Reply to Re: My opinion on the school shootings in the US
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I think this is an interesting discussion. I hope you don't lose your motivation for it, Kris. I admire your perseverance despite the abuse you get from Skull.
At the same time, as you might have guessed, I disagree with your viewpoint. But as you write, there's nothing wrong with that; it makes for a good discussion.
When you're ready, show me some good arguments to my previously stated arguments.
Here's some
@thenewguy: I appreciate what you brought into the debate.
Indeed. Especially this:
So there is no need to be so verbally violent towards Kris, okay?
I also welcome the points you bring to the discussion. I have some comments about them:
People would get furious and some serious violence could occur where people "protect" their right to own a gun and could lead to a lot of innocent people getting killed.
Let's break that down: you seem to be arguing that it would be a good idea to have stricter gun laws, because with all these guns around, innocent people get killed. But if you implement stricter gun laws, even more people may get killed in riots, so that harm is possibly greater and should be avoided (or at least we should weigh it in the decision).
I don't think these riots will happen; I'd expect some (perhaps many, initially) people to hold on to their guns, I don't expect them to start shooting random people in anger. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that that is what they will do.
Then still the argument is invalid, because of a fundamental flaw: people getting killed due to not having strict laws is a structural problem; people get killed every year because of this. The riots are incidental: they only happen once. While the riots may kill more people than get killed per year through not having strict laws, if you wait long enough the structural effect will always be larger than the incidental effect.
So this argument means that the country should start as soon as possible to make stricter laws. While it also means that it may need to be done in a careful (and possibly slow) manner, not doing it at all results in more killings.
Guns would turn into a MAJOR black market object and police tend to be shoot from my experience
This is a reason to increase taxes, pay the police a proper salary, and make them better. While there may be some corrupt cops, you can be sure that most of them are doing the job because they want to help society. If they would get enough support from the government (both in salary to show that they are valued and in material), you can be sure they will do an excellent job. But that costs money, and taxes are needed to pay it. I think the anti-tax sentiment in this country may be related to "I need to own a gun because the police doesn't protect me".
And yes, of course they would be a major black market object. And yes, in other countries big criminals have guns, too. But not burglars, who you may run into in your house. So working at a bank, and especially working with the police, may get you killed, but you don't have much to fear in your home. (Which isn't really that different from the current situation; the gun that is most likely to kill you in your home is your own.)
So no, the fact that a significant group of criminals would still own guns does not pose a major danger for people. If you are afraid of gangs with guns that would start raiding the defenseless town, I think you can predict as well as I that even underpaid police with too little equipment would be very pissed off, and the gangs would get caught soon enough. Sure, it sucks if they visit your house before they get caught, but there is a really low risk for that, because they would very soon get caught. So the benefit of banning guns in this case is much greater than the harm.
if the government decided to increase it's power and authority or to start invading people's homes
If that happens, you are in serious trouble and ready for a revolution. But note that no matter what the laws are, the government will always have more and bigger guns than you. So even if this situation were likely (which I sure hope it isn't), it isn't a reason for allowing people to own guns.
Just because another country has banned guns and seems to be doing better does not mean it's the best solution for a completely different country.
Strictly speaking you are right. But this sentence from the article above sure suggests that there might well be a correlation:
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
We're not talking small differences here. That's not 43% (which would have been large), it's 43 times or 4300%.
I remembered Skull posting a map of mass shootings in the world, and searched the web for it. At first, I was unable to find anything about mass shootings, other than "mass shootings in the US". However, I eventually found a map and It shows why all talks are only about the US: it's pretty much a US-only problem.
There may be differences between countries, but such a huge difference between the US on one side and the rest of the world on the other can only be explained by the only thing that all those other countries have in common: gun control. But I welcome any alternative explanation you may have.
Kris writes:
guns can be used to protect one's self from danger, whether it be a wild animal that wants to kill you, or another person who wants to kill you.
There may be some regions of wilderness where wild animals that are seriously dangerous exist and guns may be a reasonable weapon against them. On the other hand, most people should not need to go there. The few that do can take a gun with them IMO. But if people want to go there for pleasure, but can't go there safely because they have no gun, then they can't go there safely and shouldn't go there. That is no reason to give those people a gun.
The wild west isn't so wild anymore. You can live a good life without encountering dangerous wild animals. If you want to go out of your way to meet them then that's up to you, but I don't see why a country would need to make its citizens less safe (by allowing almost everyone a gun) to support it.
