You're not. It's honestly the reason why I haven't bothered posting anymore in the thread, and if you notice most of the gun control advocates have given up as well.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Janenmori
- Start date
You're not. It's honestly the reason why I haven't bothered posting anymore in the thread, and if you notice most of the gun control advocates have given up as well.
'Banality of evil'.
But what does any of this argument really have to do with gun control, the debate of which usually revolves around handguns. Guerrilla warfare is not won with 9 mms or .45s. This thread has strayed from the actual issue at hand. Besides, 'gun control' is not the same as 'blanket gun bans'. That being said, I quite frankly couldn't care less whether guns are 'banned' or not, but there should obviously be certain restrictions (e.g. mental health) placed on who can own firearms.
The reason as to why we began discussing hypothetical militaristic takeovers was because I noticed that people mentioned that the right to bear arms could have, to some extent, prevented the Holocaust (say, if Jews could protect themselves with guns) and they are using this example to advocate gun laws in the US. I was trying to point out how this point isn't particularly relevant in contemporary US since the US is both extremely unlikely to stage a military coup against its own people for direct and unambiguous enslavement and if it wants to, having a piece under your pillow isn't going to protect you.
And I don't see how the concept of the banality of evil--allowing for a military coup of its own citizenry without active or even passive resistance--can be possible in a society placing such an emphasis on civic culture that purports Affirmative Actions and PC concepts, such as referring to minorities with increasingly flowery euphemisms. We're all either bleeding heart liberals or bleeding heart evangelists in North American and the impact of culture can never be understated (regardless of how fluffy the study of culture's impact on society is).
Friday night I was robbed at gunpoint. Not for one single second since then, not for one FRACTION of a fucking INSTANT, have I thought that having a gun would have improved the outcome of the situation. Where the fuck do you think I would've been keeping a gun that I could've pulled out without the robber seeing it? He was already waiting in the dark driveway for my friend and I, gun drawn and pointed at my fucking head. If I made even the smallest action to make him think I was going to play hero I wouldn't be sitting here typing this right now. I honestly was going to write a much longer rant, but just thinking about it has me really fucking pissed at all the shit I lost to that fucking robber.
THERE IS NO FUCKING JUSTIFICATION FOR HANDGUNS. NONE.
THERE IS NO FUCKING JUSTIFICATION FOR HANDGUNS. NONE.
Certain people decided to drag it there when their points were proven incorrect repeatedly.
Are you fucking kidding me?
So because you were robbed in a situation that wouldn't have permitted you to use the handgun means all situations are the same? You've never heard of single gunman breaking and entering? Someone with proper training might be able to take the lone gunman out and possibly save his family and his possessions. The point is he has the option to defend himself.
And you think banning handguns will make them disappear? Don't be so naive. All that means is crooks who get their guns illegally will not have any resistance from the victims.
You forgot to mention that the lone gunman will also rape your wife, daughters, dog, sons, goldfish, cats, and inanimate valuables. I somewhat agree with your point, namely that guns should be legal, but your logic is appalling. It's a constitutional right. Let's just leave it at that.
Your version of reality sounds suspiciously like Grand Theft Auto.
Doctors
.
[SIZE=+1](A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.[/SIZE]
.
[SIZE=+1](B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
Guns[/SIZE]
.
[SIZE=+1](A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Yes, that is 80 million.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.[/SIZE]
.
[SIZE=+1]Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand![/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.[/SIZE]
.
[SIZE=+1](A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.[/SIZE]
.
[SIZE=+1](B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
Guns[/SIZE]
.
[SIZE=+1](A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Yes, that is 80 million.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.[/SIZE]
.
[SIZE=+1]Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand![/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]
.
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.[/SIZE]
Here's a problem with a society in which anyone is allowed to carry a handgun.
The United States being an example; it seems obvious it doesn't stop robberies in the country. It only manages to put its citizens more at risk. Robbers are more nervous, knowing anyone might have this way to 'defend' himself. If someone that is being robbed hints a move that ressembles trying to reach his gun (he doesn't even need to have one), he will get shot, this simply does not happen to the same degree in a society in which people aren't allowed to carry conceiled handguns.
