shoot it off in the back yard or at the range, so be it. I think it's a small price to pay to increase everyone's security, by the aforementioned logic of far less guns.
@Red-DogBluewolf Of course, I don't live in fantasy fairy land. Crime will always exist. But as I see it stricter gun laws are only going to improve things, and that is a good cause, yes? An attempt to remove the means, or at best an attempt to make getting the means of killing much harder.
@zombieseesmeat @willzihang What am I giving up exactly, in your mind?
It seems pretty pathetic to be honest that your only argument now is a feeble attempt to attack my masculinity. What exactly am I personally surrendering to?
I say: I don't want someone breaking into my house-- seems ok to far, no loss of my maleness yet. I then say I would like to see him have a far, far less chance of having a gun, and also me not owning one; also him not being able to break in somewhere else and stealing one, as they can't have one.
I fail to see any connection.
Other than perhaps you thinking those safety-loving left wing types trying to take my precious shooter away, removing my need to fire at inanimate objects or animals, disregarding the very real threat that some pyschopath might get hold of it and massacre some school children.
@Red-DogBluewolf @bodeeremita Banning them will only make things better-- eventually it will be extremely hard to come by one for a criminal. Plus it means accidental deaths/injuries will plummet.
@bodeeremita @willzihang ..indeed, it will be a very slow process. The fact is, if a ban comes in the guns will still be there for a very long time, as there are just so many of them-- I believe this is the case with Brazil, yes? 17 million I read, and the second largest arms industry in the West. and many of which get smuggled back in.
@zombieseesmeat No, I wouldn't like someone breaking in. But I feel much safer here because it is FAR less likely he will have a gun, plus he wouldn't have helped himself to next door's arsenal of sub-machine guns.
What's with all the machismo talk? It seems you have an issue with gun = man mindset.
@zombieseesmeat It's an oddity isn't it that they ALWAYS conveniently ignore the fact that countries who ban firearms have far less shootings. Odd that.
It's also strange that they NEVER admit that it seems evident that a large number of these criminals actually get the guns from law abiding citizens.
You have to ask them: is it worth having a right, if it means a whole lot more people die yearly as a result of it?
You might stop wasting people's time here and admit the truth that you defend guns simply on the basis that it makes you feel good using them. I'm rapidly losing patience trying to debate with your type.
@zombieseesmeat Actually-- I am saying exactly that: modify or remove the second amendment, then stop there. It is after all, an AMENDMENT. Laws change over time, often for good reasons, why not this one? It was once lawful to own slaves-- nice that that changed, yes?
You can't cut up a lot of meat with a hand gun or machine gun, and you can't drive home with a shotgun or assault rifle. These guns are made explicitly for the purpose of killing. Guns are very good at killing people, and animals, as that is their purpose.
Don't you think guns most of the time 'get into the wrong hands' because they steal them from non-violent people?
I am sorry to repeat but why do you people ALWAYS entirely ignore the point that countries who ban them have far less gun crime? Would you say so-called advance European countries are undemocratic? and under the heel of dictatorship. Actually, people in general in such countries exist in EXACTLY the same happy, and free way they do in America, with the added bonus that far less people are killed by firearms.
I suppose you'll - once again - think I'm trying to be holier than thou. I'm not, I'm observing the facts and saying that our countries are almost identical in the way people general are. I only attack this one issue, don't reference it as an attack to the whole US.
@notlukesfather @zombieseesmeat "It is not arguable that possession of weapons can lead to increased aggression" No-one is saying this. More the inarguable fact that guns are very dangerous.
I will ask you the simple question: are guns very dangerous? Wouldn't you say it's a danger to own a gun where there are children nearby? Or maybe a criminal breaking in? It only takes a slip of mind to forget to lock the gun cabinet.
It makes sense to remove the means - guns - of violence as much as possible. 99.9% of people are NOT violent, only the tiniest fraction. Is it also quite likely that many criminals steal guns from shops and non-violent owners?
You seem to think I am trying to point a finger of condemnation from my 'high-horse country that bans guns'. No, as I have stated-- I dislike a lot of things about my country, and I prefer many things about America.
I do this because it is clearly evidenced that less guns everywhere means less gun crime-- this is a good thing, yes?
willzihang's comments