|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: No, Still Ridiculous.
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 at 04:38:49 pm CST (Viewed 289 times)
Reply Subj: Re: No, Still Ridiculous.
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 at 08:33:12 pm CST (Viewed 282 times)
No, the obvious corollary was that you can't say that guns have never stopped a mass shooting when almost all mass shootings happen when only the shooters themselves have guns. And yes, arming people in these places (NOT teachers, the proper people!) is a good way to go about lessening these things. Also, schools can be on lockdown, installed with metal detectors and a bunch of other safety precautions can be taken.
Quote:The obvious corollary to your point is to arm people in these places for self-defense, right? What else would be your point? Of course we just found out that there was an armed security guard at the Florida school shooting and the armed guard neither deterred the shooting in the first place nor stopped the shooter.
Again, 1 in 5 hospital shootings occur when someone takes the gun from an armed guard so these wouldn't happen in the first place had a gun not been present.
Does Japan have our same culture, economic circumstances, laws and oh yeah, a Bill Of Rights?
Quote:Because gun bans do work elsewhere. You yourself stated earlier that if there were very few guns, there be far fewer instances of gun violence. Handguns are banned in Japan. Japan has more than one third the population of the United States. Japan had 6 gun deaths in 2014. The United States had 33,599!!!
Since discussion of whether or not the Second Amendment should be changed is a part of this debate, it's irrelevant to cite the Second Amendment as a reason for inaction. And if you're saying Americans have a more violent culture than Japan, that's a case for Americans having fewer guns, not more.
Quote:And they did have a ban on many assault weapons in the past, it didn't really have much of an effect, and DC had a 30-year-old ban on handguns. Since the Washington gun control law passed, violent crime there has gone UP, even though America's murder rate dropped. Also, there was a gun ban in Illinois once, but that was later deemed Unconstitutional. And there are some towns and cities that mostly require you to have guns, The comments about the drug war was how that didn't work out for drugs and alcohol.
Again, if guns can easily come from outside the area of a gun ban, it's not much proof of the bans effectiveness, is it? However, country-wide bans around the world work. It's inarguably proven.
Now you're being ridiculous again with the Nuclear Weapon example. No one outside of the Government is going to get a Nuke, guns have been part of the Constitution for centuries.
Quote:First, of course there is hatred for the deaths caused by alcohol. It's not a coincidence that Mothers Against Drunk Driving uses the acronym MADD. Alcohol is also pretty heavily regulated. You can't drink until 21 however you can buy guns before age 21. There are obviously strict laws against driving while drunk. And of course people misusing guns is a perfectly legitimate reason for other people not having them. If most people had a nuclear weapon, they probably wouldn't misuse it either, but that's not a reason that people should be able to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. If products are easily misused, then they are defective. All you are arguing here is that widespread gun ownership is worth over 30,000 people dying every year.
It's an analogy. Guns today are completely unlike guns when the Second Amendment was written:
Right now, automatic weapons are banned. Are you in favor of overturning that ban? Automatic weapons are guns. If not, why not?
Quote:I'm sure that there is outrage over all of the alcohol-related deaths and crimes, but no one is talking about banning alcohol.
Wrong. "Only" half of Arkansas, where I was born, is actually doing it:
Nearly 1 in 5 Americans believe alcohol consumption should be illegal. But I'm not calling on a total ban of guns, just much heavier regulation.
Quote:They misuse cars, knives, alcohol, sleeping pills, cell phones and a bunch of other stuff that causes death or harm to others or themselves. You can't penalize a perfectly law-abiding person from getting a gun just because someone else misuses it anymore than you can prevent someone who obtained a driver's license from driving because other people drive recklessly. There are some people who are not allowed to drive, and there are some people (Like convicted felons.) who can't have guns. If most people are able to responsibly handle guns, the problem is not with guns themselves. And again, most gun deaths are suicides. Suicide is obviously bad, but it's not illegal. It's also very common among the elderly, who are often very sick and weak.
30,000+ gun deaths a year obviously prove that Americans cannot responsibly handle guns. Knives, sleeping pills, and cell phones don't cause nearly as many deaths as guns. Cars almost cause as many deaths but cars are heavily regulated. Guns are not. Guns should be.
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|