I don't really have a problem with people keeping a gun home for protection. It should however never be something we can carry conceiled nearly everywhere.
Not a single soul said banning handguns will make them disappear.
.
silly thought
You fail to mention that the fact that a target could have a concealed weapon is a deterrent to some criminals. Maybe just the more desperate ones still try robbing people at gun point. Honestly banning handguns isn't going to solve that anyway. 80% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally already...
As for guns never stopping anyone when we had the trolley square massacre in Utah the gunman was challenged and stopped by an off duty cop illegally carrying a gun since trolley square was a gun free zone. Notice how the gun free zone really kept out the guy wanting to kill everyone.
Weapons for the militia are weapons for every able bodied male. The militia was actually employed during ww2 in a few states. Men had to provide their own guns.
You fail to mention that the fact that a target could have a concealed weapon is a deterrent to some criminals. Maybe just the more desperate ones still try robbing people at gun point. Honestly banning handguns isn't going to solve that anyway. 80% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally already...
As for guns never stopping anyone when we had the trolley square massacre in Utah the gunman was challenged and stopped by an off duty cop illegally carrying a gun since trolley square was a gun free zone. Notice how the gun free zone really kept out the guy wanting to kill everyone.
Weapons for the militia are weapons for every able bodied male. The militia was actually employed during ww2 in a few states. Men had to provide their own guns.
You know what; I've changed my mind on the issue. Sure, I still don't think guns will protect me from the government, nor do I think they will, in all likelihood, protect me from antagonistic assailants. But if the gun murder statistics are true (very few die from legally obtained guns and most are accidental deaths), then why the fuck not? I'm thinking of the drug thread: with prohibition, won't gun fanatics (which seem plenty in the US) obtain their guns through illegal means (like they did with alcohol)? This would only expand the scope of the gun black market; if anything, guns should be more readily available (hopefully resulting in lesser prices, resulting in a loop effect of gun availability), so as to bleed out underground sellers (as people will get their guns no matter what, but it's better to undermine underground sellers as much as possible).
That is the only justification I find plausible.
Funny enough though, the same people who objected to the legalization of drugs in DM's thread are advocating gun ownership. People argued in the drug thread that certain drugs can potentially be dangerous to others, but can't guns be potentially dangerous to others, too? The answer is, um... fuck yeah. I mean, maybe I'm mixing people up here, since it was a large thread with different people discussing, but I think I've got it right.
These same people who were so worried about the dangers of drug abuse (even though it was quite obvious that criminalization would not solve anything) seem to can't let go of their guns (arguing that most people get it anyways from illegal means without it being a huge deterrent, ignoring the fact that most people get drugs through illegal means without it being a huge deterrent, too).
Exhibit A:
And you can check the drug thread: it was repeatedly stated that criminalization would not be a deterrent, but Mr. Disaster ignored those claims, touting his anti-drug horn, but he chirps a different tune when discussing gun politics. Now people will apparently get guns anyways, but drugs... we need to make that shit illegal!
It seems like people are attached to particular political umbrella parties (like Republicans, or Democrats), even if the ideals, in principle, are inconsistent.
C'est la vie.
That is the only justification I find plausible.
Funny enough though, the same people who objected to the legalization of drugs in DM's thread are advocating gun ownership. People argued in the drug thread that certain drugs can potentially be dangerous to others, but can't guns be potentially dangerous to others, too? The answer is, um... fuck yeah. I mean, maybe I'm mixing people up here, since it was a large thread with different people discussing, but I think I've got it right.
These same people who were so worried about the dangers of drug abuse (even though it was quite obvious that criminalization would not solve anything) seem to can't let go of their guns (arguing that most people get it anyways from illegal means without it being a huge deterrent, ignoring the fact that most people get drugs through illegal means without it being a huge deterrent, too).
Exhibit A:
And you can check the drug thread: it was repeatedly stated that criminalization would not be a deterrent, but Mr. Disaster ignored those claims, touting his anti-drug horn, but he chirps a different tune when discussing gun politics. Now people will apparently get guns anyways, but drugs... we need to make that shit illegal!
It seems like people are attached to particular political umbrella parties (like Republicans, or Democrats), even if the ideals, in principle, are inconsistent.
C'est la vie.
Just because you have a gun on you does not mean you instinctively reach for it. That is what gun education is for. If you get ambushed and already have a gun to your head just give the robber what he wants. If some thugs try to jump you from a distance but are otherwise unarmed and inattentive, that would be the time to threaten them to screw off or face imminent death. Most robbers want your money, not your life, because a murder is guaranteed to be investigated and toss them in jail where a theft is not.
Concealed carry should be legal. What should be banned is proclaiming any open area a "gun free zone." Obviously you can't have people bringing weapons into public agencies or the State House or something, but it should be your business as to whether you carry a gun anywhere else. (I should note such buildings already have their own security force to begin with.)
Declaring any public or private place as unsecured is a magnet for criminals. Would anyone post a sign on their house that says "we're unarmed and our door is unlocked." No, that is stupid.
Gun "fanatics" exist only as a Hollywood stereotype and are probably as common or less common in the general population than homosexuals, yet we do not argue for anti-sodomy laws banning all people from strange sexual behaviors. We go not set about trumpeting the virtue of gay free zones because some people have an irrational fear of homosexuals. We do not try to classify bears and bikers with white Yorkshire Terriers as "assault homosexuals" because we find their appearance particularly scary.
If you think my example is absurd, both are examples of rights granted in the constitution. The absurdity listed above is an infringement of the First Amendment (free expression, free association), gun bans are an infringement of the Second Amendment. In either case it's people wetting themselves over what someone else they neither know nor understand might do with their weapon.
Concealed carry should be legal. What should be banned is proclaiming any open area a "gun free zone." Obviously you can't have people bringing weapons into public agencies or the State House or something, but it should be your business as to whether you carry a gun anywhere else. (I should note such buildings already have their own security force to begin with.)
Declaring any public or private place as unsecured is a magnet for criminals. Would anyone post a sign on their house that says "we're unarmed and our door is unlocked." No, that is stupid.
Gun "fanatics" exist only as a Hollywood stereotype and are probably as common or less common in the general population than homosexuals, yet we do not argue for anti-sodomy laws banning all people from strange sexual behaviors. We go not set about trumpeting the virtue of gay free zones because some people have an irrational fear of homosexuals. We do not try to classify bears and bikers with white Yorkshire Terriers as "assault homosexuals" because we find their appearance particularly scary.
If you think my example is absurd, both are examples of rights granted in the constitution. The absurdity listed above is an infringement of the First Amendment (free expression, free association), gun bans are an infringement of the Second Amendment. In either case it's people wetting themselves over what someone else they neither know nor understand might do with their weapon.
Do you only change your mind to avoid what you just accused me of?
Guns and drugs are very different my friend. I don't think abortion should be any more legalized than it is even though it happens illegally all over the country. Just because i am for keeping my second amendment rights doesn't mean i want to legalize everything possible.
When was the last time you got addicted to guns? Or how about got aids from drugs? Maybe you tripped on a gun for two days and crashed for the next two? There are extreme differences between guns and drugs. I don't exactly have a garden where i till my AK's.
The point is that criminals will break the laws dettering guns to get them. Law abiding citizens lose protection when gun ban laws are in place. That's the point. tell me the last time illegal narcotics protected you....
Does argument precision completely escape you, man? You said that guns will be obtained despite being criminalized (hence why it wouldn't matter if they become banned), but you vouch for the criminalization of drugs (even though they, too, would be obtained despite criminalization anyways).
And no I did not change my mind over something so petty; I changed my mind because I realized that my principles were inconsistent (something which, even when explicitly pointed out by myself, you seem to completely miss!).
First off: I would like to apologize to everyone for the tone of my previous post. I wrote it in an anger that has since quite abated.
Are you saying that every Joe Shmoe shmuck who has a gun next to his bed is trained in the proper use? I also like how you said "possibly save his family and his possessions," because you also realize that having a gun doesn't guarantee safety. My aim is to dispel this myth that being armed automatically puts you at an advantage, it's a complete fallacy.
And you know what... as for your first question, yes, all situations with a gunman are the same. If you comply with what he tells you to do, you have a much better chance at seeing tomorrow than if you try to be the hero, no matter WHERE it happens. What's losing a few material possessions, rather than placing your very life in mortal danger?
Blacks have guns to shoot other blacks. It's merely a result of the War on Drugs (legalize them and you wouldn't have to worry about guns, but that thread has been done). Most burglaries on homes happen in urban areas with people who can't afford guns. By leaving them legal, who is really benefitting from them? If you ban handguns, how are these "crooks who get their guns illegally" going to get them???
Are you saying that every Joe Shmoe shmuck who has a gun next to his bed is trained in the proper use? I also like how you said "possibly save his family and his possessions," because you also realize that having a gun doesn't guarantee safety. My aim is to dispel this myth that being armed automatically puts you at an advantage, it's a complete fallacy.
And you know what... as for your first question, yes, all situations with a gunman are the same. If you comply with what he tells you to do, you have a much better chance at seeing tomorrow than if you try to be the hero, no matter WHERE it happens. What's losing a few material possessions, rather than placing your very life in mortal danger?
Blacks have guns to shoot other blacks. It's merely a result of the War on Drugs (legalize them and you wouldn't have to worry about guns, but that thread has been done). Most burglaries on homes happen in urban areas with people who can't afford guns. By leaving them legal, who is really benefitting from them? If you ban handguns, how are these "crooks who get their guns illegally" going to get them???
The crime rates in those places are a product of its citizens, not its laws.
Robbers choose their targets to be ones they are pretty sure won't give them a problem, and they plan ahead to have the complete upper hand. No one is deterred, they work around it. And if they DO think you have a gun, you're going to get killed. They're already robbing you at gunpoint, in many states the difference in prison terms between armed robbery and murder isn't significant enough.
Posting a gun free zone is fucking stupid for the reasons that Deck Knight posted already.
So now it's a sexist thing? Wow.
Just like you said, handguns don't grow on trees. Once they're banned, where will they be magically appearing from? If they can't be obtained legally, than sooner than not they won't be obtained illegally either.
Somehow i think you are giving robbers way to much credit. They aren't just staking people out, learning their financial situation, and striking at the right time. Most armed robberies are very impulsive imo. You can't say noone is deterred. but you don't think the knowledge that someone has a gun would deter you from robbing them? Not every robber is willing to kill you either...
Yes i said it was sexist. Or not. How many females do you know that get drafted and called to war? It's sexist for the obvious reason that women shouldn't be placed in combat. Either way you totally ignored my point that the militia has been called up in recent history. The second amendmnent is not outdated.
Handguns are already obtained illegally...why would banning them stop that. A lot of arms trade comes from our insecure borders. Just like our drug trade. Australians and Brits still have gun crime even though they have completely banned them. Aren't they suppposed to disappear?
To bossman...i just said i'm not for legalizing everything. It's a moral thing. Drugs are bad. There are no redeeming qualities to illegal narcotics. Guns can be used for protection and for good. that's the difference. Quit being ignorant and listen to what i say.
You're right, you cant say that *nobody* is deterred- there will always be that one outlier. However, if you think a criminal is just going to commit armed robbery without even thinking, you are mistaken. Just because criminals do illegal things, doesn't mean that they are stupid. The things you mentioned, staking people out, learning their financial situation, striking at the right time...those are all things that can be done in the matter of an hour. Someone follows you home from a bar, knowing youre drunk. They see you going into a good section of town, they know you have money. You are drunk and its dark, there will be plenty of times to strike. The point is that if someone wants what you have enough, they are going to get it. If they see that you have a gun, you are now an imminent threat to the robber instead of a helpless victim. By even indicating to an armed assailant that you have a gun, you have greatly endangered yourself. Knowledge that someone *might* have a gun is really irrelevant since there are plenty of easy things to do to cut those chances down to a reasonable level.
As DM pointed out, most of the arguments in favor of keeping guns legal stem from the fallacy that having a gun makes you safe.
Because there would be no more handguns for them to obtain illegally.
If someone is sneaking guns across the border, that is another problem to handle. It is much, MUCH harder for someone to get a gun if there are no guns around. Most people in this country don't have access to a black market so your border running argument is pretty weak to begin with.
That's true, they're not. That's why if I have a gun and they know it... they'll find someone else to rob. They might be deterred from committing that crime against me, but they're not deterred from committing that crime. They will instead prey on someone else, so all you've done is shift the crime.
Who said that women can't fight, or join militias, or handle those weapons? MEN? You'd really better be careful where you take this argument.
And both those countries you mentioned have significantly lower homicide rates than the US. You're only proving my point.
We're listening, but we're wholeheartedly disagreeing. Take it easy.
YOU think drugs are bad. I don't. YOU think there are no redeeming qualities to narcotics. I do. This is why we have healthy debates and discussions.
So you want to ban guns, have them all confiscated (violating both the 2nd and 4th amendments)? You think this is at all plausible?
Do you also honestly think that making something illegal will stop people from getting it? Are you honestly that naive that you think there's no black market, where you can get pretty much anything? Seriously?
but now you are arguing that all armed robbers are murderers as well...Which is a fallcy that you are operating from. You also give criminals way too much credit. There are plenty of stupid criminals. What are the things you can do to cut down the chances of someone having a gun? It's plenty relevant as a deterrent to armed robbery. Robbery itself is a very small amount of crime in the US even without a gun. Less than ten percent of all non fatal crimes involve a firearm.
But guns aren't just for armed robbers. It's for home protection. The police do not appear instantly. That's probably the number one reason people buy handguns. In order to carry a handgun on your person as well you need to carry a concealed weapons permit. Which means you are a law abiding citizen. I see no problem with this.
The borders are horrible. It is in no way a weak argument. There are plenty of arms dealers. I already mentioned that 80% of guns used in all crime are obtained illegally. Banning guns will not stop these trades. You failed to address the fact that Britain and Australia, which is quite isolated from other countries, still have gun crime and criminals obtain guns from the black market. you are only taking away guns from those who obey the law. Criminals aren't going to turn there weapons in either should a ban ever happen. What happens to the guns already here? Those won't disappear...
EDIT: To DM: How is that sexist in the slightest. Women can't do some jobs men can do. In case you haven't noticed there are certain phsyical differences men and women have. Women are not physically built for the rigors of combat. Last time i checked 80lbs. of gear is not something a woman can easily haul around. Not too mention retrieving fallen soldiers is extremely difficult for the much smaller woman. It's not sexist. It's just the way things are. I never said women can't shoot guns or use them. I encourage women to have guns. But as for a war or combat situation there is no place for women. The army has never allowed women into combat intentionally. you are also still ignoring my militia history and the precedence for a standing militia.
So you are saying if more citizens had guns robberies would decrease? If it shifts it doesn't matter to me. I'm protected. Call me selfish but i'm protecting myself.
As for the lower homicide rates how about i just quote you? The lower crime rates are just a product of it's citizens not it's laws. But nice try.
I am taking it easy. Da bossman just was ignoring what i was saying. Hence the reason i addressed it.
This is fallacious because it assumes that no one alive knows how to create their own gun. Most of the innovations in gun design over the centuries were created by individual sports hunters, not big gun manufacturers.
If you ban handguns and make them unavailable for public purchase, criminals will simply find someone who knows how to make a gun and then purchase materials (or look it up on the internet). It will be significantly more costly up front, but it creates its own black market and makes them arms dealers as well. You cannot un-invent the gun merely by banning it from use by responsible citizens. Pandora's box is already open.
DUDE, that is not what I meant, seriously. UGHHHHHHHHHHHH. Whether you find drugs to be bad is IRRELEVANT. My gripe with you was INCONSISTENCY IN THE PRINCIPLES OF YOUR ARGUMENT. You said that people will get guns no matter what so criminalization is pointless, but when the same argument was made for drugs, you DENIED it. Those are PARALLEL arguments, but you endorse one, while deny the other.
YOU need to stop being ignorant and listen to what I say; read with a little more precision before you call me ignorant.
$100 that if your Republican parents and the Republican party did not endorse guns you would be talking about how they have no redeeming qualities and are used for for slaughter. And drugs have redeeming qualities: they are therapeutic!!!
This sums up perfectly my shift in position.