More on Gun Control

[Grammatron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3111970.stm

Three people died and more than 20 were injured when an explosion ripped through a building in western Japan where an office siege was underway.

A 52-year-old man, said to be a disgruntled office worker, was reportedly armed with a knife and a bow and arrow when he went into the office of courier firm Keikyubin, in the city of Nagoya.

I was reading this story and I was reminded about many arguments people have about how gun control can stop violence by taking guns away from people. Crimes like disgruntled office worker shooting everyone will not happen again and so on. Then you read a story like this and all those arguments crumble. If someone is crazy and desperate enough they don't even need a gun to kill a bunch of people.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Must...not...reply....

I was reading this story and I was reminded about many arguments people have about how gun control can stop violence by taking guns away from people. Crimes like disgruntled office worker shooting everyone will not happen again and so on. Then you read a story like this and all those arguments crumble. If someone is crazy and desperate enough they don't even need a gun to kill a bunch of people.

The arguments don't crumple. Random mass killings are much harder to do with a knife as opposed to a semi-automatic. The vast improvement in killing ability of a gun is the reason why soldiers are equipped with guns instead of knives.

BTW, the ability to kill many people without guns is an obvious fact, as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated. It does however require a bit of planning.

 

[Tony]

It's that damn Japanese bow & arrow culture, when will they ever learn?

I'll be damned if you ever see me in Japan, what with arrows and such flying around, one is likely to get killed.

 

[Grammatron]

Must...not...reply....
The arguments don't crumple. Random mass killings are much harder to do with a knife as opposed to a semi-automatic. The vast improvement in killing ability of a gun is the reason why soldiers are equipped with guns instead of knives.

BTW, the ability to kill many people without guns is an obvious fact, as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated. It does however require a bit of planning.

You are, of course, correct. It is much easier to kill with a gun/assault rifle than with a knife and bow and arrow, but if you listen to advocates for the extreme gun control -- I will concede I do support some level of control, like the Brady bill and "trading" guns at a gun show -- you will leave with an impression that guns and only guns cause all those crimes. And if we take the guns out suddenly no child will ever die in school and offices will be able to lay off people with out fearing a murder suicide. That is just not the case.

 

[a_unique_person]

You are, of course, correct. It is much easier to kill with a gun/assault rifle than with a knife and bow and arrow, but if you listen to advocates for the extreme gun control -- I will concede I do support some level of control, like the Brady bill and "trading" guns at a gun show -- you will leave with an impression that guns and only guns cause all those crimes. And if we take the guns out suddenly no child will ever die in school and offices will be able to lay off people with out fearing a murder suicide. That is just not the case.

I'm with Danish. (What flavour are you, btw?) A gun is a more efficient killing machine. You will never rid society of homicide. You just try to minimisel it. Much as people try to control the road toll. Various countries resort to different levels of control.

 

[The Fool]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3111970.stm


Crimes like disgruntled office worker shooting everyone will not happen again and so on. Then you read a story like this and all those arguments crumble.

yep...those arguments sure do crumble....but who is making them? They are one of the usual straw man arguments that are regularly nailed to gun control advocates.

Can you give me even one example of a gun control advocate who has ever stated that violent crimes like this one would cease under increased gun control?????? even just one????

 

[JAR]

If the government legalizes physician assisted suicide for everyone, then I might support gun control.

 

[The Fool]

-- I will concede I do support some level of control, like the Brady bill and "trading" guns at a gun show --

Congratulations fellow gun control advocate...welcome to the movement
No that you have taken this step I must warn you that you will be told over and over again that you actually really believe in the total banning of all firearms and that if this is done then all crime will vanish. You also wish to run peoples lives.....all aspects, even what they think. I bet you never realised what an enemy of freedom you were?

 

[Silicon]

And if we take the guns out suddenly no child will ever die in school and offices will be able to lay off people with out fearing a murder suicide.

No, dummy!

Everyone knows that posting the TEN COMMANDMENTS in school is what will stop it!


I do think that's an extreme straw-man to say that gun control advocates believe that all violent crime will be stopped if we eliminate guns.

On the OTHER hand, the murders(something like 100 murders a month) in Japan are vastly cooler. I read about one a couple years ago where an old guy didn't want to give up his house for a new freeway. So he killed 2 government officials with a samurai sword!

You must admit, swords and crossbows make for much cooler crime statistics.


(SAD, in bad taste, sure.)

 

[Tony]

I do think that's an extreme straw-man to say that gun control advocates believe that all violent crime will be stopped if we eliminate guns.

Then why do it?

 

[a_unique_person]

Then why do it?

As stated previously, to reduce the homicide rate. Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

 

[Tony]

As stated previously, to reduce the homicide rate.

Not worth it, and there is no evidence that gun control lowers the homicide rate. If you think not owning a gun will lower the homicide rate, dont buy one.

Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

??What inoculations are not guaranteed to protect against viruses?

 

[a_unique_person]

??What inoculations are not guaranteed to protect against viruses?

No. Not at all. Depending on the virus. For example, the Flu shots I get every year are, IIRC, about 80% effective. But the Flu is a difficult case. Others are more successful, but none are 100% effective.

 

[Tony]

No. Not at all. Depending on the virus. For example, the Flu shots I get every year are, IIRC, about 80% effective. But the Flu is a difficult case. Others are more successful, but none are 100% effective.

Ok, well you asked:

Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

I have never had a Flu shot, and I have never had the flu. You're right, why get innoculations if they are not guarenteed to protect you? It's seems like a waste of time and money to me.

 

[a_unique_person]

Ok, well you asked:




I have never had a Flu shot, and I have never had the flu. You're right, why get innoculations if they are not guarenteed to protect you? It's seems like a waste of time and money to me.

Because if everyone has the shot, the virus cannot flourish. There is a fashion for not innoculating children at present, because there may be a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that they will suffer a severe allergic reaction to the innoculation. When the children usually don't get sick, the parents feel ok about their choice. The only problem is, they are riding on the backs of the others who do have the innnoculation and keep the virus population down. If enough people stop having the shots, the virus becomes viable again. There are reports of babies dying from whooping cough again, a terrible disease that has been under control for many years.

 

[Grammatron]

Congratulations fellow gun control advocate...welcome to the movement
No that you have taken this step I must warn you that you will be told over and over again that you actually really believe in the total banning of all firearms and that if this is done then all crime will vanish. You also wish to run peoples lives.....all aspects, even what they think. I bet you never realised what an enemy of freedom you were?

No sir, I did not know I was an enemy of freedom

But besides the cooling off period and not selling guns to criminals and mental patients, I don't think anything else is needed as it will start punishing the law-abiding citizens more than people who intend to commit a crime.

 

[EvilYeti]

The most important thing to remember is that guns empower the individual, for good or bad. NRA folks don't like to admit this as it shows them for what they are, a largely pro-criminal organization.

Compact, high-capacity handguns are the ideal means for mass mayhem. A criminal can carry a handgun and enough ammo in a paper lunch sack to kill several dozen people. I think the huge advantage handguns supply over other weapons probably drives many people to commit acts they otherwise would not.

 

[Tony]

The most important thing to remember is that guns empower the individual, for good or bad. NRA folks don't like to admit this as it shows them for what they are, a largely pro-criminal organization.

No more "pro-criminal" (*cough*Bullsh!t*cough*) than planned parenthood or the ACLU.

 

[a_unique_person]

No sir, I did not know I was an enemy of freedom

But besides the cooling off period and not selling guns to criminals and mental patients, I don't think anything else is needed as it will start punishing the law-abiding citizens more than people who intend to commit a crime.

But that's like saying you're only a little bit pregnant.

 

[Grammatron]

But that's like saying you're only a little bit pregnant.

Why?