Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
"The world was a bastion of peace and security before guns were invented"
That is hilarious! I wish I had a transcript. I know a few people that would read the transcript but won't watch youtube.
Let's see, 10.2 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the US where there's little gun control as opposed to 2.13 in Canada and 0.25 in the UK where they have strict gun laws.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seems quite useful for keeping people from killing themselves and others with guns going by the numbers.
You can kill people through other means, but you can do it a lot faster and from much farther away with firearms. People need to demonstrate a valid reason to own firearms like hunting, or protection from wildlife in some professions, "I want a gun because I'm paranoid about my neighbours" shouldn't be enough... actually those are the people we don't want with guns.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seems quite useful for keeping people from killing themselves and others with guns going by the numbers.
You can kill people through other means, but you can do it a lot faster and from much farther away with firearms. People need to demonstrate a valid reason to own firearms like hunting, or protection from wildlife in some professions, "I want a gun because I'm paranoid about my neighbours" shouldn't be enough... actually those are the people we don't want with guns.
"I want all guns banned because I'm paranoid about my neighbours" shouldn't be enough....actually those are the people we don't want with guns.
Colbalt Kid, convince me that the gun laws have anything to do with the gun death rates in Canada or the UK. In the 60s and 70s, we had much better gun death rates than the united states, this without the gun regulations that we have now.
Plus, after and during the implementation of our existing gun regulations, our rates dropped half as fast as the US.
Also, in the UK, their rates ( although very low to start) actually tripled when they banned lawful ownership.
Colbalt Kid, convince me that the gun laws have anything to do with the gun death rates in Canada or the UK. In the 60s and 70s, we had much better gun death rates than the united states, this without the gun regulations that we have now.
Plus, after and during the implementation of our existing gun regulations, our rates dropped half as fast as the US.
Also, in the UK, their rates ( although very low to start) actually tripled when they banned lawful ownership.
Is that because of the gun laws or is that because the three countries' people have different views towards guns?
I agree that proliferation of guns makes it easier for gun-related incidents to occur, but the fact still remains that people with criminal intent don't give a crap how many gun laws there are nor what they are. A prime example of that is Mexico. It has damned strict gun laws and an awful lot of incidents because it has an awful lot of criminals that don't give two sh|ts about gun laws.
And BTW, the UK simply traded gun problems for knife problems. Perhaps if it developed a knife registry and made 400 knife laws?
Gun death numbers are a con foisted on the gullible by those that hate the concept of an armed population.
First of all, the majority of "gun deaths" are suicides. Now, aside from the fact that I am disgusted by the very concept that my rights should be truncated because some idiot chooses to stick a loaded firearm in his mouth and tries to pull the trigger twice, it is obvious that suicides turn to other methods if guns are less availible.......Canada's suicide rate is actually slightly higher than that in the USA.
Secondly, if you are trying to prove that gun control actually makes society safer, then you have to show that with tough gun controls, the murder rate drops. If murderers can use illegal guns, then your thesis fails. If they use other weapons, no lives are saved, and your thesis fails.
Thirdly, the USA is 105 in a list of murder rate by country, yet it is full of guns.
So basically you're saying that by having so many guns and owners out there it calms people down, and that if they didn't exist we'd all be killing each other with knives, broken bottles and garrotes? I think effective social and policing efforts are a much better way to deal with violence inside a society than allowing vigilantism.
Gun ownership may result in some people acting more responsibly, but it also puts a highly efficient means of killing people in the hands of individuals who in many cases aren't capable of being responsible.
We regulate health care, medications, vehicles, food safety, construction and many other aspects of modern life and that somehow isn't necessary for tools that are so dangerous in the wrong hands?
People should be required to prove they're capable of understanding the responsibility of gun ownership before they're allowed to own and use guns, that should include gun safety courses and licencing just as we have in many other areas. This is a common welfare issue as much as an individual rights one.
Non-sequitur.
A lot of people who drive obviously are not capable of being responsible either. I see no difference except a lot more people are killed and maimed by vehicles than firearms.
BTW, people DO have to be licensed and qualified to own guns.
I was asking for clarification, hence the question mark.
If people aren't capable of driving in a safe manner they shouldn't have access to vehicles and the roadways to protect the rights of others and more people die on the roads because far more people use them than firearms.
Yes, people in Canada are required to take gun safety courses and there are limits on ownership around violent offenders and the mentally ill which is a responsible policy. I don't get where this invisible line is where some people seem to think if we cross suddenly all their rights are gone. Registration is something that people who are interested in covert and possibly illegal activity would be opposed to.
I've also lived in the US and at that time where I was living I could walk into a gun store and buy anything I liked without even valid local ID, I still had my BC drivers licence.
With all this gun control hype going on... why aren't we focusing on stiffer penalties for those carrying illegally or those that use a gun in a crime.
Why are we just tightening up laws that affect only law abiding citizens?
AND when the folly of all these new measures prove useless... when will the left declare the War on Guns is not winnable and push for full legalization? Or is that just for drugs?
Not in Connecticut you couldn't... that's where this recent push started. CT had the some of the most toughest gun laws in the country.
Why are we just tightening up laws that affect only law abiding citizens?
AND when the folly of all these new measures prove useless... when will the left declare the War on Guns is not winnable and push for full legalization? Or is that just for drugs?
Not in Connecticut you couldn't... that's where this recent push started. CT had the some of the most toughest gun laws in the country.
The thread topic is gun control is completely useless, the facts would seem to indicate otherwise.
You need to look at the intent behind gun ownership how widespread it is and the effects to determine how effective gun control might be. Clearly if guns are being used for illegal activities that have a damaging effect on a society as a whole and a devastating effect on individuals then there's a strong argument for gun control in the interests of collective and individual rights. If giving someone uncontrolled access to firearms takes away from the rights of others then is that fair?
You need to look at the intent behind gun ownership how widespread it is and the effects to determine how effective gun control might be. Clearly if guns are being used for illegal activities that have a damaging effect on a society as a whole and a devastating effect on individuals then there's a strong argument for gun control in the interests of collective and individual rights. If giving someone uncontrolled access to firearms takes away from the rights of others then is that fair?
If you are assuming that's what he was saying and asked the question rhetorically, it's a non-sequitur.
So why rant at a small portion of the population doing a much smaller amount of damage then? I think you just single out firearms related issue because you hate them and think everyone else should hate them, too.
Is it? You don't think the good people who opposed the registration had ANY other reason for not registering?
So?
Reduce or stop the flow of firearms into all areas and remove the ones currently there and eventually there won't be many firearms in the hands of criminals.
Although technology is rapidly making talk of gun control a moot issue.
SXSW: 'Wiki Weapons' Maker Cody Wilson Says 3D Printed Guns 'Are Going To Be Possible Forever'
With the right software and hardware it's now possible to 3D print guns.
The problem is we are dealing with a saturated court system, the defence lawyers get involved and by the time a conviction happens years have already elapsed. Better just to get the law abiding gun users to shoot the bastards!
Don't believe all you hear about plastic weapons being printed, how well they work or how long they last. Time to do some learning about ballistics, pressures etc instead of BS.
Many places have tried to do just that and failed. It'd probably be just as easy to control the idiots who want to use guns wrongly.
With a few backyard items and a couple tools, one can build a gun (or a cannon if they wish) in their garage. So what?