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.
Arguments like what the OP presents are very lame and while they hint at a minor element of truth, the reality is that the focus should not be just on the medium by which crimes are committed. Deaths from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and smoking-related illnesses top the charts in our country. And, no, we're not talking about banning every single item that has been linked to cause those ailments.
Guns have a very specific purpose with a very specific intent - "Throw lead very quickly from position A to position B and have that lead embed itself (or go through) another living being." Any manufactured gun has this as its primary ability and that's what the purpose of guns has been since their invention. Those who redirect the intent or purpose of a firearm (contest shooting, etc...) are merely using it in a fashion differently than its designed intent. No one can or should deny that guns are weapons fashioned to kill first and collector's items or equipment for a hobby second.
Not similarly, something like alcohol does not have the primary intent of killing someone. The primary purpose of alcohol has been (since the time of at least the Egyptians) to get people drunk. Despite the fact that people do very dumb things after having imbibed alcohol, and sometimes even kill other people after having imbibed alcohol, one could argue that alcohol is dangerous - even fatal - but that death is not an intent of the manufacturer's product.
Surely we can all find something that could kill us. Ladders (or the result of falling from them) probably kill a ton of people every year. Swimming pools probably cause a large number of drowning deaths for toddlers. A hot soldering iron has surely found its way into someone's eyeball (ouch!). Faulty gas lines have probably ruptured and caused a few deaths this winter. Everywhere we look we can probably find an inventive and creative way to kill another person. But, there are relatively few places we can look where we find that there is a device with the specific intent of killing or maiming something as its primary purpose. Guns are one of those things and that's why they stand apart from all these ridiculous false equivalencies.
There's no compelling reason that the intent of the gun makes any difference whatsoever. If something that was not intended to kill does kill, while a gun that was intended to kill sits in someone's nightstand drawer and never comes out, what makes the gun more dangerous? Nothing. The "guns are meant to kill" thing is simply an emotional appeal that has no sound reasoning behind it.
20,000 of those deaths were suicides, and Australia teaches us that determined suicides will just find another way. Than number is (deliberately?) misleading.
ALL rifles killed <1,000 people in the US in 2010. Even if you presume every rifle death was an "assault weapon", which is, frankly, an unreasonable presumption that is absolutely false, they're still a tiny, tiny part of the problem.
Yea, but they could have saved the first responders the mess with the gun and just od with pills. Much easier that way.
Yea, but they could have saved the first responders the mess with the gun and just od with pills. Much easier that way.
Agreed. If I was intent on offing myself, I'd rent a plane, fly 100 miles over the Gulf, jump out, and put a bullet in my head on the way down. I would not want any who cared about me to find my brains all over the wall.
But, fact of the matter is, someone who wants to off themselves bad enough, gun or no gun, they're going to do it.
The difference is that a gun is designed to kill those who do not want to be killed. Thats why we want gun control, for safety. If you have seen some of the guns that are completely legal, they are not necessary for anything else. Nobody is going to have an assault rifle for simple defence. If you want to do that, then pack your bags and move to Somalia.
And to those of you who think more guns equal less crime. Let me remind you that in Japan, where all weapons are banned, or in other countries with much more advance gun control laws, they have murder rates significantly lower than ours. If we only forced backgrownd checks when buying guns, and banned ex gun violence offenders from using large weapons, our crime rate would be much less.
Wrong it's all about control.
And to those of you who think less guns equal less crime. Let me remind you that in Australia they have banned guns.
Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:
Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
The difference is that a gun is designed to kill those who do not want to be killed. Thats why we want gun control, for safety. If you have seen some of the guns that are completely legal, they are not necessary for anything else. Nobody is going to have an assault rifle for simple defence. If you want to do that, then pack your bags and move to Somalia.
And to those of you who think more guns equal less crime. Let me remind you that in Japan, where all weapons are banned, or in other countries with much more advance gun control laws, they have murder rates significantly lower than ours. If we only forced backgrownd checks when buying guns, and banned ex gun violence offenders from using large weapons, our crime rate would be much less.
blah blah blah, you people have no idea what you're talking about, as always. Prove a gun is "designed to kill". You can't. A gun is designed to fire a projectile, period, end of story. A very small percentage of gun owners use them to kill, but that doesn't make them designed to kill. Cars are used to kill every day as well, yet you don't mindlessly blather about them being "designed to kill".
Let me remind you Japan is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNTRY. Lets get rid of everyone not white in the US, until the country is 98.5% white, like Japan is 98.5% Japanese. Maybe we should also ditch that annoying "innocent until proven guilty" too and be more like Japan and parts of Europe where you are 'guilty until proven innocent'. If you want to have an environment like Japan you can't just cherry pick one aspect and expect it to make any difference.
Banning alcohol didn't work, we tried that. So a reasonable proposal would be to institute a $20 / ounce tax on alcoholic drinks, increasing with the more powerful drinks. People can still drink, they just have to pay for it. If someone can't afford to get drunk, he/she won't be out drinking and driving. No true American could have a problem with something like this. Anyone who resists is just an alcoholic boozer unwilling to give up his drink to save lives. I don't drink so this wouldn't impact me at all, but it's clearly a modest solution that everyone should support.
blah blah blah, you people have no idea what you're talking about, as always. Prove a gun is "designed to kill". You can't. A gun is designed to fire a projectile, period, end of story. A very small percentage of gun owners use them to kill, but that doesn't make them designed to kill. Cars are used to kill every day as well, yet you don't mindlessly blather about them being "designed to kill".
Let me remind you Japan is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNTRY. Lets get rid of everyone not white in the US, until the country is 98.5% white, like Japan is 98.5% Japanese. Maybe we should also ditch that annoying "innocent until proven guilty" too and be more like Japan and parts of Europe where you are 'guilty until proven innocent'. If you want to have an environment like Japan you can't just cherry pick one aspect and expect it to make any difference.
Un-freak'n believable! Guns aren't designed with their primary purpose to inflict death or harm on a sentient being but merely to fire a projectile? I guess the folks who designed them just had playing a more agressive game of marbles in mind.
O.Kaaay.
I suppose their primary purpose and intent was to ventilate all those mailboxes, road signs and derelict cars you see full of holes scattered throughout your country.
Some guy just decided to find a way to fire a projectile for the purpose of ...........?????
We did make laws against drinking and driving, did we not?
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.
