Should America Ban Guns

[enwiabe]

Surgeon, your logic is spurious at best. A bullet wound in an artery can leave you bleeding out for a long time which is also a highly painful death.

Even if you can make the objective claim that being shot to death is more painless than a machete, it does nothing to rebut the argument that guns can kill a much greater volume of people more easily, which is the real reason why guns should be outlawed.

Yes, people kill people, not guns. But guns make it a helluva lot easier, and given that 300 gun homocides have now occurred in the US since the Colorado shooting, it's pretty obvious that the lack of gun control laws in America is simply stupid.

[EvangelionZeta]

Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

Assuming the criminal says "Hello, I have a knife prepare to outrun me" instead of politely asking for the time and chucking it into your liver.
I think guns should be banned. Probs to the extent of Australia. Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.

There are many useless things or 'unnecessary' things that we as humans can survive without, however we still use to use it. E.g. Cars which cause so much pollution. Many accidents occur every year, people break laws by hoon driving and what not. As humans we are not obliged to use the vehicle however it makes our lives much easier, and than yet again, the majority of us do follow the law. In saying this, I don't believe guns or any firearms are any different, if used with bad intentions of breaking law, than OFCOURSE It will be harmful???

My argument isn't to keep it, however to do something else rather than banning it fully!

Two responses:

Firstly, cars aren't absolutely necessary, yes, but the good that they do (presumably?) outweighs the bad. Convenience aside, cars have a lot of social utility (meaning we can travel large distances for work and services, can ship goods across large distances, etc.). They aren't necessary, but the good seems to outweigh the bad,

With guns, the supposed good (defense) seems negligible compared to the numerous shootings that occur.  If you want to weigh up the costs versus the benefits, simply count the number of lives saved versus the number of lives destroyed by guns.  Thus we can argue for a ban on guns.  The precedent for this also lies in the general law; we ban things which create an unreasonable amount of harm/danger to society (or so the theory goes), and disapprove of that which does more harm than good.

The other thing is that your model of addressing cultural concerns isn't mutually exclusive from a gun ban. Just saying.

[Thu Thu Train]

GOD INVENTED GUNS SO WE COULD KILL THE QUEEROSEXUALS

[Thu Thu Train]

FOR THOSE THAT ARE HUMOURLESS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZaCiP2_2RM

[sabii]

mod edit: deleted nested quotes

Two responses:

Firstly, cars aren't absolutely necessary, yes, but the good that they do (presumably?) outweighs the bad. Convenience aside, cars have a lot of social utility (meaning we can travel large distances for work and services, can ship goods across large distances, etc.). They aren't necessary, but the good seems to outweigh the bad,

With guns, the supposed good (defense) seems negligible compared to the numerous shootings that occur.  If you want to weigh up the costs versus the benefits, simply count the number of lives saved versus the number of lives destroyed by guns.  Thus we can argue for a ban on guns.  The precedent for this also lies in the general law; we ban things which create an unreasonable amount of harm/danger to society (or so the theory goes), and disapprove of that which does more harm than good.

The other thing is that your model of addressing cultural concerns isn't mutually exclusive from a gun ban. Just saying.

Different opinions I guess! I don't believe it should be about "good dominating the bad". The argument was that guns can kill, if you google, you would find cars kill an extensively more amount of innocent individuals per year, despite the good things they may contribute. Do the good things make up for all the lost lives, and families that may suffer (just asking). The point= Argument was that guns kill, so do cars. It wasn't about what good they contribute?

Its unreasonable to banned cars, as many people follow law. Just like that many people follow the law concerning firearms and guns, than it is also unreasonably to ban!

[Surgeon]

Surgeon, your logic is spurious at best. A bullet wound in an artery can leave you bleeding out for a long time which is also a highly painful death.

Even if you can make the objective claim that being shot to death is more painless than a machete, it does nothing to rebut the argument that guns can kill a much greater volume of people more easily, which is the real reason why guns should be outlawed.

Yes, people kill people not guns. But guns make it a helluva lot easier, and given that 300 homocides have now occurred in the time since the Colorado shooting, it's pretty obvious that the lack of gun control laws in America is simply stupid.

As spurious as it may be, I would take the risk of being shot in an artery as opposed to being attacked in another savage form. The likelihood of being shot in an artery and bleeding out to death over a long period of time is quite small, especially if the person doing the shooting is aiming to kill you.

I'm not refuting the claims being made in here that guns can kill a large number of people in a small amount of time, I whole heartedly agree with that.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what laws come into action pertaining to gun or ammunition laws, people will still have access to them. If a university student can purchase 20 thousand dollars worth of ammunition, weapons and ballistic gear without turning a head in America, I'm fairly certain people would have access to similar things through illegal means.

I'm simply taking a practical viewpoint on the issue at hand.

All in all:

Should guns be outlawed for civilians? Yes.
Will they be? No.

[enwiabe]

mod edit: deleted nested quotes

As spurious as it may be, I would take the risk of being shot in an artery as opposed to being attacked in another savage form. The likelihood of being shot in an artery and bleeding out to death over a long period of time is quite small, especially if the person doing the shooting is aiming to kill you.

I'm not refuting the claims being made in here that guns can kill a large number of people in a small amount of time, I whole heartedly agree with that.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what laws come into action pertaining to gun or ammunition laws, people will still have access to them. If a university student can purchase 20 thousand dollars worth of ammunition, weapons and ballistic gear without turning a head in America, I'm fairly certain people would have access to similar things through illegal means.

I'm simply taking a practical viewpoint on the issue at hand.

Then why don't shootings happen all the time in Australia?

[EvangelionZeta]

Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman

What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?

Then you're even more screwed if they own a gun.

I think you're missing the point. If I magically emerged out of your computer screen right now and had you cornered, completely at my mercy, and gave you the option of being shot to death, hacked to death with a machete, stabbed to death with a knife, bludgeoned to death with a hammer or crow bar, butchered with a chainsaw, which would you choose?

P.S- I would never do that, I love you and your witty sense of humour.

A black market is hard to access for the nut jobs who often do public shootings. A model wherein gun control is much more stringent isn't likely to eliminate gang violence or anything, yes, but it is likely to make it much more difficult for a disturbed person to go on a killing spree.  The other thing worth pointing out is that a black market only arrives with demand; currently, it is cultural to own a gun, because it is an amendment of the constitution, and because people feel the need to defend themselves in a culture where other people can own guns.  If this culture of necessary defense (on a mass scale) is destroyed, then a lot of the impetus for the black market is reduced (and thus you can imagine a black market is not nearly as likely to exist; even if it does, it won't be on a very significant scale).

A model from Switzerland or whatever isn't pertinent to the debate; the question, rather, is whether or not a country where disturbed people can cause mass death (ie. clearly not Switzerland, it seems) should have firearms readily available to its citizens. Your example establishes that guns aren't a cause, yes, but it doesn't demonstrate that guns aren't a useful (and often necessary) tool for extremely violent crime.

The black market is hard to access? Spend enough time in a few particular restaurants/cafes in Carlton and I guarantee you'll be offered many things that are heavily illegal. That's just here in Australia.. I would assume the black market in America could be much more accessible/prominent.

This debate is practically redundant. As Russ said, the amendment will be practically impossible to remove. It will be a cold day in hell before they US citizens agree to have it removed. As you said, it's cultural to own a gun in the US.

Enwiabe basically  addressed the first point (although thanks :p).

Your response to my black market point doesn't account for my analysis of how a black market even erupts (ie. demand).  Even if it does erupt, your point about Carlton doesn't necessarily work - first of all, I imagine a lot of citizens don't know about these places, even if you do, and chances are a loner who spends all of their time scaring people with their antisocial behavior (just do a profile check on some of the shooters) isn't likely to develop the social connections to find these sorts of places.

Finally, also assuming the "even if" that there is a black market, it is much harder to access illegal merchants than it is legal ones, and so we can surmise that at least some people willbe put off. And any reduction in gun profilerstion amongst loonies is worth it here, compared to what we are losing (er...self defense?).

[Surgeon]

mod edit: deleted nested quotes

Then why don't shootings happen all the time in Australia?

Let's first look at the difference in populations... ~ 314 million compared to ~ 22.5 million.

I would say that there probably is close to one shooting in Australia for every ~13 shootings in America which would make us roughly equal.

The inherent different in average shootings we hear about, i.e Colorado shootings compared to a single person being killed here, I don't know. I can't answer that.

[EvangelionZeta]

mod edit: deleted nested quotes

Different opinions I guess! I don't believe it should be about "good dominating the bad". The argument was that guns can kill, if you google, you would find cars kill an extensively more amount of innocent individuals per year, despite the good things they may contribute. Do the good things make up for all the lost lives, and families that may suffer (just asking). The point= Argument was that guns kill, so do cars. It wasn't about what good they contribute?

Its unreasonable to banned cars, as many people follow law. Just like that many people follow the law concerning firearms and guns, than it is also unreasonably to ban!

Hence why I said arguably. That said, you could say cars also save as many lives as they kill because you can only have easy access to food, ambulances, daily supplies etc. because of cars. Or maybe the good things do matter more than the lives (if you want to be hardcore utilitarian, the good results of cars affect almost everybody, whilst the deaths only a tragic but small minority).  I think with guns though, the arguments clearly demonstrate that there is much more harm than good.

And yeah, also will say that this debate is purely theoretical given that America won't lose it's guns for a long time.  Still, it's a theoretically interesting debate.

[enwiabe]

mod edit: deleted nested quotes

Let's first look at the difference in populations... ~ 314 million compared to ~ 22.5 million.

I would say that there probably is close to one shooting in Australia for every ~13 shootings in America which would make us roughly equal.

The inherent different in average shootings we hear about, i.e Colorado shootings compared to a single person being killed here, I don't know. I can't answer that.

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.

You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?

United states has a gun homicide rate of 4.14 per 100,000 citizens
Australia has a gun homicide rate of 0.44 per 100,000 citizens.

In fact for every 1 gun homicide in Australia, it's 130 in America. 130:1.

think about that for a second.

and now realise why you're wrong. so horribly, horribly wrong.

[sabii]

mod edit: deleted nested quotes

Hence why I said arguably. That said, you could say cars also save as many lives as they kill because you can only have easy access to food, ambulances, daily supplies etc. because of cars. Or maybe the good things do matter more than the lives (if you want to be hardcore utilitarian, the good results of cars affect almost everybody, whilst the deaths only a tragic but small minority).  I think with guns though, the arguments clearly demonstrate that there is much more harm than good.

And yeah, also will say that this debate is purely theoretical given that America won't lose it's guns for a long time.  Still, it's a theoretically interesting debate.

Lol, true good point ummmmm. I guess your right in a way But I still believe to an extent, so not everyone is forced to give up their hobbies, becasue of stupid and immature idiots, who don't follow law and have no sense of remorse.

[enwiabe]

sabii, gun sport is legal in Australia! I have a mate who goes down to the shooting range every week. But you cannot simply own a gun for no reason at all like you can in America, and the stringent safety checks and regulations keep our gun crime at an extremely low rate.

[ninwa]

am tempted to go through this thread and delete all the super-long nested quotes...

[sabii]

mod edit: deleted nested quotes

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.

You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?

United states has a gun homicide rate of 4.14 per 100,000 citizens
Australia has a gun homicide rate of 0.44 per 100,000 citizens.

In fact for every 1 gun homicide in Australia, it's 130 in America. 130:1.

think about that for a second.

and now realise why you're wrong. so horribly, horribly wrong.

Okay I agree that the fact may be a little fishy or misleading, however there is no such real reason to be using such offensive language against him/her. They are expressing their opinion, like you. You are not necessarily right and nor am I and nor I they. We are all trying to express our opinion, just because you might doubt their source that gives no one any right to verbally start abusing them!!!!

Lets show some maturity and respect each others views and opinion, even if they do differ.