For other persons that want to kill you: unless they are really intent on doing so, you are actually safer without a gun than with one, as the article I linked to shows. And with strict laws, the potential killer is less likely to own a gun, meaning that you are less likely to actually get killed.
Guns can help you attain food, such as if you were stuck in the wilderness and had to shoot an animal to gain it's life-saving meats. (This also doubles back to the first point.)
There are supermarkets where you can buy food that has already been killed for you. If you really want to kill your own meat, you can buy a farm and cows. Same as with the first point, this is not a reason to start allowing everybody to own a gun. If you go into the wilderness unprepared and find that you are starving, then I think you deserve to be nominated for a Darwin Award.
Guns are also a deterrent. If someone accosts you with a weapon of some sort, even if the gun has no bullets, the person will think twice about attacking you.
See the article above. Citing: The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage
Having a gun in the house is dangerous for anyone near it. I read elsewhere that if you have a gun in your house, the burglar is more likely to shoot if they stumble upon you. So even a gun with no bullets makes you more likely to get killed, especially in a country where even simple burglars are likely to have guns.
You have written several times that banning guns does not help, because people who really want to kill someone will do it anyway. While the latter is true, the former is not a logical conclusion: most gun deaths are accidents and escalated quarrels or disputes. Those would most of the time not have been deadly if there wasn't a gun at hand.
A tank is a vehicle, and as such a person could have it.
An armored vehicle, such as a tank, but also a bulldozer, is a weapon, even without a cannon mounted on it. (In the Netherlands not everybody can just buy a bulldozer; a quick search on the net doesn't lead me to believe that the US has a similar restriction.) You can drive through the wall of a building, or over cars and/or people. I think Skull considered it obvious that allowing people to have a tank, as long as they claim it's only for watching, is undesirable. I fully agree with him on that. I'm surprised you don't find it as ridiculous.
it is my constitutional right to own a firearm
Exactly this right is being disputed. The fact that it currently is in the constitution is evident; the question is if it should be. I'm arguing it shouldn't.
Skull writes:
You gotta look if the object is actually more practical than it is harmful. And that is not the case with guns.
Very well spoken. I'd like to hear replies to that one.
ThePunisher writes:
True but a gun makes it 500x more easier and efficent
You seem to suddenly participate in discussions instead of just shouting an opinion. That's a very welcome change!
At the same time, as you might have guessed, I disagree with your viewpoint. But as you write, there's nothing wrong with that; it makes for a good discussion.
When you're ready, show me some good arguments to my previously stated arguments.
Here's some
@thenewguy: I appreciate what you brought into the debate.
Indeed. Especially this:
So there is no need to be so verbally violent towards Kris, okay?
I also welcome the points you bring to the discussion. I have some comments about them:
People would get furious and some serious violence could occur where people "protect" their right to own a gun and could lead to a lot of innocent people getting killed.
Let's break that down: you seem to be arguing that it would be a good idea to have stricter gun laws, because with all these guns around, innocent people get killed. But if you implement stricter gun laws, even more people may get killed in riots, so that harm is possibly greater and should be avoided (or at least we should weigh it in the decision).
I don't think these riots will happen; I'd expect some (perhaps many, initially) people to hold on to their guns, I don't expect them to start shooting random people in anger. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that that is what they will do.
Then still the argument is invalid, because of a fundamental flaw: people getting killed due to not having strict laws is a structural problem; people get killed every year because of this. The riots are incidental: they only happen once. While the riots may kill more people than get killed per year through not having strict laws, if you wait long enough the structural effect will always be larger than the incidental effect.
So this argument means that the country should start as soon as possible to make stricter laws. While it also means that it may need to be done in a careful (and possibly slow) manner, not doing it at all results in more killings.
Guns would turn into a MAJOR black market object and police tend to be shoot from my experience
This is a reason to increase taxes, pay the police a proper salary, and make them better. While there may be some corrupt cops, you can be sure that most of them are doing the job because they want to help society. If they would get enough support from the government (both in salary to show that they are valued and in material), you can be sure they will do an excellent job. But that costs money, and taxes are needed to pay it. I think the anti-tax sentiment in this country may be related to "I need to own a gun because the police doesn't protect me".
And yes, of course they would be a major black market object. And yes, in other countries big criminals have guns, too. But not burglars, who you may run into in your house. So working at a bank, and especially working with the police, may get you killed, but you don't have much to fear in your home. (Which isn't really that different from the current situation; the gun that is most likely to kill you in your home is your own.)
