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 have already said guns are not in and of itself the problem.
The problem is Americans are crazy, violent, and F up.
My whole point is we absolutely should not put guns in the hands of Americans. The point of my post that you cited is that Americans are not like Swiss. You can put guns in the hands of Swiss and expect few problems, you cannot do that to Americans and not expect a whole lot of problems.
Putting guns in the hands of Americans is like putting a keg in an AA meeting. You're just asking for it.
Now, if Americans are willing to go through similar requirement that the Swiss did. It will certainly improve the situation by a lot. Is it the best solution? No. But it'd be an improvement.
.
Again, easily proven wrong. Some Americans are crazy, violent, and F'd up. There are roughly 400 million guns in the US, that is around 12 guns per 100 people and as tragic as it is, 42k (half being suicides) died by a firearm. Do the math...you are more than likely to die from heart disease than a bullet.
If all of us were crazy, violent, and F'd up, the problem would be gone in a few years, as there would be no one left.
Please show where I stated this ? I absolutely do not want this and that is why we need to address these individuals, search every post I've made and I've clearly stated we need to address mental health, and why people have violent tendencies. I have zero problems with background checks, although they really do nothing. I do believe any kind of mental health issues should be flagged on the NICS check, and believe violent felons should lose their 2A rights forever.
I just am logical and rational enough to realize guns aren't our problem, and eliminating them and all knowledge of them is impossible and in the end won't stop people from killing each other.
Problem solving 101 :
(1) understand the current situation; (2) identify the root cause of the problem; (3) develop an effective action plan; and (4) execute until the problem is solved, making modifications as necessary.
Our current laws absolutely put guns in crazy people's hands. It has happened time and time and time and time and time again.
You can talk about mental health or what not, at the end of the day, I guarantee you they crazies can easily get guns if they want to.
Also, the mentally challenged is not our only problem. There are plenty of sane individuals who was perfectly fine until one day they snapped and decided to take down a lot of people. This "mental health" argument ignores the high number of people who have no mental health problem at the time they buy guns. You can't just assume if a dude is sane on Day 1, that he'll not turn crazy on Day 50.
The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem. When you say problem solving 101, what problem are you trying to solve??? I see you saying this is not a problem, that is not a problem, well, what is the problem to you?
I have been very clear, the problem I'm trying to solve is reduce gun deaths. That's it. That's the first step. The rest of you 2A gun nuts, y'all sound like you're trying to solve a different problem than mine, then argue why my solution won't solve your problem.
I see you've expanded your reply. Again, I _was_not_ saying that racial predominance played a factor. The first part of my response explicitly said "the logical fallacy of comparing non equivalent population", homogeneousness of race was simply an example of cherry picking variables to bolster a thesis.
In other words, bringing up countries like Japan to compare homicides or gun homicides vs gun laws is simply not logically relevant, just as my example of racial homogeneousness that you've aptly demonstrated.
How isn't it logically relevant. I brought up both Japan and the U.K, I also said their success can't be replicated in America because of illegal American weapons in Mexico and Canada would lead to the flow of guns to reverse from out of America, back into America. But my statement was simple if guns poofed out of existence tomorrow the homicide rate would drop significantly that day. Knives are less dangerous, and cars and arson are to situationally dependent. it's much harder to run up on someone and try to set them on fire, or stab them, than to spray 30 bullets in their direction, especially if you know someone is trying to kill you. Even a car if your in a place with no access to a car, they can't use it to kill you. Hence why we give our soldier guns, and grenades when we send them overseas. Guns are simply the best tool for killing a target around. Now if you want to kill tons of people, you can argue Arson is the best method but again that's extremely situational. Guns have utility as well.
Why do you think so many African countries have less violence than America. It's partially cultural. Less income inequality in a country were everyone is poor or middling, but partly because a significant portion of African countries the criminals only have access to knives, unless their well connected.
I know someone who was nearly the victim of a knife crime, in the U.K. They tried to rob him. He simply turned around and ran. He happens to be an athlete, end of story. Try that B.S in America, you end up looking like Swiss cheese by your 3rd step.
Our current laws absolutely put guns in crazy people's hands. It has happened time and time and time and time and time again.
You can talk about mental health or what not, at the end of the day, I guarantee you they crazies can easily get guns if they want to.
Also, the mentally challenged is not our only problem. There are plenty of sane individuals who was perfectly fine until one day they snapped and decided to take down a lot of people. This "mental health" argument ignores the high number of people who have no mental health problem at the time they buy guns. You can't just assume if a dude is sane on Day 1, that he'll not turn crazy on Day 50.
The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem. When you say problem solving 101, what problem are you trying to solve??? I see you saying this is not a problem, that is not a problem, well, what is the problem to you?
I have been very clear, the problem I'm trying to solve is reduce gun deaths. That's it. That's the first step. The rest of you 2A gun nuts, y'all sound like you're trying to solve a different problem than mine, then argue why my solution won't solve your problem.
.
Just like this teenager did. Now you are finally getting it. Crazy people and criminals will find a way to do whatever they want.
Since Switzerland was brought up....are there no "crazies" in that country ? You did state that "crazies can easily get guns if they want to" or does that just mean American crazies ?
The problem is people killing themselves and others.....I'd think that was quite easy to determine. Although you just want to reduce gun deaths. I'd like to see all deaths reduced, suicides (don't forget, these make up almost 50% of gun deaths) , homicides , vehicle fatalities etc. That's just me though, I don't care how someone is killed, dead is dead.
This "mental health" argument ignores the high number of people who have no mental health problem at the time they buy guns. You can't just assume if a dude is sane on Day 1, that he'll not turn crazy on Day 50.
Again, explain Switzerland. Do they not have people that are sane on Day 1, and not on Day 50 ?
Again, easily proven wrong. Some Americans are crazy, violent, and F'd up. There are roughly 400 million guns in the US, that is around 12 guns per 100 people and as tragic as it is, 42k (half being suicides) died by a firearm. Do the math...you are more than likely to die from heart disease than a bullet.
If all of us were crazy, violent, and F'd up, the problem would be gone in a few years, as there would be no one left.
Only if they all go crazy, violent, and F up at exactly the same moment; then yeah, there'd be no one left.
But logic should tell you if they go haywire at different time, and the time gap allows for population replenishment, then there'd still be many left. If the gap is spread far enough apart, we can have population growth in spite of it. It's like: everyone dies, but we die at different time, so the population grew despite every single one of us dying eventually. Your logic is akin to: if we all die eventually then why isn't the population zero??
I mean, you've basically taken my words out of context, but that's fine. I didn't clarify it, that's my bad. But even if logic is employed, it still doesn't come to the conclusion that you claim is the only one available.
Only if they all go crazy, violent, and F up at exactly the same moment; then yeah, there'd be no one left.
But logic should tell you if they go haywire at different time, and the time gap allows for population replenishment, then there'd still be many left. If the gap is spread far enough apart, we can have population growth in spite of it. It's like: everyone dies, but we die at different time, so the population grew despite every single one of us dying eventually. Your logic is akin to: if we all die eventually then why isn't the population zero??
I mean, you've basically taken my words out of context, but that's fine. I didn't clarify it, that's my bad. But even if logic is employed, it still doesn't come to the conclusion that you claim is the only one available.
.
Holy hell...that is some mental gymnastics there. Logic is, in a country of 330 million people, with 400 million firearms in circulation, 24,000 deaths by firearms, as tragic as it is , in reality is quite small.
I'm out, I've got to go and prepare a pork tenderloin for dinner.
This makes no sense. How many types of background checks to you think there are ?
There are many different types of background check - from just looking at files to actually calling up people they know.
Do you follow sports at all? Do you know that the background checks teams do on draftees includes but not limited to: interviewing teammates, past coaches, ex girlfriends, high school principals, and really dug up and scrutinize the player's entire life up to that point?
Holy hell...that is some mental gymnastics there. Logic is, in a country of 330 million people, with 400 million firearms in circulation, 24,000 deaths by firearms, as tragic as it is , in reality is quite small.
I'm out, I've got to go and prepare a pork tenderloin for dinner.
You brought up logic, you tried to use it. I engaged. You don't like it now.
So your argument is that because some people can't follow the law, we should just not have a law in the first place?
No, that's your leftist argument when yo have no answer. How about enforce (current laws) and not do "feel good" laws that do zero.
Are you saying that adding more laws will fix the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
It's so strange you guys never have the same attitude with drugs, abortions, and many other things.
.
Strange, you guys never want to add more laws when you agree with something that is breaking the law, including many other things.
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.
