Knives generally speaking are tools - most arn't designed to murder people. Guns on the other hand, and especially specifically designed combat weapons such as assault rifles like the AK series, are actually weapons meant to kill people. There is a gulf of difference between using a tool as an implement of murder, and using a weapon purpose built to kill people.
What I do not understand is that gun control does not necessarily mean that weapons will be impossible to acquire, but making them more difficult for criminals or unstable people to attain, how can this be seen as a negative, even by gun nuts like the NRA? It confounds and boggles my mind.
So far, all I've seen from those on the right is "Give everyone more guns, that'll solve it!" even though evidence from all over the world suggests making weapons more difficult to get has a net positive effect on gun violence. Yes, SOME criminals are more industrious, and can get a certain level of arms through illegal means, but getting and keeping them is so much harder that most criminals will get picked up just for having the things.
Then, those on the left want a total and complete ban on firearms. Unfortunately thats not realistic. Making the things more difficult, but not impossible is more ideal at the present stage of US gun control. To go from "free and open market for everything up to heavy MGs and RPGs" to gun bannings outright would be such a sudden and large shift people won't have any time to make such an adjustment, and will become angry.
That being said, the right's constant referral to INCREASING armaments in the name of self protection is nonsensical, irresponsible and ultimately will result in more death, and believe it or not, the criminals WILL not be the ones dying more often than not.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Knives generally speaking are tools - most arn't designed to murder people. Guns on the other hand, and especially specifically designed combat weapons such as assault rifles like the AK series, are actually weapons meant to kill people. There is a gulf of difference between using a tool as an implement of murder, and using a weapon purpose built to kill people.What I do not understand is that gun control does not necessarily mean that weapons will be impossible to acquire, but making them more difficult for criminals or unstable people to attain, how can this be seen as a negative, even by gun nuts like the NRA? It confounds and boggles my mind.
So far, all I've seen from those on the right is "Give everyone more guns, that'll solve it!" even though evidence from all over the world suggests making weapons more difficult to get has a net positive effect on gun violence. Yes, SOME criminals are more industrious, and can get a certain level of arms through illegal means, but getting and keeping them is so much harder that most criminals will get picked up just for having the things.
Then, those on the left want a total and complete ban on firearms. Unfortunately thats not realistic. Making the things more difficult, but not impossible is more ideal at the present stage of US gun control. To go from "free and open market for everything up to heavy MGs and RPGs" to gun bannings outright would be such a sudden and large shift people won't have any time to make such an adjustment, and will become angry.
That being said, the right's constant referral to INCREASING armaments in the name of self protection is nonsensical, irresponsible and ultimately will result in more death, and believe it or not, the criminals WILL not be the ones dying more often than not.
What they are designed for is irrelevant. They are easy to get and responsible for far more deaths than rifles.
Originally posted by Surtur
What they are designed for is irrelevant. They are easy to get and responsible for far more deaths than rifles.
And yet, banning or regulating anything bar combat knives is nonsensical because many actual legit businesses depend on them. ONLY the military and law enforcement actually NEEDS access to assault weapons for the purposes of their job, and they can obtain government exception for that.
What reason does the ordinary civilian have that absolutely requires the use of a fully automatic 7.62mm assault weapon? Are they hunting tanks in the wilderness?
I know why ordinary people need access to steak knives and cleavers. They are used in food preparation, but ASSAULT WEAPONS?! Come on, give me a decent reason Surt. Self defense does not require a 30 round mag you can empty into people in 5 seconds from 200 yards away. That kind of firepower is more likely to be used by the crazies than by people looking to protect themselves.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
And yet, banning or regulating anything bar combat knives is nonsensical because many actual legit businesses depend on them. ONLY the military and law enforcement actually NEEDS access to assault weapons for the purposes of their job, and they can obtain government exception for that.What reason does the ordinary civilian have that absolutely requires the use of a fully automatic 7.62mm assault weapon? Are they hunting tanks in the wilderness?
I know why ordinary people need access to steak knives and cleavers. They are used in food preparation, but ASSAULT WEAPONS?! Come on, give me a decent reason Surt. Self defense does not require a 30 round mag you can empty into people in 5 seconds from 200 yards away. That kind of firepower is more likely to be used by the crazies than by people looking to protect themselves.
Look at cough medicine, it is is meant to help with your health. Yet some use it in ways it was not meant for and abuse it to get high. A lot of places now have that kinda stuff behind a locked glass door and they make you show an ID to purchase it. You won't need an ID to buy a knife or hammer.
And you ask for a decent reason. What I have trouble with is the decent reason to get rid of them. There are millions of people who own these kinds of weapons legally. The vast vast vast majority of them do not use the weapons for unlawful purposes. I don't see a reason for saying responsible people can't own an AR-15. It's not like you can't find cases where they were used defensively to save lives.
Why are the rifles bad, but handguns are okay...even though they cause way way more deaths?
Originally posted by Surtur
Look at cough medicine, it is is meant to help with your health. Yet some use it in ways it was not meant for and abuse it to get high. A lot of places now have that kinda stuff behind a locked glass door and they make you show an ID to purchase it. You won't need an ID to buy a knife or hammer.And you ask for a decent reason. What I have trouble with is the decent reason to get rid of them. There are millions of people who own these kinds of weapons legally. The vast vast vast majority of them do not use the weapons for unlawful purposes. I don't see a reason for saying responsible people can't own an AR-15. It's not like you can't find cases where they were used defensively to save lives.
Why are the rifles bad, but handguns are okay...even though they cause way way more deaths?
I'm going to tell you something right now Surt. All I can see in your responses is enough deflection and excuses to fill a landfill. You are NOT addressing a single point directly, and immediately deflect to "but what about this that or another device? Why take our rifles first! Why are you so mean to my rifles!" This is the general characterization of your entire debating style. You need to correct that.
Originally posted by Surtur
Look at cough medicine, it is is meant to help with your health. Yet some use it in ways it was not meant for and abuse it to get high. A lot of places now have that kinda stuff behind a locked glass door and they make you show an ID to purchase it. You won't need an ID to buy a knife or hammer.
None of this has anything to do with dealing with purpose built murder weapons. Do you want ID checks and licenses to keep your hands? Because I'm pretty bloody sure the human hand is responsible for more death than any other implement in the history of humanity with no exception. Stop deflecting, and answer my point. WHY do people NEED assault rifles?
Originally posted by Surtur
And you ask for a decent reason. What I have trouble with is the decent reason to get rid of them. There are millions of people who own these kinds of weapons legally. The vast vast vast majority of them do not use the weapons for unlawful purposes. I don't see a reason for saying responsible people can't own an AR-15. It's not like you can't find cases where they were used defensively to save lives.
Because why do you need that much firepower in the first place? It's not like you need it on any given situation. Basically put what you are describing is a vanity issue rather than any sort of actual utility. IE: It's a dick measuring contest.
And no, shooting something does not save it. Not ever. Don't pretend otherwise.
Originally posted by Surtur
Why are the rifles bad, but handguns are okay...even though they cause way way more deaths?
When did I say handguns were good? Or any gun for that matter? I worked security, so I'm licensed to carry a firearm, and am trained in their use. Do you know how often I've had to draw? Not once ever. I ALWAYS found another way besides threatening lethal force. Your excuses of "Self Defense! Most people R Cool with them!" does not tell me why they are necessary.
Here's the problem. Allowing that much power to enter into the hands of the ordinary civilian population, untrained, untested, and unregulated, that is the definition of irresponsible. Anyone can walk into a Walmart and leave with an assault weapon - doesn't matter if the reason they bought the gun is legit or not - and you DON'T expect some people to do something utterly stupid with it? Gun accidents, kids killing each other by pointing a loaded handgun or a shotgun is one type of tragedy that is common. As is the rampant school shootings when unstable boys go berserk and try to murder everyone they think slighted them in school.
You are sacrificing one type of freedom over another there Surt. You are sacrificing everyones right to feel safe and not have to worry about psychos having the ability to freely get access to every kind of cannon they want over the counter. In it's place, you want everyone to have access to a gun in order to try and feel safe. Do you know which era had this same mentality over there in the US? 1865 - 1920. The Wild West, where firearm related death was obscenely high.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I'm going to tell you something right now Surt. All I can see in your responses is enough deflection and excuses to fill a landfill. You are NOT addressing a single point directly, and immediately deflect to "but what about this that or another device? Why take our rifles first! Why are you so mean to my rifles!" This is the general characterization of your entire debating style. You need to correct that.
*headshot*
Originally posted by Blindside12
Coming from the guy who deflects more then Surtur, thats rich Rob. I literally made a thread about Mark Cuban and you decided to talk about Trump, ffs.
It's why I can't take people seriously that suddenly crawl out from their cave every so often to ignore the deflection tactics of one side to harp about another.
Even in this very thread we had deflection tactics lol. The response: crickets chirping.