Gun control. I truly don't understand the rights point of view. (middle east, arsenal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I consider myself pretty smart but I just can not grasp or comprehend conservatives point of view on gun control. Like I can't understand how any rational educated person can argue for allowing guns. All their points are so incredibly easy to counter.
1.) We need guns to protect ourselves.
ummmmmmmm. The only reason that could possibly be legitimate is because everyone else has guns. Simple solution. Take away all guns. "but they'll still get them, blah blah". yeah. some will. But wayyyyy fewer. Look at every country that's turned to gun control. Every single one has seen gun crime plummet. Every. single. one. It's like saying some countries have nukes so every country on earth should have nukes to protect themselves. Completely idiotic.
2.) We need them to protect ourselves from the government
It's 2015. If you think any amount of guns will protect you from the government you're in a fantasy land.
3.) I like to hunt, I'm responsible with mine, etc.
Great. I hope you can sleep at night knowing people are dying and peoples lives are being torn apart so you can have fun with your hobby.
4.) Gun's don't kill people, people kill people.
The solution? Make guns incredibly easy to get. No way that could go wrong. If guns aren't available sick people can't get them anywhere close to as easy. That simple.
Am I forgetting anything? And for all you gun supporters read this great blog post. You need a wake up call. And to be human. I'm ashamed to be American. We're a laughing stock.
ummmmmmmm. The only reason that could possibly be legitimate is because everyone else has guns.
No, the other legitimate reason is that there can be huge disparities in size and strength between different people, which firearms help to equalize. Do you think a 50 year old woman who weighs 120 lbs is going to win a physical fight with a 22 year old male rapist who weighs 200 lbs? Or how about a situation where a lone person is facing more than one attacker?
Firearms help neutralize such disparities in size and strength, giving the smaller and weaker (or physically outnumbered) a better chance to escape from harm.
No, the other legitimate reason is that there can be huge disparities in size and strength between different people, which firearms help to equalize. Do you think a 50 year old woman who weighs 120 lbs is going to win a physical fight with a 22 year old male rapist who weighs 200 lbs? Or how about a situation where a lone person is facing more than one attacker?
Firearms help neutralize such disparities in size and strength, giving the smaller and weaker (or physically outnumbered) a better chance to escape from harm.
Fair enough. But is this peace of mind really worth the thousands of families losing mothers, fathers and children every year. The benefits are way way out weighed by the negatives. Also, have you heard of a taser? Or a knife?
ummmmmmmm. The only reason that could possibly be legitimate is because everyone else has guns. Simple solution. Take away all guns. "but they'll still get them, blah blah". yeah. some will. But wayyyyy fewer. Look at every country that's turned to gun control. Every single one has seen gun crime plummet. Every. single. one. It's like saying some countries have nukes so every country on earth should have nukes to protect themselves. Completely idiotic.
Of course countries with strict gun control will see gun crime plummet. That doesn't mean they're less violent or there is less crime. The UK saw an influx in murders with knives after they tightened up their gun control policy. The premise of your argument is that it's essential to lower gun crime specifically, but can you explain why having more people die by knife wound is more utilitarian than dying by a gun shot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whywontthisjustwork
2.) We need them to protect ourselves from the government
It's 2015. If you think any amount of guns will protect you from the government you're in a fantasy land.
While I agree that the government will not use force to take control, that doesn't mean the concept of self defense is unreasonable. The 2nd amendment exists so that should a local police for be abused or a part of the US army be used unjustly on it's own citizens that the collective of gun owners within a community could take on that military power. Obviously, one person should not have the arsenal to act as a militia, but a group, when necessary, can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whywontthisjustwork
3.) I like to hunt, I'm responsible with mine, etc.
Great. I hope you can sleep at night knowing people are dying and peoples lives are being torn apart so you can have fun with your hobby.
Irrelevant. Other people who have similar characteristics to those who harm others are not responsible for the harm. Just like being a Muslim does not make you responsible for 9/11, owning a gun does not make you responsible for the large number of mass shootings that have happened this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whywontthisjustwork
4.) Gun's don't kill people, people kill people.
The solution? Make guns incredibly easy to get. No way that could go wrong. If guns aren't available sick people can't get them anywhere close to as easy. That simple.
But it is people who kill people. Owning a gun does not trigger people to become violent; violent people seek out guns to carry out violence. It makes sense to say that making guns less accessible will help, but this goes back to my question from your first point; is getting stabbed really that much better, if at all, than getting shot?
The issue with strict gun control is it doesn't attack the source. We have more violent crime in America than they do in places like Switzerland or Norway becasue America has a problem. It's a culture thing. Messed up cultures create messed up people. Look at the Middle East. America has issues that it needs to address, and while banning guns could potentially save some lives, it doesn't save those who are going to be killed by crazy people without a gun. The need is to address those sorts of mental illness and extreme views that pop up. Banning the tool will not act as a solution.
Of course countries with strict gun control will see gun crime plummet. That doesn't mean they're less violent or there is less crime. The UK saw an influx in murders with knives after they tightened up their gun control policy. The premise of your argument is that it's essential to lower gun crime specifically, but can you explain why having more people die by knife wound is more utilitarian than dying by a gun shot?
The death rate by knife is much much much lower than gun. The chances of surviving a knife wound are way higher than a gun wound. Very simple.
While I agree that the government will not use force to take control, that doesn't mean the concept of self defense is unreasonable. The 2nd amendment exists so that should a local police for be abused or a part of the US army be used unjustly on it's own citizens that the collective of gun owners within a community could take on that military power. Obviously, one person should not have the arsenal to act as a militia, but a group, when necessary, can.
The exact reason for the 2nd amendment is not entirely clear. There's a good chance it was so that slave owners could protect themselves from a revolt by the slaves. And no sir, guns will not protect you from the government. Not 1 of them, not 9,000,000 of them. Technology is much too advanced.
Irrelevant. Other people who have similar characteristics to those who harm others are not responsible for the harm. Just like being a Muslim does not make you responsible for 9/11, owning a gun does not make you responsible for the large number of mass shootings that have happened this year.
Your point?
But it is people who kill people. Owning a gun does not trigger people to become violent; violent people seek out guns to carry out violence. It makes sense to say that making guns less accessible will help, but this goes back to my question from your first point; is getting stabbed really that much better, if at all, than getting shot?
Read my original post.
The issue with strict gun control is it doesn't attack the source. We have more violent crime in America than they do in places like Switzerland or Norway becasue America has a problem. It's a culture thing. Messed up cultures create messed up people. Look at the Middle East. America has issues that it needs to address, and while banning guns could potentially save some lives, it doesn't save those who are going to be killed by crazy people without a gun. The need is to address those sorts of mental illness and extreme views that pop up. Banning the tool will not act as a solution.
So. What. You said it yourself. Banning guns will save lives. So why not? Read the above for my other responses.
Last edited by Whywontthisjustwork; 12-08-2015 at 12:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
