The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


Star for you, my friend!

Keep this up and soon the anti-gun club will have to find a new hobby!

Originally posted by sonnny1
This is about those who are mentally deranged.

Those who "advocate" Gun Control, always fail to add the other "devices" that lead to the killing of people, everyday.

More then 42000 people die from second hand smoke, including 900 children a year.

Just saying.

Straw man....public smoking in confined places is all but gone.....If you are referring to smokers in the household, then I agree; yet, that is an issue that Democrats can not control and republicans will defend in the face of all evidence to the contrary....I smoke cigarettes AND I FULLY believe they should be illegal....I will never stop otherwise....I have defeated the most vile of addictions (rhyming with smocaine); yet I can't kick nicotine...BAN THAT STUFF; help me help myself....it's too addictive.

Originally posted by AlphaX
reply to post by exponent

 

Right, we should enforce penalties on people who carry certain objects and make those objects harder to legally obtain rather than focusing on why these people may want to do harm to other people with certain objects and helping them to not feel this way.

Why not do both? The US has both extremely poor firearm control and extremely poor mental health care systems. I don't think it's any particular surprise that it has resulted in a high rate of violence.

Don't get me wrong, if I could I would own firearms in a heartbeat. I would not however be happy with trusting every random Joe to have them, and so if I can't trust them I don't expect them to trust me.

My main point is that, IMO, the problem is deeper than guns or gun control.

The problem is with society in general.

Those who promote violence and support the war machine.

And if the issue is just about protecting ourselves and not actually finding solutions to the root of these problems.

Then why isn't the same energy put into other problems of society also?

Why do so many people want to save us from the crazy gunman by banning guns.

But then they will go out get behind the wheel of a car and drink themselves stupid?

Booze is a bigger problems than guns in society. More innocent people die at the hands of drunk drivers than by guns.


WHY U NO BAN BOOZE TOO?

Originally posted by MagicWand67
Not that I actually believe the official story.

But how about those terrorists with a few box cutters.

Right, they had to use a plane as a weapon. That's the whole point isn't it? Access to weaponry is part of the problem, mental health is also part of the problem.

If you restrict firearms, people will resort to knives except in more serious circumstances. I'd prefer to face someone with a knife than a gun any day. Especially considering in this case it'd be an unaware attack.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by exponent

 

en.wikipedia.org... knife attacks

en.wikipedia.org...

www.foxnews.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.foxnews.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org... from the UK

www.foxnews.com... baseball bat spree killing

en.wikipedia.org... arsonist 147 killed btw

en.wikipedia.org... 8 dead 15 injured with a KITCHEN knife

its not the object its the person who uses it

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org... here is a whole section devoted to people who only used cars to kill up to 18 people.... ANYTHING can be a weapon and if crazy wants to hurt people it seems crazy will find a way hell this bastard used a FLAME thrower en.wikipedia.org... and im pretty sure those were illegal as all hell for people to own in germany

You don't seem to be supporting your point that well at all. What you've proven is that attacks with knives are significantly less lethal than attacks with firearms. Take the most recent chinese school attack. Up to 25 children attacked with only a small number of serious injuries.

You've linked people using weapons that we can and do restrict for this exact purpose. How is this possibly an argument for less restrictions?

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Straw man....public smoking in confined places is all but gone.....If you are referring to smokers in the household, then I agree; yet, that is an issue that Democrats can not control and republicans will defend in the face of all evidence to the contrary....I smoke cigarettes AND I FULLY believe they should be illegal....I will never stop otherwise....I have defeated the most vile of addictions (rhyming with smocaine); yet I can't kick nicotine...BAN THAT STUFF; help me help myself....it's too addictive.

I could make the case with other "devices" that kill, but I dont want to have them labeled "strawman" either.....

"It is true that smoking is banned in many public places and workplaces," Max said. "However, our use of the biomarker indicates that people are still being exposed more than we realized. Much of this may be at home, but not all. Studies show that even small amounts of secondhand smoke exposure may have a negative impact on health, particularly for people who are vulnerable for various reasons."

Secondhand Smoke Kills 42,000 Nonsmokers a Year in US

usersites.horrorfind.com... mass posioner and i think the first female on the list

en.wikipedia.org... this guy was a serial killer doctor, surely if we must ban anything that kills 250 people doctors should be banned next........

en.wikipedia.org... another posioning doctor

www.galenpress.com... serial killer doctors

reply to post by exponent


its an argument that dispite having all kinds of restrictions they still happen. gun control didnt stop the norway shooter from getting his guns and hi cap mags and it didnt stop the guy in the colgne massacre to not bring a flame thrower to use on children despite flame throwers being pretty illegal in Europe at the time, and what of the arsonist in japan who killed 198 people by starting a fire? starting fires to kill people is illegal every where yet dispite the laws on the books this guy decided to burn people alive.my point is more laws are not gonna solve anything as if crazy people want to hurt some one they will find a way and even putting harsher penalties on people who do this kind of thing is pointless as most of the shooters kill them selves so punishment rarely (brevick) factors in and even then the people who did these horrible things just then get up on their soap box and preach their deluded philosophy in a vain attempt at immortality via the media

hell carrying most knives is illegal as all hell in the UK and you still have an alarming number of stabbings for a country where they aren't supposed to be allowed to be carried in public

Very well said OP. I am sure you will get the normal knee jerk reactions (I am responding to your first post and have not read the comments of others).

There is little that I can add. I am sure those that rail at you will continue to use their emotions as their compasses and not their capacity for critical thinking and rational thought. They usually do.

Crazy is going to be crazy. Getting rid of the crazy people makes more sense than removing a defense against them.

The problem is two-fold. Besides complacency and de-sensitization, we have lawyers, that when paid enough money, make crimes go away. People are no longer afraid to commit crimes, no longer accountable for their actions. Jail sentences are light and nearly non-existent. Judges reduce sentences and allow plea bargins. People no longer fear the law. You know what, if we started cutting off people's hands for punishment I bet people would think twice before stealing. The answer isn't passing additional idiotic legislation that does NOTHING to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those that shouldn't possess them. That's called Feel-Good legislation. Hell, you're asking your government, a government filled with criminals and thieves itself, to come up with a plan to fix this? That's more moronic than passing more gun control laws. The criminals don't follow the laws. That's why we call them criminals. The solution isn't to punish the law-abiding citizen, but to punish the law-breaker. You want to commit a crime with a gun, then we're going to cut off a finger for every charge and count you're found guilty off! How's that for real change? This country is too concerned with feelings and political correctness. We're so disfunctional at this moment in time I'm sickened to call myself an American. I'm so tired of hearing excuses. We've become a nation of excuses. MacDonald's is the reason I'm fat, or carbohydrates is the reason I'm fat...get off your ass. That's why you're fat. You're the reason you're fat. Excuses are the reason those kids in that school are dead. No one could shoot back because the law-abiding citizens weren't carrying their weapons because its illegal to carry a firearm at an educational institution. You want to hell at your politcians about gun control. Yell at them that no one could shoot back at that kid who killed 26 people today.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by exponent

 

its an argument that dispite having all kinds of restrictions they still happen. gun control didnt stop the norway shooter from getting his guns and hi cap mags and it didnt stop the guy in the colgne massacre to not bring a flame thrower to use on children despite flame throwers being pretty illegal in Europe at the time, and what of the arsonist in japan who killed 198 people by starting a fire? starting fires to kill people is illegal every where yet dispite the laws on the books this guy decided to burn people alive.my point is more laws are not gonna solve anything

But your point isn't actually supported by the evidence. You've shown that in every single attack you listed the death toll was significantly lower. You use Anders Breivik as an example but ignore the fact that he acquired much of his equipment legally and used it to murder large numbers of people.

Yes some laws do not help, but Anders himself was unable to acquire the firearms he sought to use, including RPGs and fully automatic weapons. Gun control potentially reduced the fatalities even despite the fact he was able to purchase these weapons legally.

if crazy people want to hurt some one they will find a way and even putting harsher penalties on people who do this kind of thing is pointless as most of the shooters kill them selves so punishment rarely (brevick) factors in and even then the people who did these horrible things just then get up on their soap box and preach their deluded philosophy in a vain attempt at immortality via the media

hell carrying most knives is illegal as all hell in the UK and you still have an alarming number of stabbings for a country where they aren't supposed to be allowed to be carried in public

The US has more stabbings per capita than the UK. It then has around 3x this number in gun murders on top of it. I understand your point and I'm not trying to suggest that guns alone are the cause of this violence.

What I am saying is that it is the responsibility of a civlised society to restrict weapon availability to the essentials. I do not need an AK47 for any use whatsoever. I can however purchase a shotgun should I want to defend my home. It's still a stupid course of action though as you're much more likely to be injured actually confronting someone, and a TV or a laptop is not worth anyone's life.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by AlphaX
reply to post by exponent

 

Right, we should enforce penalties on people who carry certain objects and make those objects harder to legally obtain rather than focusing on why these people may want to do harm to other people with certain objects and helping them to not feel this way.

Why not do both? The US has both extremely poor firearm control and extremely poor mental health care systems. I don't think it's any particular surprise that it has resulted in a high rate of violence.

Don't get me wrong, if I could I would own firearms in a heartbeat. I would not however be happy with trusting every random Joe to have them, and so if I can't trust them I don't expect them to trust me.

Well I'm certainly not going to argue against that logic but if we effectively look into who has problems and why they have them and correct those problems, there won't be much need to put all these restrictions and penalties on the average person who doesn't deserve them.

My point was just that it seemed like you were saying that restrictions and bans would fix the problem and that it goes much much deeper than any object the person may have. I just don't like restricting and penalizing the majority because of the actions of the few. I would be in favor of mental fitness tests before someone is allowed to own a gun and maybe regular tests for as long as they continue to own one.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
The solution isn't to punish the law-abiding citizen, but to punish the law-breaker. You want to commit a crime with a gun, then we're going to cut off a finger for every charge and count you're found guilty off! How's that for real change?

What happens when it's found there is a miscarriage of justice? Now you have mutilated an innocent person. An eye for an eye is not a particularly just system.

The key is to eliminate the conditions that breed this violence. The poverty and low social mobility that cause people to feel they have no other choice. You'll never stop the mentally ill with consequences, as you've seen they just kill themselves or are incapable of comprehending.

No one could shoot back because the law-abiding citizens weren't carrying their weapons because its illegal to carry a firearm at an educational institution. You want to hell at your politcians about gun control. Yell at them that no one could shoot back at that kid who killed 26 people today.

Yeah that's exactly what we need after a school shooting, give more people guns! That can't possibly go wrong.

Originally posted by AlphaX
My point was just that it seemed like you were saying that restrictions and bans would fix the problem and that it goes much much deeper than any object the person may have. I just don't like restricting and penalizing the majority because of the actions of the few. I would be in favor of mental fitness tests before someone is allowed to own a gun and maybe regular tests for as long as they continue to own one.

Definitely not, restrictions and bans do not fix the problem at all. What they do is mitigate it. By making firearms harder to obtain you increase the likelyhood that another path will be chosen.

Mental health checks, regular assessment, mandatory safety courses, required safe storage cases and criminal liability for actions undertaken with your firearm are just some of the potentials here.

For reference, the UK bans essentially all handguns, but shotguns with a 3 round capacity are legal provided you have safe storage for them. You can expand this to 5 rounds and if you are a hunter or have legitimate use you can get certain rifles.

It's not a perfect solution but if you really want to see the effects you need to look at our police force. You will have an extremely hard time finding a member of our police force who has ever shot anyone. Hell you will have a hard time finding someone who's had to point their weapon with the intent to shoot. There are something like 10 officer involved firearms incidents per year and I think on average something like 3 deaths.

It is a world away from the USA.

reply to post by exponent


This is the problem. Just sit there and be an obstacle. You'll probably end up a statistic at some point. Congratulations.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
8 from germany since 1913

That's hilarious, there were eight in California before you got up for breakfast.

The gun homicide rate in Oakland is higher than all of Europe.

Seriously there have been NINE mass school shootings in Cali since 1976...

Mass School Shootings In California

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by exponent

 

This is the problem. Just sit there and be an obstacle. You'll probably end up a statistic at some point. Congratulations.

If you can't actually rebut my arguments, perhaps you shouldn't even try. This just makes you look foolish. The UK is a remarkably safe place. I have between 3-5x less chance of dying from being murdered than you do. I have a pretty much 0% chance of being killed by a police officer because of a mistake.

If you really want to be this ignorant I can't stop you, but you should look at the reality of how violent the US is.

reply to post by ANOK


You know ANOK. We have many differences in the 911 forum and don't see eye to eye at all. I don't think this is an area we're going to disagree on much. If even such disparate people as me + ANOK can see fairly eye to eye on this, why is it that somehow I am the hypocrite?

I hope the OP takes the time to address this instead of just blowing it off.

reply to post by exponent


I was thinking the same thing mate. That's me that stared you BTW (on the first page, still catching up with other replies).