jozefReeroWhich is why we need to change. I'm not entirely sure why there's so much hate on gun control right now, as the problem seems to lie in the fact that mass murders are becoming the norm. Instead of stating the oh so common statement "you cant get rid of guns, it's not possible, engrained in culture" why not realize that middle ground is attainable? I dont think any rational human being in america thinks that banning guns, or even regulating them more would completely get rid of murders, but would stronger restrictions help? well we don't know cuz they dont exist. Maybe nothing would happen, or maybe fewer impulsive angry teenagers would go out to walmart and buy a gun off the shelf and kill 12 children the next day. We can't know, because people just assume its futility. I personally think it's not a complete solution that we talk about with gun control, but rather a way to cut down on the death. Analogy (albet one a little horrible to compare with human death): if you put winter tires on your car, you still could slip, yet less oftenTino_How is that a straw man? It is an actual argument that was touted all over the place not 15 years ago.All max said was that a straight ban of guns is impossible logistically, and any further restrictions on guns would be pretty useless as they have already proven futile or would also be logistical nightmares. Gun control is such a tricky issue in the U.S. Because this country's history, heritage,and political circumstances are so vastly different from any other Western nation.
The premise of the argument is literally the exact same. Much like global warming the issue is not black or white and there are many solutions that can be put forward. But the US just had a weapon fetish that it cant get over.
Looking at the history of guns, stronger restrictions have been placed on the purchase, modification, ammunition, and safety accessories (yes safety accessories) time and time again which only prove to be futile. If you really think that a teenager can waltz on into Walmart and buy a gun off the shelf and kill 12 children the next day you are very mistaken.
yewlThe part I don't understand is why do people whinge about the right to own semi-auto rifles? They aren't suited for hunting, and you don't need any more than a shotgun to defend your house if you're worried about that. Pretty sure the writers of the second amendment didn't envision the kind of weapons that Americans are allowed to own today.
dot_VulcanI don't think any good guy would need 50 gunsno civilian needs any type of rifle, period. my safety > your bitch ass hobby
??? Semi-automatic rifles are absolutely suited for hunting (semi-auto is not full-auto). Also, the framers of the Constitution didn't guarantee the right to bear arms for self-preservation only, they did it because their ability to contest the British military is what gained them their liberty in the first place, and should the U.S. ever become tyrannical, they want the ability to fight back. Also it is insulting to the framers to assume they didn't account for an advancing technology, in fact that's exactly what they did account for: they want the people to be able to topple a tyrannical government.
nitewhat is the logical conclusion of this argument? that no laws should exist because people will just break them anyway? common sense gun law works in nearly every other first world country in the world to reduce gun deaths and violent crime in general.
Once again, you have to consider the circumstances of arguing for gun laws in the United States. The United States is vastly different in culture than every other first world country, and there are also ~300 million guns floating around already, so regulating them significantly or removing them at all would prove a logistical impossibility, especially coupled with the fact that there are people who would rather die than give up their guns.
jetzzzzzppl are a lot less likely to kill each other if its harder to kill ppl. guns make it a lot easier to kill ppl. the results should be obvious. as far as regulating guns in a country that has 300+ million of them, thats gonna be rly hard.
SearchlightI may be talking out of my ass here, but isn't the dichotomy between 'good guys with guns' and 'bad guys with guns' at the heart of the American gun control debate a complete logical fallacy (not to mention an infantile way to talk about the issue)? Most US gun deaths are suicides, and a large number of those deaths wouldn't happen if these guys didn't have guns (see the ubiquitous anecdote about suicides in England after getting rid of coal gas). And take the person at the center of this mass shooting - until he did what he did, he wasn't a 'bad guy' by most standards, he became one when he killed dozens of people. We rightly regard physiognomy and dissection of criminals' brains as pseudoscience today, so if you can only tell who is a 'bad guy' after they've already shot somebody, how can you pretend to have any way of implementing a system that separates the wheat from the chaff consistently?
You raise a good point at the latter part of your post, but do keep in mind the countless times ccw has saved both lives and property. A better way to tackle suicide is not to tackle methods of suicide, but tackle mental health, and fix the many contributing factors to suicide(i.e, this is where your debates about healthcare, the economy, education will fall).