| Baalzamon said: Does the US have more fun casualties? Absolutely. But let's keep in mind that we are talking about 5 murders per 100,000 people. |
Fun casualties? That is one way to frame it, I guess you aren't the one tasked to clean up the mess... So...
| Baalzamon said: All of my guns have been purchased for range shooting and/or hunting deer/small game. None have been purchased to kill human beings. Just like my golf clubs weren't purchased for that...but they could absolutely do harm if I rampaged with them. Numerous people were stabbed in a mall by me with somebody who only had a knife. |
Are you seriously making the argument that unless we can end all crime that we shouldn't ban guns?
That is like saying unless we can ban all drugs we shouldn't have drug laws.
| Baalzamon said: Nobody has given me a valid answer yet regarding why 1-2 guns. It's as if you are saying it should be zero, but you know that this stands zero chance of passing (because it's a meaningless number and will just anger half of Americans), therefore you just want to pass something, anything at all, that will at least start to get the number down to zero. Having 1-2 guns per American will largely do...nothing to prevent these mass shootings, as many of them are occurring with 1-2 guns anyways. |
The limit should be dependent on the argument that you can present to the table on why you need a certain amount of weapons.
But if you are a collector or using them for sport, I don't see why the limit should only 1-2, provided you have undertaken the appropriate training, have them registered and secured.
| Baalzamon said: 4 dead in southern California after a stabbing rampage. Those 4 might beg to differ regarding the lethality argument used earlier when discussing guns vs knives. We have a lot larger problem than guns that is leading to all of this. I'm not even close to knowledgeable enough about it all to know what specifically is the issue, but it certainly seems to be more prevalent in the US than elsewhere. And it absolutely is not limited to just shootings. |
This argument is a logical fallacy, I will let you work out which fallacy it treads on.
Crime will exist irrespective of whether guns exist or not... And is not an appropriate excuse to retain a free-for-all on gun ownership.
What is trying to be done is like trying to cure one type of cancer (guns), not all forms of Cancer at once. (All other forms of crime)
Here in Australia if you were to go to the Supermarket and buy a knife, you are required to provide evidence that you are 18+ years or older for example, this directly reduced under-age knife-related crime.
In short everything needs to be weighed on a case by case basis on it's individual merits, your argument seems like a clone from the NRA which is full of holes.
| Baalzamon said: To add to the argument, gun restriction, while it absolutely appears to reduce HOMICIDE with a gun, doesn't appear to reduce violent crime at all. |
It's not supposed to end all violent crime. It's meant to reduce gun-related crime... Please learn the difference.
| Baalzamon said: So I've got to ask (even though this trade-off isn't necessarily inevitable), would you be more comfortable with a higher gun homicide rate but substantially lower violent crime, or vice versa? |
Citation needed.
| Baalzamon said: I've personally lived in a city (where I went to college) where people frequently got beat up and robbed if they walked around at night. It wasn't at all enjoyable. Ironically, this was also the 1st time I ever kept a gun in my house as my neighbor's were being robbed in the middle of the night etc and I didn't want to feel completely defenseless to this. |
I think you should watch this which deconstructs your arguments entirely.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
