Red_Rob wrote:So American murders have been in "startling free fall" and are now only 3½ times the English rate? My, how convincing. The restricted firearms country has, after a massive increase, had 28% as many murders as the gun-legal country.
Who are you arguing for again?
I've never denied America has much more violence than the UK. I'm arguing that it has nothing to do with the gun laws. England has historically been less violent than the US...but restricting firearms has not eliminated the violence it did have, and seems to have had the opposite effect.
Guns are not the only way to defend yourself. Guns just guarantee that if a conflict does occur, someone will get shot.
They are the only way that I (a slightly built man) can defend myself against a larger, stronger opponent, or one who is armed.
How would you suggest people with medical problems, people in wheelchairs for example, defend themselves without firearms?
And no, guns do not guarantee that someone gets shot. Guns can in fact stop a conflict without violence, because when an otherwise belligerent attacker is met with a gun, they often lose their taste for a fight. This is well documented.
No. Just no. When you are deciding whether something should be illegal, its primary function is very important. A gun does nothing but kill or injure, therefore in any sane society their use should be restricted.
So you feel killing and injuring are never called for in a sane society?
I accept that it is better for society a a whole if these weapons are not available, even if during some isolated instances I would personally like to have them.
Why do you accept that? On what evidence do you base that premise?
Society is NOT overall better off if those weapons are not available. And even if it were, you simply canNOT make those weapons unavailable. You can't even do it in England; doing it in America is impossible.
The problem with people is they don't always use things for the reason they are intended. Whilst a gun for defending your family against those evil rapists sounds great, its also a gun for when your wife cheats on you and you aren't thinking rationally, or when little Johnny sneaks in your room and you left the gun cabinet unlocked, or when the local addict needs money real bad to make the shakes stop. Once guns are out there they aren't going to be kept in a magical hammerspace dimension until you get attacked by muggers.
So what's your point exactly? That guns can be misused? No shit sherlock.
How often are guns misused compared to how often they are used properly? Take a guess? Show some statistics?
The fact that objects can be misused is no argument whatever for simply eliminating the object. ANY object can be misused.
DarthRabbit wrote:I've never hunted, and have only discussed it in any capacity with one person who was the son of a hunter, and assumed...
So why are you making broad, declarative statements based on an uneducated assumption?
Incidentally, I don't give a rat's ass what Tzor said about handgun hunting being stupid. The point is, people do it. All the time. And this is not a big secret or anything.
Frank: is there any evidence whatever that Canada's lower level of violence has anything to do with their control of firearms? Or hell, ANY country? Switzerland gives everybody assault rifles, and you can purchase artillery pieces, and they're less violent. Mexico has extreme restrictions on firearms, and no one's going to argue they're less violent.
There's simply no correlation. People make one because they want to feel superior about their personal bias against guns.
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar