HOME | DD
XxDiaLinnxX β Inanimate objects do not commit crimes.
Published: 2012-12-19 23:13:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 6556; Favourites: 485; Downloads: 14
Redirect to original
Description
Watch out everyone, the computer/phone you are on right now is plotting how to kill you while you sleep.The american government will always make the attempt to alter the law even for ONE specified individual who screws up so badly he sets the nation in a panic. What's funny is that they don't actually tackle the real problem: they just want to look like they are.
People are just not going to stop disobeying the law by having another law issued or even changing a law. Don't blame objects and cause us people who want to protect and take care of our families to lose our own right to defend ourselves or hunt for food. You can make a spork do whatever you want, but it's not going to commit a crime by itself.
That's all I gotta say about this. Way too busy to make a more detailed description, but I think this explains itself just fine.
Related content
Comments: 68
Why hasn't America realized yet? Making guns illegal will not stop people from using them. Look at drugs! Point proven.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's why the goverment is so f***ing stupid!! They like to blame the guns!!
π: 0 β©: 0
One individual? There have been hundreds of people who "ruin it" for others and set people into a panic. Yes, if guns are banned people will find other ways to kill people, but look at it this way: It'll take em a damn longer time to kill someone since people are so uncreative these days. A knife? People don't know where to stab; you could stab a person 9 times and there's a possibility they'd still be alive calling 911. Everyone knows to go for the heart or the brain with a gun. And that's one shot, (usually) one kill. No delay.
And to those who want to defend themselves and their family, I have two words for you: Homemade. Napalm.
π: 0 β©: 0
You don't need a gun to kill a person, there are loads of ways.
Banning guns won't change anything, people will still continue to kill using other methods, and then theres the fact that crimminals won't give a shit about what the law says and will continue to have guns...
π: 0 β©: 0
No ever seems to point out the fact that people using cars kill more people than guns in this country. YAY! Lets ban cars instead making people responsible for their actions!
There's a reason why guns are called the great equalizer. For example, it allows a petite woman, someone with a disability, or senior citizen stand up to a 240 pound thug looking to rob, rape, or get sadistic pleasure killing you.
I should find a link of this one woman's testimony from the 90's during the last big round of gun bans who witnessed the massacre of her parents because the law prohibited her from bringing her gun in from the car to the restaurant where a mad man came in and began mowing people down (believe it or not, it happened in Texas).
It really ticks me off that people think I should be defenseless while a criminal who (SURPRISE!) never cares about the law gets access to guns, most likely through (SURPRISE AGAIN~!) illegal means.
~NB~
π: 0 β©: 0
"Watch out everyone, the computer/phone you are on right now is plotting how to kill you while you sleep."
Sounds like something Alex Jones would say! LOL!
π: 0 β©: 0
Don't you just like how there are people out there comparing guns to bombs and biochemical war fair when saying that guns should be ban?
Why don't just ban knifes, and cleaning supplies while we are at it. And remove hands too. Because you can kill twenty-six with all three things. >.>
π: 0 β©: 0
Obama only wants to take our firearms away to make us all defenseless.
I believe he has another reason behind that....
Besides that, Taking firearms away, ISN'T going to keep a killer from killing......
π: 0 β©: 4
Wow, so America isn't fully populated by idiots... Thank you for restoring some hope to me.
π: 0 β©: 0
Obama: Hero to democrates, Hitler to all AMericans
π: 0 β©: 0
What possible reason? Even if every American had assault rifles, it would pale in comparison to the type of military firepower he has access to. Honestly, if gun advocates think that their weapons could let them overthrow the government, a government which has napalm, nukes, tanks, et all, they're pretty deluded.
π: 0 β©: 1
Who said anything about over throwing the government?
I said, People should carry a weapon on them for protection.
Like back in the old days. Crime was much less tolerated back then, too.
The government would be making a big mistake by banning guns. Period.
They wouldn't be stopping crime, They'd be rendering everyone else defenseless.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is the insinuation people are making by dragging up the 2nd amendment despite that it specifies regulation and that we no longer live in a world where a civillian militia has a chance against the military.
Very few of us are asking for gun bans wholesale, but the idea that a gun in every hand makes the world a peaceful place is a crock of shit. Plenty of places have strict gun control and low crime. Failure to acknowledge this means failure to find the actual, cultural culprits for the US's violent tendencies.
π: 0 β©: 1
lolz, Where are you getting your information?
Low crime rates where there is gun control laws seems to be a favorite proponents for people arguing about the right to bare arms.
In fact, There is actually lower crime in places where people DO CARRY concealed fire arms.
Do your home work.
Here, I did alittle research just to make sure what I believed to be true, really is before making my reply.
"
States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that donβt.
True. The 31 states that have βshall issueβ laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."
π: 0 β©: 1
Where did you get YOUR information? Because that sounds like it was copied from the Cato, a notorious conservative think tank which draws correlative conclusions from data without peer review. Like 'gun control studies' where it uses inequal demographics by economic, drig trade and pop distribution to get the results tgey want. Worse, accept total bullshit from the NRA like video games and TV causing violence. Yes, I have done my research.
Did you look at politically unaffiliated studies like the New England Journal of Medicine wich showed homicides with handguns dropped 23% as a direct result of the ban, and a 25% drop in suicides?
Did you look at other countries like Japan and Australia who have had success with gun control laws?
Did you read the rest of my previous post or are you just going to straw man my argument into 'I'm gonna take all guns everywhere' which nobody, including the president, has said?
Are we ever going to admit the truth that the 2nd amendment does not apply to owning whatever the fuck we want right now?
π: 0 β©: 1
lolz. Sounds like your source of information is the main stream media or other people you talk to.
But, I'm always open to anothers opinion. Can you give me hard evidence? Or as close as you can get to such.
You can do any number of searches, Go to the library and do research on the subject. I haven't found one thing that would lead to someone believing that guns are the reason people kill.
We should also ban cars to reduce the rate of, hit and runs.
And, food to reduce the rate of choking.
Banning guns isn't going to reduce anything. If someone wanted to use a gun to kill, Their going to, Regardless of gun control laws. Look at drugs.. And drunk drives.
Seriously?
More people have been killed by car accidents then with guns.
But, regardless of how much you, or anyone else, cries and boohoos about the right to bare arms, I will forever own my firearms. If the government wants to take that right away from this FREE nation, they'd have to from my cold dead body.
One day when your being assaulted, your going to wish you had a weapon.
All I can say is, Do your own research, I'm no one's teacher.
And, for the love of all things good, don't go by the media. They report what ever will raise their ratings.
If you wish to talk about this farther, If you actually have a legitimate interest in anothers opinion, Then reply back with a better attitude.
Other wise I'm not going to waste my time trying to understand you, or try to help you see my views in the same light as I do.
I don't get involved in childish arguments, I will however, Communicate with you in a mature conversation or debate.
It's up to you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Anyone can accuse anyone else of getting their information from the 'mainstream media.'
And the whole 'ban cars' thing is just the sort of example of mainstream media straw manning the opposition's actual claims, propositions and POV. I've already said three times now that very few people, including myself and the president, want to ban guns. We want to regulate them. Because, as I've already posted about, regulation does indeed reduce gun deaths. We also don't JUST want gun regulation, but also things like less media exposure for the suspect, education about danger signs of people's behavior, and so on and so on.
Having no regulation does not make a nation more 'free.' If it did, then the only 'free' nations would be Anarchist ones. If the government really wanted to take your firearms, your warm living body would not prove so much an obstacle. Like I said, the idea that gun owners could turn back the tide of actual military prowess with their rifles and hand guns is laughable. But we don't, see previous paragraph.
I've been assaulted, and in a crowded place too (it was at work). And if I had fired a gun, I would have hit other people behind the suspect, so a gun would have done me no good. Yet I defended myself and my co-workers just fine.
Honestly, if you're going to get hung up on the same talking points then I can't say I very much see you being open to others POV.
π: 0 β©: 1
From what I know so far, yes, The president is wanting to prevent anyone from owning guns. Expectantly assault rifles.
How is regulating different then banning?
The only thing I'm trying to say is, Gun Control isn't going to help stop crime.
It's just going to prevent the good people from getting guns. But, Just like drugs, Those who actually are planing on doing harm, Will always have ways of getting what they want.
I'm never handing my firearms over. I don't care what they want to pass of a "solution". Their full of it.
As for straw manning, I gave you the facts. You have yet to give me any.
I'm waiting. And, I really mean that I'd like to see your point.
But, as of right now, Your only sounding more and more childish and uneducated.
Especially when you accuse and try belittling.
So, Honestly. I feel like your only looking for a fight, instead of hearing what others have to say.
I know what your trying to say. Your trying to convince me that gun control is the right way to go. But, I'm tell you I know otherwise. You wasting your time if you think I'm going to change my mind.
π: 0 β©: 1
"The president is wanting to prevent anyone from owning guns."
Please show me ANYTHING that says this? Because it contradicts his statements so far, with things like: βFact is, most gun owners in America are responsible. They buy their guns legally, they use them safely. And itβs encouraging that many gun owners have stepped forward this week to say there are steps we can take to prevent more tragedies like the one in Newtown, steps that both protect our rights and protect our kids.β
"How is regulating different then banning?"
If you think the two are the same then you really aren't looking into what other people are saying. We won't be able to breach any walls if you continue to think this.
"The only thing I'm trying to say is, Gun Control isn't going to help stop crime. "
I just gave you a source that says otherwise.
"Just like drugs, Those who actually are planing on doing harm, Will always have ways of getting what they want."
Then I suppose you're for the wholesale legalization of all drugs right? Because I sure am not. If we just excuse 'criminals will do criminal things' as a reason to not make laws, what's the point of having any law? And again, this segues into 'how much lethality should a potential weapon have before it's wrong for citizens to own? What about c4, napalm, anti-aircraft or anti-tank weapons, etc.?'
"I'm never handing my firearms over. I don't care what they want to pass of a "solution". Their full of it."
You are continually missing my point. They're not trying to take your firearms. And if they were, there wouldn't be a chance in hell you could resist them. Having guns doesn't make you John McClane. Gun enthusiasts do not equal the power of the US military.
"I gave you the facts. You have yet to give me any."
You gave me a non-sourced copy paste from CATO, which does not release their methodology to the public for peer review and thus cannot be fact checked, thus I have no reason to believe is true. Especially since it takes and gives Conservative party funding and so is highly subject to things like gun lobby.
Meanwhile I gave you a journal from a respected and politically neutral medical entity.
"So, Honestly. I feel like your only looking for a fight, instead of hearing what others have to say."
You say, right before you say " But, I'm tell you I know otherwise. You wasting your time if you think I'm going to change my mind."
π: 0 β©: 1
First of,
Let me apologist for being a jackass in the previous couple replies.
Secondly,
I've been doing some studying of my own and, While I stand firmly against the banning of assault rifles, I think that you are right about afew things.
Assault Rifles, probably, should have to have a license which must be earned by taking a class and training must be attended in order to obtain one.
I don't believe anymore that they should be freely obtainable.
But, still available for those with the proper license.
Heck, that's just my idea.
You said you gave me a journal to a respected and politically neutral medical entity.
I didn't see it. Give it again? I'm more interested now then I have been X'D
About the president and what he says on the issue, I am going to be doing some more research into that later tonight.
You want to start this conversation over?
This time without attacking each other or each others opinions?
I'd like to learn what you know, and maybe you can learn what I know.
You know?
π: 0 β©: 0
And Obama can try all he wants, he'll never take our guns away, it's in the amendments.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yep. But, I think he will still try.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think if we DO decide to ban guns we should also ban knives. And cars. And baseball bats. And hammers. And chainsaws. And fire. And pillows. Maybe we should ban everything, as anything we use on a daily basis has the potential to be used to murder someone. :/
π: 0 β©: 1
The difference is that guns can easily kill many people in a short period of time and have no other use [with the exception of a few types of guns used for hunting].
If guns are legal; why shouldn't it be legal for citizens to own grenade, anthrax, bombs, and nukes?
π: 0 β©: 2
The, rightful, use of a gun is for protection and hunting.
Grenades, bombs, and nukes are explosives and destroy a large area around them.
Anthrax is a disease.
Guns are projectile weapons and meant for the purpose I said above.
Guns don't need to be made Illegal, The law should start requiring people to be trained to, responsibly, handle, use and, carry guns.
If everyone carried a gun, responsibly, Then things like what happened at that school, would have been stopped.
If the Teacher had a gun, she would have had a chance.
Also, To compare the rights to own a gun with the rights to own explosives and .. a disease?, is just as dumb as saying:
"If we can eat a cow, we should be able to eat other humans, too!"
or, "If we can own and drive a car on public highways, why not a huge monster truck?"
I could go on. but, the answer to your question is just common sense.
Sorry if any of that sounded rude, I wasn't trying to be. I just couldn't think of a better way of explaining that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Many guns currently legal are meant neither for hunting nor protection; for instance assault rifles.
π: 0 β©: 1
lolz, I've used assault rifles for deer hunting.
Your point?
π: 0 β©: 1
In most states, assault rifles are not permitted for hunting big game because of their ineffectiveness at bringing down animals such as deer and elk. If you used one, it was probably illegal and definitely inhumane.
π: 0 β©: 1
I want to apologies for being an ass. Sorry for that.
But anyways, It's legal here, in the state of Missouri, to use assault riffles to hunt.
But no, I don't recommend just anyone using one to hunt.
My family and I, all, have been through hunting safety classes, as well as a hunters training class/Firearms training, that teaches you to hunt safely and accurately, I learned how to use alot of fire arms there.
Every time I shot a deer, I've dropped it.
The only time I've ever had to track it was during archery session and it was shot with an arrow which was fired from a compact bow. I've also only lost one deer so far, And that was also during the archery session.
I haven't had any training in using bows... And, because of that, I normally don't go hunting during those seasons.
Again, I've been trained to use the assault riffle as well as many other guns.
Without training, I'd have to advice against using one at all.
Also again, I am sorry for being rude in my first comment to you ^^'
I've here recently been rethinking alot.
While I still stand firm against banning ARs, I do think someone who wants to own one, should have to take a class, like my family and I have, as well as pass a records check, Then get a license/permit to own one.
I no longer think they should be easily bought by just anyone and everyone.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you. Its understandable to be rude when something is very important to you, so I'm not going to hold it against you at all.
π: 0 β©: 1
^^
Thanks for being understanding! :3
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes, but grenades, anthrax, bombs and nukes aren't identified as a right in our constitution; guns are. Plus a concern we should all share is that if we start messing with the Bill of Rights (which we will if we ban guns) what's going to prevent someone from messing with the first amendment?
If say, the man responsible for the incident in Connecticut had walked into a classroom with baseball bat and whacked the teacher upside the head then starting hitting home runs with all the kiddies, people in other rooms would not have heard him and not have sounded an alarm. he could have easily gone into the next room and repeated the process. Guns are often targeted for their drama, but there are many things that can be just a deadly, and are used for equally "useless" recreational purposes that can easily be used to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time.
π: 0 β©: 1
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Arms: Weapons and ammunition; armaments.
Armaments: Military weapons and equipment: "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments".
Grenades, anthrax, bombs and nukes are all forms of arms, just like guns; and thus identified as a right in our constitution.
If the man walked into a classroom with a baseball bat, the teacher would have had the chance to run for a phone and call for help and also get up close to him in order to disable him by taking his weapon and or using another weapon to incapacitate him. With a gun, he could simply enter and immediately point it at the teacher, preventing them from calling for help or attempting to incapacitate him. Not to mention, baseball bats serve the purpose of being used to play baseball. They have a function other than killing.
π: 0 β©: 0
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But the gun helps.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But the gun helps."
As do knives, baseball bats, chains, crowbars...
π: 0 β©: 1
All of which have a purpose that doesn't involve injuring or killing another human being, nor are they capable of killing as many people in certain period of time.
Personally, I think people do have the right to possess firearms,
I just disagree with the usual "Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
By that criteria, shouldn't drugs be legal too, because they're inanimate objects that have to be used?
π: 0 β©: 1
"All of which have a purpose that doesn't involve injuring or killing another human being, nor are they capable of killing as many people in certain period of time."
Neither do guns. The purpose of guns are hunting, self-defense, or the defense of a country. So you've proven my point.
"Personally, I think people do have the right to possess firearms,
I just disagree with the usual "Guns don't kill people, people kill people'."
So you think guns grow legs, or gain the ability to fly all by themselves, and they do all the killing?
"By that criteria, shouldn't drugs be legal too, because they're inanimate objects that have to be used?"
Incorrect and invalid analogy. Guns are used for: hunting, self-defense, and the defending of a nation.
Drugs are used for: getting "high," forgetting about one's problems, killing oneself, and killing others (murder, more often than not).
Their purposes make them incomparable all by themselves. But let's also compare the inanimate objects:
Guns: A handy tool to get certain things done conveniently (hunting), or protect oneself or others from harm (self-defense, defending one's family, national defense, etc.)
Drugs: Are -poisons- that can become so addicting to the user that they literally cannot "live" without them, though it actually is the thing that will kill them.
So. Guns are an inanimate object that can be used for a variety of things. Drugs are dangerous poisons that can damage even the user, making them incomparable. Can't think of a single gun that literally poisons the users mind.
π: 0 β©: 1
Proven your point? I don't see people using knives or baseball bats to massacre people in cinemas, schools or universities.
Yes, people kill people, and that is terrible. But guns? Guns also kill people. Since the beginning, guns were invented by the people, for the people, to kill the people. They puncture your flesh until you die. That's what they're for. Yes, guns can also be used for hunting, or maybe for nope just hunting. Killing people, and killing animals. Guns don't do anything other than kill. Guns kill. That's, like, the bloody point.
If the problem is really "people kill," then the solution shouldn't be "Here, people. Have this instrument that makes it super easy to kill." If we perpetuate the thought that killstruments are OK, we will never be able to evolve past our violent roots. "People Kill People" will always be true as long as we create and nourish a culture where killing is an option.
If you truly stand by the phrase that "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people", then the exact same criteria should be allied to drugs, because "Drugs don't kill people, people kill people.".Why are you so opposed to drugs then? They're still inanimate objects that have to be used by the person, just like a gun. I'm not really a drug taker myself, the double standard simply makes no sense. Ironic that you think of drugs as an object for murdering others when that's what a gun is for.
And honestly, I can't think of a single that can be used to murder 28 people in one day.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Proven your point? I don't see people using knives or baseball bats to massacre people in cinemas, schools or universities."
Because a massacre is only a massacre when it takes place in a cinema, school, or university, of -course-. *heavy sarcasm* Knife massacres in China, anyone?
Further, just because you don't see it doesn't mean 1. it doesn't happen or 2. that it can't. Thank you so much for giving sick-in-the-head individuals ideas for how they can best get their face plastered over the news. Congrats.
"Yes, people kill people, and that is terrible. But guns? Guns also kill people."
False. Guns are -used- to kill people, but guns do -not- kill people. Your sentence is grossly grammatically incorrect, because guns are incapable of killing people. People -using- guns, however, are capable.
"Since the beginning, guns were invented by the people, for the people, to kill the people."
And to hunt. What, you don't care if people starve to death?
"They puncture your flesh until you die. That's what they're for. Yes, guns can also be used for hunting, or maybe for nope just hunting. Killing people, and killing animals. Guns don't do anything other than kill. Guns kill. That's, like, the bloody point."
Yep. Kill something and eat it or die. Defend yourself from a madman or die. Defend your country from other countries or... well, die. So would you prefer to die?
"If the problem is really "people kill," then the solution shouldn't be "Here, people. Have this instrument that makes it super easy to kill." If we perpetuate the thought that killstruments are OK, we will never be able to evolve past our violent roots. "People Kill People" will always be true as long as we create and nourish a culture where killing is an option."
You seem to be incapable of understanding the simple fact that people are always going to kill people, because there's always something to kill people over. You also seem willfully ignorant of the idea that guns are used for defense, and hunting, more often than they are for murder. Look up some facts, why don't you.
"If you truly stand by the phrase that "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people", then the exact same criteria should be allied to drugs, because "Drugs don't kill people, people kill people.""
False analogy, again. The drugs -do- kill people, and the people who use the drugs are incapable of stopping the use of them after so long. Furthermore, drugs are hardly useful in self-defense, hunting (that would pollute the food), or war. So, please stop with the out right dumb analogy. I already explained to you why it doesn't work.
"Why are you so opposed to drugs then? They're still inanimate objects that have to be used by the person, just like a gun. I'm not really a drug taker myself, the double standard simply makes no sense. Ironic that you think of drugs as an object for murdering others when that's what a gun is for."
False, that is not what guns are "for" except maybe in your own mere (ignorant) opinion. Guns were invented for the sake of self-defense, hunting, and defending one's country, not for murder. If you want to dehumanize the makers, users, and owners of guns, you go right ahead, but just know that I don't appreciate you doing that.
"And honestly, I can't think of a single that can be used to murder 28 people in one day."
Knives, baseball bats, chain saws... chains. Automobiles. Explosives, like bombs. Timothy McVeigh and Andrew Kehoe. You're obviously very ignorant if you can't think of anything else that cannot, or has not, been used to murder more than 28 people in a day.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Because a massacre is only a massacre when it takes place in a cinema, school, or university, of -course-. *heavy sarcasm* Knife massacres in China, anyone?"
Obviously massacres can take place anywhere, but if you're referring to the recent knife attack in China, just keep in mind that everyone survived it, because knives aren't as dangerous as guns.
"And to hunt. What, you don't care if people starve to death?"
There's nothing wrong with hunting, but you do realise that there are many other ways to procure food to feed yourself these days right? You're obviously very ignorant yourself if you think hunting's the only way to live in this modern society.
"Yep. Kill something and eat it or die. Defend yourself from a madman or die. Defend your country from other countries or... well, die. So would you prefer to die?"
Again, you seem to imply that hunting must be the only way to get food. I'm not against self-defence either, and that argument is really dependent on what kind of firearm (Rifles, Shotgun or Pistol?) used in the situation. No one needs to use a 5.56 assault rifle for self-defence.
And to need a gun to defend your country from other countries is just absurd.
The last time the U.S. was attacked was on September 11, 2001 and guns wouldn't have done a thing. Furthermore, why would you need to defend your country from a foreign power, when your country has THE most powerful military in the whole world? No country would even dare to cross the Pacific or the Atlantic just to reach American shores, let alone attack. That sounds more like paranoia than the other more rational arguments you've presented.
As for drugs; drug use should be legal. Adults want to mess with their bodies and minds - always have, always will. It's science's job to make it interesting and safe. It's not the government's job to enforce someone's idea of a religious or moral code of behaviour.
We lock up in jail people who take drugs even if they harm nobody and are leading productive lives. This can only be based not on public health but on the idea that one adult can tell another adult what to do in his private life. Just as bad as all the innocents in prison is that the drug laws, just as alcohol prohibition did, have created a vast, violent underworld which would vanish if drugs were legal. Think of all the muggings and burglaries that would stop if the poor could afford their habits.
History will judge the War on Drugs as both the great denial of civil liberties in the West in our age and simultaneously the major unnecessary cause of crime. In fact gun deaths would go down too if drugs were legal anyway.
Note that I do not take drugs myself. In fact, I live a very abstemious life. But any supporter of liberal democracy must oppose the drug war, whatever their personal lifestyle.
"Knives, baseball bats, chain saws... chains. Automobiles. Explosives, like bombs. Timothy McVeigh and Andrew Kehoe. You're obviously very ignorant if you can't think of anything else that cannot, or has not, been used to murder more than 28 people in a day."
Thanks for pointing out my typo (which was meant to refer to drugs). And you're right about explosives.
But knives, baseball bats, chain saws and chains all have purposes that go beyond killing living things (cutting steak, hitting balls, cutting down trees, pulling) and shooting paper practice targets (likely with my comments on it).
So why do all the madmen favour guns out of everything they can use?
Why didn't Lanza or Holmes use a knife or a baseball bat instead?
I'm also aware of the domestic terrorist attacks carried out by McVeigh and Kehoe, and isn't it great that bombs aren't as easy to procure? Makes some great arguments in favour of video games too, when the NRA tries to blame video games for shootings and thinks more guns and fewer video games will solve our problems.
Obviously as bad as I think guns can be, I have no problem with them being in the hands of responsible citizens presumably such as yourself. But people do need to recognise that they are often misused to cause suffering to other, instead of finding excuses and ignoring it by making comparisons with other objects.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think the bigger problem is victim-blaming and pitying the criminal or giving them too much media exposure. Some people only go out there and kill for the attention and fame, to top the last criminal who got so much attention on the news for what they did. If criminals could not access guns, they could still get creative with knives, hitting people with cars, slamming a chair down on someone's skull etc. etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
The difference is that guns can easily kill many people in a short period of time and have no other use [with the exception of a few types of guns used for hunting].
If guns are legal; why shouldn't it be legal for citizens to own grenade, anthrax, bombs, and nukes?
π: 0 β©: 2
...Because that would be like saying 'Hey everyone get your free Pie-bomb kit!' Explosives kill more that a hand gun. You can't just use this straw-man argument when you want to push gun-laws down someone's throat.
π: 0 β©: 1
That isn't really a response. And where is the cut off? How many people should a weapon be able to kill before its illegal?
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with that as well. I'm actually not a pro-gun person, but my main point is that just taking the guns away isn't going to stop the crime problem. We need to re-change our values as well, especially with how we view/treat the victims and criminals in the media.
I side more with pro-gun control people but at the same time I want more done than just that done so criminals aren't encouraged by other means. Being shot to me is far less terrifying than being stabbed in the face, having limbs cut etc etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm all for free mental health care.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>