View Single Post
Old 2012-12-21, 17:47   Link #882
Mentar
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
What you seem to fail to grasp is that achieving this would be quite literally impossible in the US. Not only are there massively more firearms in circulation in the US, you're also looking at a population that will not support a ban.
Which is why I made clear suggestions what could be a possible middle ground, to reduce the availability of guns in the medium run:

1) Make sure that every firearm needs to be registered and assigned to a person. Hold this person liable for crimes committed with the firearm, for lack of oversight and irresponsible behavior. So that whoever owns a gun better keeps it safe and locks it away.

2) Make sure that it is illegal to carry unregistered guns. Fine whoever is found in possession of an unregistered gun to kingdom come, and immediately confiscate and destroy the weapon.

3) Pay bounties to whistleblowers who tip off successful police raids which lead to weapon confiscations. Take the money out of the point 2)-based fines.

This way, you can fulfill your second amendment and still reduce the number of weapons on the streets significantly. And then letsee if it helps.

If you disagree with this proposal, please give reasons why.

Quote:
Guns tends to be the more effective tool of choice when one wants to kill another, naturally it would be used more often, but that hardly means that said killer would forgo the killing if guns were not available, and the lack of the same disparity in violent crimes shows that.
No, the data matches the real-life experience of the police. In countries with strict gun control, there are much fewer deaths on violent crimes, because the perpetrator usually aren't armed with guns. Burglars usually aren't shooting people when surprised, they run. It also takes much more criminal energy to knife or bludgeon someone to death than merely squeezing a trigger, and once the attacker has taken out his primary victim, the remaining bystanders can get away much more easily than while held at gunpoint.

Violent crimes in general are still more prevalent in the US compared to e.g. Europe, but not remotely by 8 times. Which means that your criminals are made "more effective" by firearms.

Quote:
[about the difference between statistical correlation and scientific proof]
Not much else needs to be said here.
How about taking note of the obvious correlations at least? This is one more attribute which I've found Americans to be particularly skilled at: The ability to purposefully ignore unpleasant truths or dismissing them as librul conspiracies, like smoking causing cancer, global warming or use of torture.

Quote:
I find your attempt at strawman to be disappointing. What does protecting school have to do with supermarket or movie theater? are you saying we shouldn't protect school UNLESS we can also protect everywhere else?
No, my argument is that you should rather concentrate on dealing with the underlying problem instead of trying to relocate the crime scene. I'll concede that it would be an improvement, though.

Quote:
Or the trained police officers takes the shooter down? or suppress him long enough to mitigate potential damage? Do you realize that in these cases of mass shooting, the shooter tends to surrender or kill themselves as soon as armed opposition presents itself?
Do you realize that in these cases of mass shooting, the deed is already done?

Quote:
Please stop being ignorant. Should elementary school kids rush the shooter? no, because they would be ineffective, but high school or college? definitely, assuming denying entrance to the shooter is not possible.
Hey, it's some gun nutcases' idea, not mine. And I'm looking forward to teaching high schoolers to rush a shooter with automatic weapons. NOT.

Quote:
This has nothing to do with being manly or not, it's simply the best tactic for survival. If you can't stop the shooter from gaining access to your location, and you don't make any organized effort to stop the shooter, then the only alternative is sit there and wait for your turn to be executed.
No. The alternative is trying to escape. Run and hide. Rushing the attacker is a possible option against a knife or bludgeon. It is extremely dangerous against pistols and requires surprise and significant numerical advantage. And it is sheer madness against automatic weapons under pretty much all circumstances, particularly assault rifles.

Quote:
This, more than anything else, clearly demonstrate you're solidly in the "guns are inherently evil" crowd, where merely the sight of them would spread fear and corruption to all.
Guns are dangerous items which reduce the inhibition threshold of KILLING SOMEONE to a mere pull of a finger, and should therefore be restricted as much as possible and handled with care. They should not be advertised as token of manliness and made easily available to every psychologically unstable person out there. Otherwise, it will _naturally_ lead to bloodshed.

Besides, where to draw the line? Pepper Spray? Flashbangs? Concussion grenades? Fragmentation grenades? Chemical weapons?

In this world, guns are a necessary evil. It's just my opinion that it should be restricted to those persons and organizations that actually need it. Not to push up everyone's testosterone. If you don't, stuff happens much more often. Fact.

Quote:
Were children emotionally scarred because they went out to shoot with their parents?
In my opinion, yes. Lowers the inhibition levels and promotes the use of weapons. And certainly adds to the violent nature of Americans, especially the willingness to use violence as means of conflict resolution.
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote