If we're going to go by that sort of analogy, then it's more on par to say that fatty/sugary food makes people fat, which I hear people say on a regular basis.
I know it's not really the food's fault, as it's not the gun's fault. But if you put a delicious piece of incredibly unhealthy food in front of someone, they're going to be tempted to eat it.
Well, so much as happened in the news lately. Maybe you have heard of what happened in Boston. Yes, they killed a man with a gun. (In all seriousness, he should have had one and someone should have trained him for all situations instead of how to control drunk college students, but anyways, prays to his family). But, they also used a bom.b!!! I guess we should come up with a Pressure Cooker Ban. Monitor what people buy at Home Depot and Lowe's, as well as what they buy online. But can't you see that this is riduculous. People will and can use everything to kill/injure others. Gun control advocates refuse to think of that.
How many uses does a pressure cooker have?
You can build a bomb, but you can also make yourself dinner, cook some rice. My mom makes delicious pressure cooker quinoa.
How many uses does a gun have?
You can shoot things. And...
Yes, people can use just about anything to hurt each other, but some objects are created exclusively for the purpose of hurting each other. Just because we can't eliminate all crime or violence doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate some.
Yep, what Imagine said.
I'd appreciate people looking at my post on the previous page, and responding to that. I even numbered my points for easy replying :)
The American people want 2 things. Freedom and Security. Unfortunately, you can't have both, and there is no middle ground. That is what Gun Control laws ultimately come down to.
How could gun related deaths be reduced without gun control?
----Unless you want to regulate when and where certain human beings can be at one type, there isn't.
I'm reposting my reply. It seems like I was unfortunate to have it on the previous page, and so when the first reply on this page came up, no one looked at it.
Okay, so people have debated this issue a lot. And I have some points to make.
1) Despite the difference in opinion about gun control, both parties agree that it's better to reduce gun related deaths. So how do you propose that should be done without gun control?
2) Gun control doesn't mean no guns. It restricts the types of guns, it adds more extensive background checks. It means that a child cannot have a gun license, that a criminal cannot legally obtain a gun.
3) I live in a country with gun control laws. Australia. They've been in place since 1996. We have different categories of gun licences. The category determines what type of firearm you can own.
You cannot own "machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc." But semi-automatic rifles can be owned if the criteria is met. Magazine size and bullet type are often regulated, but that depends on what type of individual is aquring them and what type of firearm.
You must be over 18 to own one (except in special circumstances). There are delays for obtaining a firearm for your first of a specific category (28 days), even after obtaining the licence. You must state the reason for wanting to own one. Self defence is not an accepted reason except in special circumstances. The owner must have secure storage for the weapon and ammunition. Firearms are registered by a serial number to their owners. Only the owner may use their firearm. Some states allow borrowing of firearms, as long as the owner and borrower both have licences for the same type.
Gun control laws came into place in 1996, and were refined in 2002.
"Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%"
"Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992 to 7% of all suicides in 2005"
"There were 354 [homocide] victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96"
And for all those suggesting that people will get guns anyway, "The number of guns stolen has fallen from an average 4,195 per year from 1994 to 2000 to 1,526 in 2006–2007."
So, you can rant about how it's "unconstitutional" to have gun control laws, but it works. Australia is proof of that.
Virtually every gun-related homicide is the result of gang violence/violent crime or a mentally unstable individual.
It seems as if it would be kinder/more efficient policy to address these social problems themselves rather than comprehensive gun bans.
I agree that these social problems also need to be addressed, but not exclusively.
+1 for collin. in baltimore, over 80% of gun-related crimers are due to gang violence/criminals in general
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem, and seeing as there is nothing you can do about people just being people, why would you want to take out your fears on guns? Oh right, cause we're people. What an odd animal we've become.
So inevitably long post, and it got caught in the dam.n filters. Fuc.k you Teen Ink filters.
Basically in a big summary, I asked my SgtMaj what his opinion was on AR15s and self defense. He said that it was complete BS. You don't need one for self defense. He said pick a shotgun, or a neighborhood where you are less likely to be home invaded.
Of course we should improve our mental health system. Of course we need to work to curb gangs. But we also need to prevent guns from getting into the hands of gang members and the mentally ill. That's what most gun control is designed to do.
People say, "We need to broaden the debate," but they never mean it. People say, "We need to also discuss mental health and violent media", but they don't want to 'also discuss' the issue at all. They want to change the subject entirely. If we're going to make the debate broad, then it must include guns and mental health, not just mental health. It must include guns and violent media, not just guns.
Although this thread is about 'just guns', which is why there hasn't been a broader discussion yet.
I don't need to be in a gang to acquire a M249 SAW. How do you prevent that deadly belt-fed weapon from getting into someone's hands. I obviously need it for self-defense.
People keep saying that guns aren't the problem, people are, so why not restict gun access to those people? To unhinged people, to criminals, to those at risk of harming others or themselves?
Not only that, but why do you think gun control in Australia works so well? People can still own guns here and many do. The process to aquiring one is long. You have to have somewhere to store it safely, you have to be over 18, you have to complete a firearms safety training course so that you actually know how to use the weapon, you have to undergo a background check to make sure that you're fit to own a firearm.
But you can still get one. How is this unreasonable?
There is no way to tell who is a sociopath or not for real, trying to restrict guns to specific people would not end as well as you think it would. I think that Americans are culturally different from Australians. Americans are culturally more inclined for narcissism, violence, and over thinking. That's not a problem. Everyone has their flaws. The problem is that we allow a select few people make all our decisions. Call me crazy, but I really don't think the government needs to know about trivial things like weapons and drugs. They should be worried about helping people with non violence, like providing healthcare and conservation to make sure they don't use up all the natural resources for being money hungry pigs. For some people, who have all the patience and such, going through intensive background checks and wait periods to own a gun is ridiculous. It's just a gun. Not a time machine. A lot of Americans grow up around guns, myself included. They're just a part of life, and we can use them responsibly ourselves, we don't need some higher power telling us what to do with our lives. Australians are more laid back. Three quarters of America is insane and half of it is democratic and insane. Politics, man, who needs em. Guns on the other hand, a little more useful.
"They're just a part of life, and we can use them responsibly ourselves, we don't need some higher power telling us what to do with our lives. "
Well yes and no. Yes we CAN use them responsibly, but it is those select few who don't use it responsibly who take us down with them. All For one and One for all. Unfortunately, that higher power gets to step in when such incidents occur. Even if it is just a select few we all have to suffer. So here is my advice, suck it up and deal.
Sorla if you claim that Gun control is trivial and that we shouldn't be worrying about it, then why do gun owners complain when a law is trying to be set in place, after all it is just trivial. It doesn't matter right?
(Forgive me if that sounded harsh, but that is how I came across it.) Have a wonderful evening/morning/day.
"Three quarters of America is insane and half of it is democratic and insane. Politics, man, who needs em. Guns on the other hand, a little more useful. "
Just what the founding fathers were shooting for, insanity, and democracy.
O and as you say, who needs politics and government? Well had there not been politics and government when the Constitution was signed, which in reality there wouldn't have been a Constitution. You wouldn't have your 2nd Amendament right to bear arms more than likely. So you have to give politics credit. Without them, anyone can come and seize your weapons and no one is there to do a thing about it except you and whoever you find to help.
Also I still keep saying this, but if the government wanted to take your guns, they wouldve already done it, and if you tried to keep them, remember, THEY HAVE TANKS, you don't.
"trying to restrict guns to specific people would not end as well as you think it would"
But I have evidence to the contrary. You're talking based on a hunch, I brought facts to support my argument. See the above post (with the numbered points).
There are many tests to identify sociopaths, but sure, they don't always work. But you're limiting yourself by thinking that only sociopaths commit crimes. The background checks are more to identify past crimes of violence, etc. Please tell me why you think this should not be done. Why should these people still be allowed easy access to guns?
Yes, Australia and America do have different cultures. You have far more population, far more violent crime. I doubt your crime will ever be reduced like ours has been, but it still will be reduced by gun control. Not only that, but I doubt your gun control laws will be as restrictive as ours are. I find Australian gun control very reasonable, but American gun control will likely never reach the same level. You'll have much more freedom than we do.
Your take on how Americans are violent beings does not make me feel any better about how easy it is to get a gun. It terrifies me. It does not help your case. Like Gryffindor said, just because some people can use guns appropriately, does not mean that all do. Why not eliminate those who don't know how to use a gun properly, or those that abuse the use of it? Australian gun control has measures to help with this.
There should definitely be work done on helping avoid violence, on healthcare and conservation, like you said. Those issues should be addressed, but so should this one. Gun control is a way to help reduce violent crime. It works. I've brought quotes that show that it works.
I don't think that the select few should determine how the rest of us are treated, Gryffindor. Why does the government assume we're gonna cause trouble? You're never safe no matter what, so why try and pretend we are by limiting our freedoms and putting the worry on someone else's shoulders? I don't want to live in a country of sheep, I want to be free along with all the dangers and sacrifices that come along with free will. America was a nation built on personal freedoms. What's changed? I don't really worry about dangerous folk, but that's probably only cause I have a good team in my corner. People aren't naturally evil. No one is purely good either. I've done terrible things, I'm sure everyone else here has done terrible things before as well, just as they have done good things. You gotta put it in perspective. I think the majority deserves the right to purchase weapons with no fuss, even if some people with less clean intentions will have access. I am but a blip in a sea of millions, the government doesn't care about the individual. Why should we respect the government's laws if they don't even respect us? Because they have tanks? I don't think so! Freedom doesn't just let you back down and roll over. You have to fight for your freedom, not let some higher power fight for it for you. Then it isn't freedom, it's control.