Ghost C
Good job, you finally figured it out.
As if I ever thought anything else. But you need to say something to be able to ignore that we have cops to make killing harder, and guns to make it easier.
You know, just the other night, I told my gun...I said "gun, you don't go walk off and start any wars now", and what do you know, my gun didn't start any wars. You apparently completely miss the point of these little stories.
I don't tell little stories, I give facts. You on the other hand, tell little stories. I know exactly what you mean, but you completely miss the point.
What I do understand is that guns cause more troubles in some areas in the U.S. then in others. Fine. Then instead of opposing any ruling on gun-control nationwide, recognise this and allow a ban on guns in areas like L.A., and stick to strict control in the area where you live. If that saves 20.000 of the 30.000 people, then it's a good start.
It's illegal to shoot people. It's illegal to own a gun if you're a convicted felon. It's illegal to discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a residence. It's illegal to brandish a firearm in a threatening manner. It's illegal to own a rifle if you're under 18, and a pistol if you're under 21. In some states, it's illegal to own ANY type of firearm without mandated training. Firearms are better regulated than vehicles.
Hear what you're saying. In some states, it is illegal to own ANY type of firearm without mandated training. Are you saying there are ANY states that allow this for cars? Oh yes, of course. You can park a car on your own property, but you're not allowed to drive one on the public road without a licence, and you can't get a licence without training and a theoretical exam ANYWHERE. Right?
I've personally witnessed a large amount of crime prevention with firearms, and I've prevented a few with my own firearms. What are you trying to say here, that the only way to stop a crime using a gun is to kill someone? Because that's not the case.
There was this nice little story I read about a guy trying to rob everyone in a restaurant, and getting shot in the back by two gun-carrying visitors. He could have been dead. Is there a death penalty on robbery? Someone else could have been killed by the bullet, it's hard to predict how the bullet will exit and if it will ricochet. Ah, you would say, but he could have killed someone too. Yes he could. But that practically never happens. He's not out to kill someone, he's out to take money. The only instances when it does happen is, yes, when he suspects someone is going for his/her gun, even by mistake.
I live in the US, I don't have to choose. Guns are my right, vehicles are my privilege.
Guns are your right, vehicles your privilige. Interesting priority.
Is there a point to that? Both of them are useful. Are you worth all of the air you breathe? It's up for debate, but does that mean that anyone has the right to take away that air you breathe?
That's so funny. I wonder how many people I kill by breathing. Hmm. Did I miss something?
Do you actually have anything other than anti-gun propaganda and a few statistics which make you look like a hypocrite to back up your argument?
So what I've been saying so far is propaganda and a few statistics. You come with silly stories about breathing, about guns taking a walk, and a false claim about car safety being better regulated than gun safety.
Guns don't prevent crime anyway. As long as criminals need crime as hard as those few families out there need guns to shoot their own meat, guns won't stop crime, they will just make it more devastating. If you rob a store, you better just kill the owner in case he has a gun. Over here, most shopkeepers survive a robbery. But because we distribute our wealth better, we have less poverty and hence less cause for crime - because social inequality remains the number one cause of crime. No, not guns. Guns just make crime more lethal.
And in this case, it can be actually argued that guns make crime more lethal, because the people remain the same. The danger of guns (and cars) doesn't come from underestimating those people, but from overestimating them.
The discussion has reached a crucial point I think. There are two directions we could go here. Either we leave the question to the jury (or as it would be in our country, to the judge), or we can see if we can work out an arrangement - e.g. see if we could agree on something, like outlawing guns altogether in certain areas (L.A.?), and just keeping strict rules in others (where you live?).
Either way, we'd probably have to drag up the Guns topic and limit ourselves to discussing violence in schools here.
In that respect, and to keep the discussion relevant a slight bit, I say that kids cannot be trusted with guns, and that furthermore the fact that 40% of U.S. households has a gun means there are more of them around, and that despite however well people try to obey rules that prevent their kids from getting access to them, the chance of this going wrong and a kid bringing one into school and causing mayhem is a lot higher than if guns were slightly less pervasive in U.S. society.
). I can remember someone trying to scoop slam me on the concrete outside. And if someone struck me in the head, he/she won against me.
