Gun control debate issues that bother me. Will Libertarians and Republicans please address these?

[Scoobes]

killerzX said:

Scoobes said:

HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to say all guns should be eliminated, especially with the current situation in the States. At most it's an exageration because it's not truly acheivable in any country, let alone one that has nearly as many guns as people.

The point most reasonable anti-gun people seem to make is that guns should have tighter regulations. The car argument came up earlier (cars kill lots of people everyday etc.), but firstly, a car has a different primary use but also has strict laws in place to prevent misuse. There are age limits, you have to take a written/theoretical as well as practical test before you can get a license to drive a vehicle and if you abuse that then you can have your license taken away. I don't see any reason why a similar thing can't be applied to guns.

there are age restrictions on owning firearms, there are age restrictions for carrying firearms. there are age restrictions on buying ammunition. there are training requirements for carrying a firearm in public.

You need nothing more than enogh money to buy a car. you dont need a license, a permit, insurance, nothing, no test to pass. just walk in a buy it.

and do you realize how ridiculous pointing out that cars primary purpose isnt to kill but to drive. as that just proves how inneffective guns are at killing, because apparrently their primary purpose is to kill, yet they kill 1/4 of the amount of people as cars do, yet cars arent even designed to kill. and there are more than twice as many guns as there are cars. So a tool not designed to kill, kills 4 times more people than a tool that has over twice as many laying around, and supposedly sole purpose is to kill.

One can only imagine in horror what kind of carnage would ensue if they started making cars with the primary use to kill. 100k, 200k dead, maybe more.

 

and lastly owning firearms is a RIGHT! not a privledge. 

If anything, you're argument has a major lack of logic. Cars are in everyday use, all the time and all over the US. Of course more accidental deaths are going to be caused by cars. If everyone that owned a gun had to empty a magazine/clip of ammo everyday for every gun that they owned and in a open access/public environment, then you might have a point. As it is, most people don't have to shoot their gun in this manner just to get by in their daily lives.

If all the guns in the US were to magically disappear, you would probably suffer a little in terms of the economy. If cars got taken out of America, you'd be fucked because cars are far more essential both socially and economically than guns.

The car comparison really is a pathetic one. The argument also assumes that since we can't eliminate all avoidable deaths, that we should never take any measures to decrease avoidable deaths, which is quite frankly, silly in the extreme.

And you didn't actually disprove anything I said. Restrictions for driving a car are more strict. If you want to legally drive a car on public roads (it's primary use), you need to take a written and practical test. If you want a gun for self-defence (normally cited as its primary use) do you need to take a written or practical test to prove your proficiency and responsibility in its use?

Like I said originally, I don't think outright banning guns would work anyway, but the arguments from the pro-gun crowd can be so faulty.

Anyway, I'm going to read sc94597 reply/post. He actually provided some useful information rather than rhetoric.