It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
See, you miss the point, there is no comparison between the two, its about the presence of some factor automatically rendering an individual as being something. i.e. a child presented with a gun will be a killer, all women have the physicality to facilitate prostitution therefor they are all prostitutes. It is an argument against perception not about endorsement. IMHO.
And because women cannot be compared to guns either, the case for teenagers getting exposed to guns via military education is not justified.
What if a person stabs someone, do we move on to knives. What about people who snap and drive a car into a crowd, do we ban vehicles. People will find a way to kill, period, we have seen this throughout history. I think to deprive the vast majority of one thing due to its potential is what upsets pro gun lobby's the most. Hi-jackers apparently killed 3000 people with planes, should we not let kids on planes?
Though certainly, YES, not ALL teenagers or people will go on shooting sprees (CLEARLY, pls. don't think I don't see that) but the ones that do will probably kill more people than if he had decided to vent his frustrations through beating someone up or stabbing someone else. We're not talking prostitution here, where a woman who goes around having sex for money kills a large number of men AND women outrightly without giving them a fighting chance.
No one is saying the system is flawless karl, this is the gamble we take in a free society, where we expect other individuals to respect and treasure the value of an others life and liberty. Unfortunately not everyone complies. To penalise all others due to potential could be a scenario applicable to every instance where one individual could cause the death of another, do we then police or encroach on all potentials. In a free society, guns are used for a variety of reasons, like knives, chemicals, drugs, baseball bats, tyre levers. All these are all used in instances
As long as there ARE massacres happening, there is most certainly a flaw in the system.
This is why the debate on gun control revolves around the types of weapons available( i don't see why people need assault rifles, full automatics weapons etc), to whom they may become available too and laws regarding the storage and safe keeping of weapons are in place(in my county anyway).
It cannot be a case where "oh, it's just one or two cases... or fifteen... maybe fifty since 2004, nothing much." The stakes of people becoming violent shooters is entirely different from the stakes of people going into prostitution. It's probably less. But at the same time, the outcome of people becoming violent shooters is probably more dangerous. And that is my pt, NOT comparing guns to women, though yes, I do that because I want to bring across some level of why the two are fundamentally incomparable. My point is that though not everyone will become violent killers as mentioned in the interview, but the ones who do (which aren't a small number btw) kill far too many people and create far too much chaos.
I agree, I think disaffected individuals who hold society at large accountable for the source of their misfortune, poor circumstances or grievances will always be looking to pay back that very society. There will always be an element of this as no society on this earth is perfect.
You just can't help but wonder what would happen if this depressed / insulted man didn't have access to guns, or bullets, or restricted his movements. I know he may still have access through underground means, but that is why I don't think banning is a good idea. I think another alternative solution should be thought up.
I think what most people get worked up about in America, is that it is written within the very fabric of their society that they are free to have these weapons, it is a right. I don't see the harm in them defending these rights and I really don't see the logic of removing these rights because there is a potential for an individual to do harm.
You may have differing opinions, sure, or you may be a SUPER PRO-SUPPORTER (as it would appear many people here are) but if you're not, don't let this interesting, funny anecdote change your stance.
All I can say to you is that you should not make assumptions.
When i saw this on twitter, i was expecting this "best comeback ever" to be substantial and strong, but instead it was just funny.
We all have our opinions.
And the thing is that funny DOES NOT = the best answer to solve the problem.
We are not saying it is just the equipment, quite the opposite, I am glad you agree. The whole point of the myth is that it is not about the equipment.
(Well, best in terms of entertainment value, I guess.) You can't just say, "oh it's just the equipment. Nothing more" and just walk away. The fact is that shootings are happening, and it could happen to anyone.
You can apply this rationale to any number of scenarios, like driving, drinking alcohol, having unprotected sexual intercourse. There are all risks involved. As I said before, that is the trade off we have by not policing everything with the potential for harm as an outcome. Guns are no different.
Even you. Any one of you. Is that a chance you're willing to take?
P.S. You can keep pointing out my argument flaws, but at the same time, answer me this: what are the benefits of gun ownership for our general society? I have not seen the GOOD of it, and even if there are some good pts as some of you might bring out, think about it on the cost-benefit analytical scale.