So no, the fact that a significant group of criminals would still own guns does not pose a major danger for people. If you are afraid of gangs with guns that would start raiding the defenseless town, I think you can predict as well as I that even underpaid police with too little equipment would be very pissed off, and the gangs would get caught soon enough. Sure, it sucks if they visit your house before they get caught, but there is a really low risk for that, because they would very soon get caught. So the benefit of banning guns in this case is much greater than the harm.
if the government decided to increase it's power and authority or to start invading people's homes
If that happens, you are in serious trouble and ready for a revolution. But note that no matter what the laws are, the government will always have more and bigger guns than you. So even if this situation were likely (which I sure hope it isn't), it isn't a reason for allowing people to own guns.
Just because another country has banned guns and seems to be doing better does not mean it's the best solution for a completely different country.
Strictly speaking you are right. But this sentence from the article above sure suggests that there might well be a correlation:
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
We're not talking small differences here. That's not 43% (which would have been large), it's 43 times or 4300%.
I remembered Skull posting a map of mass shootings in the world, and searched the web for it. At first, I was unable to find anything about mass shootings, other than "mass shootings in the US". However, I eventually found a map and It shows why all talks are only about the US: it's pretty much a US-only problem.
There may be differences between countries, but such a huge difference between the US on one side and the rest of the world on the other can only be explained by the only thing that all those other countries have in common: gun control. But I welcome any alternative explanation you may have.
Kris writes:
guns can be used to protect one's self from danger, whether it be a wild animal that wants to kill you, or another person who wants to kill you.
There may be some regions of wilderness where wild animals that are seriously dangerous exist and guns may be a reasonable weapon against them. On the other hand, most people should not need to go there. The few that do can take a gun with them IMO. But if people want to go there for pleasure, but can't go there safely because they have no gun, then they can't go there safely and shouldn't go there. That is no reason to give those people a gun.
The wild west isn't so wild anymore. You can live a good life without encountering dangerous wild animals. If you want to go out of your way to meet them then that's up to you, but I don't see why a country would need to make its citizens less safe (by allowing almost everyone a gun) to support it.
For other persons that want to kill you: unless they are really intent on doing so, you are actually safer without a gun than with one, as the article I linked to shows. And with strict laws, the potential killer is less likely to own a gun, meaning that you are less likely to actually get killed.
Guns can help you attain food, such as if you were stuck in the wilderness and had to shoot an animal to gain it's life-saving meats. (This also doubles back to the first point.)
There are supermarkets where you can buy food that has already been killed for you. If you really want to kill your own meat, you can buy a farm and cows. Same as with the first point, this is not a reason to start allowing everybody to own a gun. If you go into the wilderness unprepared and find that you are starving, then I think you deserve to be nominated for a Darwin Award.
Guns are also a deterrent. If someone accosts you with a weapon of some sort, even if the gun has no bullets, the person will think twice about attacking you.
See the article above. Citing: The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage
Having a gun in the house is dangerous for anyone near it. I read elsewhere that if you have a gun in your house, the burglar is more likely to shoot if they stumble upon you. So even a gun with no bullets makes you more likely to get killed, especially in a country where even simple burglars are likely to have guns.
You have written several times that banning guns does not help, because people who really want to kill someone will do it anyway. While the latter is true, the former is not a logical conclusion: most gun deaths are accidents and escalated quarrels or disputes. Those would most of the time not have been deadly if there wasn't a gun at hand.
A tank is a vehicle, and as such a person could have it.
An armored vehicle, such as a tank, but also a bulldozer, is a weapon, even without a cannon mounted on it. (In the Netherlands not everybody can just buy a bulldozer; a quick search on the net doesn't lead me to believe that the US has a similar restriction.) You can drive through the wall of a building, or over cars and/or people. I think Skull considered it obvious that allowing people to have a tank, as long as they claim it's only for watching, is undesirable. I fully agree with him on that. I'm surprised you don't find it as ridiculous.
it is my constitutional right to own a firearm
Exactly this right is being disputed. The fact that it currently is in the constitution is evident; the question is if it should be. I'm arguing it shouldn't.
Skull writes:
You gotta look if the object is actually more practical than it is harmful. And that is not the case with guns.
Very well spoken. I'd like to hear replies to that one.
ThePunisher writes:
True but a gun makes it 500x more easier and efficent
You seem to suddenly participate in discussions instead of just shouting an opinion. That's a very welcome change!
