snyps said:
Banning rape is banning behavior.. Prohibiting weapons is prohibition of objects. As we all know prohibition doesn't work. And as you pointed out mental condition is the-problem. (specifically psychiatric dope). Why you choose prohibition instead of reinstating the useoff mental hospitals is perverse IMO. Every shooting spree had psychiatric drugs being forced on the killer
Well I wouldn't expect to change anyone's mind. Something to think about. |
We all know prohibition doesn't work? Not really. We know alcohol prohibition didn't work, but that doesn't mean that no form of prohibition will ever work. Besides, few people are advocating for a complete ban on guns, but more intelligent policies on how we screen/what kinds of clips are available etc.
I chose to address gun laws because someone asked that question. Treatment of mental disorders is absolutely another facet of this issue that should be looked into. That being said, completely ignoring the gun aspect of the equation means leaving a large part of the problem completely unaddressed.
"Three things:
1. It is illegal to kill people, just like rape is illegal. Do we ban penises? Of course no, lol.
2. The argument on the other side is a matter of sacrifice not giving us enough in return and will give us more trouble in the long run. You mentioned rape, well the United States has quite an average rape per 100,000 in the list of first-world countries, less than Australia and Britain. I'd think it is because we have weapons to protect ourselves, not only guns, but other weapons as well, some very preventative. However; the biggest issue is sacrificing something which protects us even further, on a sociological level, from a tyrannical government and the entire premise of why the Second Amendment exists, explicitly.
3. Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. If "assault weapons" are banned there would be no change, because "assault weapons" is a coined term to mean all weapons made from modern material with certain safety (yes, safety - such as easier control) features. There are other weapons that would be just as effective. Even more troublesome is that legal owners of these weapons will be affected, and they will lose their right to self-defense, without any proper solution to the homicide crime.
If stricter laws prevent these occurances then we would not have noticed Breivik's killing last year, and the one in Germany in 2009 by that teenager. Stricter laws do very little other than impose new problems on the people. One either stands for liberty and a free-society or one stands against liberty and for a nanny states (or even worse - a totalitarian state.) The more we allow the federal government into our lives, the more power they are to weasel even further into our lives and the more easily they can destroy our lives. States are almost certainly never interested in the security of their people as much as the people are, and this is substantiated by history. "
1. My point was that we don't institute bans and restrictions to completely eliminate them, but to limit them. Feel free to take things out of context though.
2. Then we can better define assault weapons to more accurately reflect what we want to limit. Do people really 30 round clips to defend themselves? The connection between rape and weapons is unfounded.
3. In the US there were about 56.3 murders per 100,000 people. Germany? 9.7. These aren't all gun homocides, and of course there are other factors to take into consideration. BUT pointing to an incident in Germany and saying "see! They have gun violence too, so restrictions don't work!" doesn't work. We also have to take into account the frequency and severity of incidents. Like I said, nothing we do will completely eliminate these incidents, but they may limit them.
