|
Maybe it's the speed at which they can kill that differentiates guns from the other things you mention, and possibly why some gun enthusiasts would think that putting even more powerful weapons into the hands of their fellow civilians might not be a good thing?
A hammer, knife, generally you'd kill one person at a time, then have to move on to the next. With a car you could plough into a bus stop and get 3 or 4 at a time, but the car would be scrap or have to build speed back up again. This all takes time and reduces the rate at which the deaths can accumulate.
A handgun, still one person at a time, but if you have a crowd then you could maybe kill someone every 2s or so???
You see where I'm going with this...
As we climb the weapons ladder we increase the rate at which we can kill, which brings me back to the question - is there an acceptable rate? A helicopter gunship could wipe out a football stadium in double-quick time, should they be allowed in the hands of the public?
I hasten to add that I don't think I have any answers here, I'm just interested in the thought processes that people go through when forming their opinions.
Andy B
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, we can look at this from a few different directions. Let's start with the ability to kill people quickly in large quantities. As was demonstrated some 12 years ago, airplanes have the ability to kill thousands of people in one go (given the right set of circumstances). Given that no one is advocating eliminating airplanes, why should we focus on ways of killing people that are orders of magnitude less efficient? If you want to scale it down a bit, I would argue that many places in the world can demonstrate the destructiveness of homemade explosives that are easy to make with a little research. No one is advocating restricting access to the necessary ingredients.
So now let's try from the other side of the coin. Airplanes have other uses, as do cars and knives and hammers. Guns, on the other hand, are solely for destructive purposes, so let's ban them all. Now, that will affect hunting, which is a big thing in the U.S. States sell a lot of hunting licenses and use the seasons to control animal populations. But I suppose we can lose that revenue and pay specialists to kill the animals to control the population. Or let the populations grow unchecked. Of course, this only solves the issue of people who follow the law. Most of the gun violence in America is actually committed with illegal guns. Maybe making those guns more illegal will make people think twice. It also doesn't address the guns that our government gives to the drug cartels on the border, but since that's technically in Mexico I suppose there's no way that could come back to bite us.
Maybe the issue is that it's better for the media to sensationalize things, and it's easier to sensationalize bigger things. So even though there are more handgun deaths than assault rifle deaths, we focus on assault rifles. And even though there are more deaths by bee stings, we choose to focus on shark attacks. Cars and alcohol are responsible for lots of deaths, but they don't drive viewer like the fear of violent crime.
|
|
|
|
|
With a knife, you have to get up close and personal, and put some physical effort into it.
That's enough to dissuade most people who would have no problem twitching their finger from a long way away to kill.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The sooner everyone agrees there is a line, and what is under discussion is where to draw it, the sooner sanity can prevail. I'm sure the most lily-livered liberal would say that safety knives are okay, and the most red-necked right winger would agree that letting people have anthrax or napalm isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens should only be allowed to own and possess the same weapons there government is allowed to own an posses.
We live in a world were the police are issued fully automatic assault rifles and civilians are told (in some cities) they are not even allowed to own a pistol. How can so many be so blind to the past as to think this is a good thing?
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly my stance. I read an article the other day that was about a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment which pretty much came to the same conclusion. The People should be armed to a similar level as the government's military.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Mullikin wrote: The People should be armed to a similar level as the government's military.
Then there's no point in having a military, because the people become a militia, and take care of protecting the country from external and internal threats.
That was the point of the amendment: There was no military, so the people had to be a militia.
The amendment has been null and void since a standing army was assembled.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
No.
The point of the People being armed to the same extent is in order to protect themselves from the military if necessary. A military is still necessary as militias are part-time, and a full-time military presence is needed.
And you are simply wrong in the fact that we didn't have a military when the second amendment was written. The United States Army was formed several years before the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, and it evolved from the Continental Army which fought the Revolutionary War.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Each person (according to the Constitution) is free to decide what he "needs". Cost would be more of a barrier than anything else. I'd like to have a helicopter gunship, but they're way too expensive, become even more dangerous when not maintained well, and then there's the problem of fitting it in the gun safe. Back in the 1700's, people owned their own canon. I see no reason why I should be compelled to limit someone else's "needs" based on my own viewpoints.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rank pretty highly the need to sleep soundly, knowing that any Tom, Dick, and Harry who decided to burgle my house wouldn't be able to pick up a gun on any street corner.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
But any (criminal) tom/dick/harry (or tom with a harry dick) CAN get a gun on pretty much any street corner. Cost and time to pre-flight would pretty much negate the utility of a helicopter gunship, so I keep a .45 handy. 
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I'm tempted to tell John Simmons "The sky is falling - now coming to a place near you!"
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
THEY SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING! NOW AT A PLACE NEAR YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't dare fall on me. I'm too well armed.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Could you not have posted this in the gun nuts section (aka the soapbox) ?
Thanks.
Nihil obstat
|
|
|
|
|
And interrupt the repeating of old jokes? Someone needs to ban semiautomatic joke copy-pasting.
|
|
|
|
|
Not quite the same as the claimed legislation you posted a few days earlier in the Soapbox eh?
Next thing you'll be telling us is that the Democrats started rumours that it would be much more draconian, so that when the bill was passed to the Senate, people would say "Phew, it's not as bad as we thought"!
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
They could have, the Illinois State Rifle Association President is an elected Democrat...
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really want to jump into the gun control debate en masse right now. But your post has a pretty ludicrous example of a slippery slope fallacy there. Banning assault weapons does not lead automatically to banning slingshots and nerf dart launchers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to point out that the President of the Illinois Senate is a registered lobbyist of the National Safety Council, so, it might not be that far off.
|
|
|
|
|
Defeated - FAIL for gun grabbers. And a police chief in Pennsylvania will be submitting a proposal for a 2nd Amendment preservation ordinance to his city council.
Text of proposal[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, no vote, for now, it will come back up very soon here.
Regarding your link, what I find interesting about the current climate. Dems want states to have the right to legalize marijuana, yet feel the Feds should restrict firearms. I think both should be left to the state to regulate (I would move then).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
