4 ms·

It is exactly the same with guns. Mind you i come from country with relatively hard to get gun licenses. What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defen

It is exactly the same with guns. Mind you i come from country with relatively hard to get gun licenses. What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defence in dangerous areas? Hunting(which because we fucked up ecosystems in some areas, culling is necessary)? Also over here modern black-powder guns are legal, without license. And they are both VERY dangerous(way more dangerous in a crowds) and relatively cheap. There is a legal requirement that you have to load the bullet as separate parts(gunpowder, bullet etc).. but what's going to stop a criminal from going on rampage and from preparing them in advance? Gun violence is a symptom of a worse issue in the society, banning guns will just hiding the symptom of the issue. Why they go on rampage? Why some people need it for personal defence(dangerous neighbourhoods? work-related?)? Why do we need to cull the wild animals from time to time? Heck, if someone wants to go on rampage people they don't need guns, in a big crowd chef knife will be as deadly. And you can legally buy a machete too, or chainsaw, or axe, or whatever. Bombs can be made from household items and there are plenty of instructions online. There is a schematic of timed detonator on Wikipedia on Casio watch page (google Casio terrorist watch). It all boils down to proper culture of handling weapons, and not treating them as toys. The difference between impaling strips and guns is simple: one is used, legally, in specified areas(shooting range, countryside for hunting, at home for defence etc.), while other is mounted permanently and used in public space. One shouldn't keep the gun assembled while transporting it - except if it is for personal defence. I seriously have no issue with people using impaling spikes in wreck racing, as long as they are within regulation of the race. but on public road? hell no. In a perfect would we wouldn't need guns at all, as there would be no reason for them to exist.

jimbob45 7y ago
Can you explain why a black-powder gun would be more dangerous? I don't see what would make them so much more dangerous than a typical rifle.
- citrablue 7y ago
  You basically load the cartridge in by hand every time. If you leave some space between the powder and projectile, you risk the gun blowing up.
asdkhadsj 7y ago
> What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defence in dangerous areas? Hunting(which because we fucked up ecosystems in some areas, culling is necessary)? I covered that in hunting rifles. Various types of rifles have legitimate uses. However, it's an argument not in good faith to say that anything with a possible sport should be legal. I can't make a rocket launcher sport and demand that rocket launchers become ~freely~ fully legal because it has a sport. This is a bad argument. > Gun violence is a symptom of a worse issue in the society, banning guns will just hiding the symptom of the issue. I agree entirely. You can have both however, mental health and restrictions. See: most first world countries other than the US. The funny thing in these discussion is we already do have tons of regulation. The line is already drawn, we're not discussing drawing it, we're discussing whether or not we should move it. Your arguments could be made about various rocket launchers or, hell, missiles and bombs. The line is already drawn there however, and the same argument for and against various rocket launchers (some legal and some illegal I believe), missiles, bombs and etc could be used in both cases. Neither argument for or against guns inherently wins the argument; there's subtly in both. However it is my belief that the same reason we don't let people own larger scale weapons of destruction is valid for the larger scale automatic / semiautomatic weapons. I am in full support of hunting rifles. Less so AKs and the like. I don't care if you have a sport around AKs - in the same way that I wouldn't care if you had a missile "sport". edit: words
- agensaequivocum 7y ago
  AKs and ARs are used for hunting and use the same rounds as other non "assault rifle" weapons. There is no ballistic difference. Both are just as deadly. Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles[1]. 1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
  - asdkhadsj 7y ago
    > Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool. A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don't explicitly mean automatic/semi/etc because that's a whole other debate. Hunting rifles don't need "mow down herds" capability. Likewise, if you can walk into a store and shoot 50 people with ease, I question if you really need that capability for hunting. How many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with bolt action hunting rifles? Likewise, how many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with a knife? I despise these arguments of "but I have sports with X guns!" or "but I use X gun to hunt!". You can fish with explosives but it's not needed nor is it legal in many places. I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc.

jimbob45 7y ago

Can you explain why a black-powder gun would be more dangerous? I don't see what would make them so much more dangerous than a typical rifle.

citrablue 7y ago
You basically load the cartridge in by hand every time. If you leave some space between the powder and projectile, you risk the gun blowing up.

asdkhadsj 7y ago

> What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defence in dangerous areas? Hunting(which because we fucked up ecosystems in some areas, culling is necessary)? I covered that in hunting rifles. Various types of rifles have legitimate uses. However, it's an argument not in good faith to say that anything with a possible sport should be legal. I can't make a rocket launcher sport and demand that rocket launchers become ~freely~ fully legal because it has a sport. This is a bad argument. > Gun violence is a symptom of a worse issue in the society, banning guns will just hiding the symptom of the issue. I agree entirely. You can have both however, mental health and restrictions. See: most first world countries other than the US. The funny thing in these discussion is we already do have tons of regulation. The line is already drawn, we're not discussing drawing it, we're discussing whether or not we should move it. Your arguments could be made about various rocket launchers or, hell, missiles and bombs. The line is already drawn there however, and the same argument for and against various rocket launchers (some legal and some illegal I believe), missiles, bombs and etc could be used in both cases. Neither argument for or against guns inherently wins the argument; there's subtly in both. However it is my belief that the same reason we don't let people own larger scale weapons of destruction is valid for the larger scale automatic / semiautomatic weapons. I am in full support of hunting rifles. Less so AKs and the like. I don't care if you have a sport around AKs - in the same way that I wouldn't care if you had a missile "sport". edit: words

agensaequivocum 7y ago
AKs and ARs are used for hunting and use the same rounds as other non "assault rifle" weapons. There is no ballistic difference. Both are just as deadly. Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles[1]. 1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  > Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool. A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don't explicitly mean automatic/semi/etc because that's a whole other debate. Hunting rifles don't need "mow down herds" capability. Likewise, if you can walk into a store and shoot 50 people with ease, I question if you really need that capability for hunting. How many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with bolt action hunting rifles? Likewise, how many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with a knife? I despise these arguments of "but I have sports with X guns!" or "but I use X gun to hunt!". You can fish with explosives but it's not needed nor is it legal in many places. I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc.