4 ms·

The notion that taking away legal guns from legal gun owners will somehow reduce illegal violence is about as absurd as outlawing drugs. People who want to do i

by Alupis 4y ago

The notion that taking away legal guns from legal gun owners will somehow reduce illegal violence is about as absurd as outlawing drugs. People who want to do illegal drugs have had zero problems acquiring them, despite near infinite resources plowed into stopping them by governments at all levels. Most people gleefully chant "The war on drugs has failed"...yet, "The war on guns" will somehow succeed?

taeric 4y ago
This does stand in contrast to other nations not having the problem to the degree that we do. And... really, any other evidence. It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city. Not shockingly, we have few incidents of this happening. Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns. Heck, just set realistic goals here. We make it illegal to drive without a seatbelt, and have largely succeeded in getting folks to wear a belt while in a car. Something far far easier to just not do than the active "seek out an illegal gun" idea that you posit would continue to be a thing. We control fireworks more readily than we do guns. Again, no surprise that we have far fewer counts of incidents with fireworks. And again, also no surprise it isn't zero.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city It is illegal to kill someone, even without a gun, under most circumstances. Perhaps we should make it double-illegal? > Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns This is false. Most gun violence does not occur from legal gun owners, or in places allowing concealed or overt carry. No, most gun violence occurs with illegal guns by people committing crimes. There is no realistic way for you or anyone to take away all of the illegal guns in America. Therefore, any proposed gun ban solely impacts legal gun owners - which statistically are not the problem. It sure sounds good though...
  - taeric 4y ago
    You really don't seem to be arguing in good faith. If it is already "illegal to kill someone" and we shouldn't "make it double-illegal", then we don't need vehicular manslaughter laws, either. For that matter, why have any of the regulations on safely operating anything. After all, it would be illegal for the worst case already? Why restrict sales of ingredients that can make meth? Why regulate anything? And how is it false that we have more random gun violence than bombing? I can list, this week, more than 1 place where a legal gun owner killed someone. It is famously in the news right now. When is the last time we had a random bomb in a city here? I haven't even proposed taking away all guns. Nobody gives a shit about most hunting weapons. Nor do they care about any properly held weapons with responsible care and protections.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Alupis 4y ago
      > Nobody gives a shit about most hunting weapons And here's the issue then. What anti-gun advocates argue are weapons not good for hunting is misguided. Additionally, it doesn't matter if a gun was designed to hunt or not - the gun is an inanimate object. People like to discuss banning AR-15's all day, failing to realize just how many similar-but-not-AR-15's model rifles exist out there, most of which fire the same cartridge too. No, but that one particular model is the problem because it says "AR-15" on the side (most don't even say that btw). California already tried this and failed. California banned certain model rifles by name. Famously it banned "Colt AR-15" rifles... well guess what, people just bought S&W AR-15's instead. Ban the word "AR-15" and people will just buy "AR-16"s, or "NOT-15"s, or whatever. It's an impossible thing to ban. It apparently doesn't matter than handguns kill the most people... those scary black AR-15's we see on movies are clearly the problem. After all, the bullet explodes and ruins the meat! The anti-gun debate is not grounded in facts or reality - which is why anti-gun proponents make no headway (thankfully). > And how is it false that we have more random gun violence than bombing? People rarely seek to indiscriminately kill or maim large numbers of people - which is what a bomb does. Your mass shootings are super rare events. Not long ago, bombs were going off with a near cadence all across the US, mostly from political extremists. Why did the bombing stop? Was it because we made bombs illegal? Of course not, blowing people and buildings up was already illegal. You should research Weather Underground[1]... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

by Alupis 4y ago

taeric 4y ago

This does stand in contrast to other nations not having the problem to the degree that we do. And... really, any other evidence. It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city. Not shockingly, we have few incidents of this happening. Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns. Heck, just set realistic goals here. We make it illegal to drive without a seatbelt, and have largely succeeded in getting folks to wear a belt while in a car. Something far far easier to just not do than the active "seek out an illegal gun" idea that you posit would continue to be a thing. We control fireworks more readily than we do guns. Again, no surprise that we have far fewer counts of incidents with fireworks. And again, also no surprise it isn't zero.

Alupis 4y ago
> It is illegal for you to build and detonate a bomb in the city It is illegal to kill someone, even without a gun, under most circumstances. Perhaps we should make it double-illegal? > Far fewer than random gun violence in places you are allowed to carry guns This is false. Most gun violence does not occur from legal gun owners, or in places allowing concealed or overt carry. No, most gun violence occurs with illegal guns by people committing crimes. There is no realistic way for you or anyone to take away all of the illegal guns in America. Therefore, any proposed gun ban solely impacts legal gun owners - which statistically are not the problem. It sure sounds good though...
- taeric 4y ago
  You really don't seem to be arguing in good faith. If it is already "illegal to kill someone" and we shouldn't "make it double-illegal", then we don't need vehicular manslaughter laws, either. For that matter, why have any of the regulations on safely operating anything. After all, it would be illegal for the worst case already? Why restrict sales of ingredients that can make meth? Why regulate anything? And how is it false that we have more random gun violence than bombing? I can list, this week, more than 1 place where a legal gun owner killed someone. It is famously in the news right now. When is the last time we had a random bomb in a city here? I haven't even proposed taking away all guns. Nobody gives a shit about most hunting weapons. Nor do they care about any properly held weapons with responsible care and protections.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > Nobody gives a shit about most hunting weapons And here's the issue then. What anti-gun advocates argue are weapons not good for hunting is misguided. Additionally, it doesn't matter if a gun was designed to hunt or not - the gun is an inanimate object. People like to discuss banning AR-15's all day, failing to realize just how many similar-but-not-AR-15's model rifles exist out there, most of which fire the same cartridge too. No, but that one particular model is the problem because it says "AR-15" on the side (most don't even say that btw). California already tried this and failed. California banned certain model rifles by name. Famously it banned "Colt AR-15" rifles... well guess what, people just bought S&W AR-15's instead. Ban the word "AR-15" and people will just buy "AR-16"s, or "NOT-15"s, or whatever. It's an impossible thing to ban. It apparently doesn't matter than handguns kill the most people... those scary black AR-15's we see on movies are clearly the problem. After all, the bullet explodes and ruins the meat! The anti-gun debate is not grounded in facts or reality - which is why anti-gun proponents make no headway (thankfully). > And how is it false that we have more random gun violence than bombing? People rarely seek to indiscriminately kill or maim large numbers of people - which is what a bomb does. Your mass shootings are super rare events. Not long ago, bombs were going off with a near cadence all across the US, mostly from political extremists. Why did the bombing stop? Was it because we made bombs illegal? Of course not, blowing people and buildings up was already illegal. You should research Weather Underground[1]... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground