And I just knew some motherfucker would step in and prove my point.
Interesting point and one I tend to agree with. Politicians always push the quick fix because it's popular, people don't want to take a long hard look at themselves, it's unpleasant, so a career minded politician is never going to push the hard route.
I am definitely divided over the issue (of guns in the States, very very glad we don't have them freely available over here). I am finding it easier to see some things from your point, but I don't think I can ever be in agreement enough to believe free access to guns is a positive thing.
I find it amazing that the pro-gun people refuse to believe, or even consider, the argument that more guns = more death. I know someone's going to come along and quote some statistic to say that they don't but I'm afraid that won't wash with me, since I have yet to see a single study that takes into account all the other mitigating factors that can skew the results. I'm really not sure it would be possible to ever manage such a study because there are so many factors to consider, changes in economics, movements of people, random nutters, politicians even what's on tv...
So, how about I explain, as clearly as I can think, my anti-gun position and why I am firm in the belief that more guns=more death.
Guns were invented, to be the most efficient way of killing things, this is a fact correct?
Now picture a scenario, someone's angry enough to kill, they've got a gun, it's a very quick process, from the moment you pick it up, you only have to point and squeeze the trigger.
Now picture a second scenario, someone's angry enough to kill, they've got a knife, granted you can kill someone very quickly with a knife but it's not as easy as with a gun. The other person could fight back, you actually have to be up close to them to do it, someone is more likely to intervene. all these things can take longer and give you longer to calm down and actually think about what you're doing.
Now picture a third scenario, you just have your fists, don't think I have to go right through this one but obviously it is much harder to kill with your fists than with a gun.
Now I'm sure someone's going to bring up the argument that the idea that other people have guns stops people from using theirs/committing violent crimes. I'm afraid I'm not convinced by this one. It is not an easy thing to shoot someone, but all accounts and interviews with serial killers say that it gets easier. Now the bad guys will know this, since they've been through it so although it might be a bit of a consideration, I don't think it's the magic wand to defuse the bad guys that the pro-gun lobby claim it is. If you've got a gang member with a gun, who has used it in the past, trying to commit a home invasion. He will most likely be far more comfortable and ready to use his gun than the home owner is to use his, so the advantage is already with the bad guy.
Now having said all that, sadly I have to agree with the most persuasive argument against a gun ban, that all the bad guys are already armed. There are simply too many guns already in circulation for an effective ban to be enforced. Without some serious draconian moves by the authorities, the guns would remain in the hands of the bad guys and no longer in the hands of people defending their homes.
What it would do, however, is make another school massacre far less likely to happen. From all that I've read about them, none of the massacres have been committed by gang members or even people with an kind of serious criminal record. If there was a gun ban in place, it would be much harder for these people to get hold of the guns, in order to commit these massacres. Yes they could use a knife, and in other countries there are occasionally times when some psychotic goes on a stabbing rampage but the casualties are generally much lower because, as I stated earlier, it's a far less efficient way of killing people.
Now my final point, is one I know is going to be very unpopular so I'll probably get flamed for it but I'm afraid I simply don't think one of your core beliefs works in reality. The idea that all men are created equal and so are entitled to equal rights and have the freedom to exercise those rights absolutely. Whilst I fully support the ideology behind it, I'm not a Nazi, elitist or any other kind of biggot/zenophobe etc but the fact is that all men are not equal. Some are considerably smarter, some are more careless and some more prone to violence. This is from birth, factor in life experiences and you end up with killers and non-killers and those who kill by accident. By firmly clinging to the idea that all men are equal and so have an equal right to bear arms, you preclude the possibility of making it harder for the bad guys and the nutters in society to get the guns. The idea of a psychological profile, training/proficiency exam (like for a driving licence) etc before being allowed to own a gun would seem to me like very sensible things to implement but they are opposed because it is seen as infringing on a freedom. The fact is though, if you look at it completely objectively, it is a freedom that some people shouldn't have and that's indisputable. Ignore for a moment, how it is decided who is deemed safe to own a fire arm and surely anyone can see that allowing someone who is prone to violence, undergoing/undergone a psychological trauma or simply a bit thick/careless to own a firearm is a bad idea.
So lets go through this real fast.
If you really believe the following, the question becomes what is your agenda and why.
" So, how about I explain, as clearly as I can think, my anti-gun position and why I am firm in the belief that more guns=more death. "
It's not because you care about human life. You can say that more of almost anything=more death. But you are only crusading against guns when there are far more pressing issues to be dealt with. You're proving you're not any form of pro human or pro life person, but rather anti rights, the question is for what reason. So for example if you gave a fuck about death in this nation maybe you should be taking action about some of the following issues, rather than trying to formulate an argument of why people should have their constitutionally given rights taken away. for example..
Cancer deaths in 2012 estimated over 500k vs firearms under 40k - Maybe you could crusade against any type of lifestyle that causes cancer - Lets just say smoking, more people die from illness related to that than firearms every year. Seems like it should be more important. Is it?
Deaths from automobile accidents are higher than gun deaths in the US, but do you give a fuck about that. Why shouldn't we all have our cars and trucks taken away and lets just let the military and law enforcement have vehicles. How many lives would that save.
You don't give a fuck about anyone, you just have an issue with firearms.
The remainder of that post is just beyond stupid. All I can say is anyone can invent a one sided scenario to support their skewed ideology.
However it is worth noting the following.
"What it would do, however, is make another school massacre far less likely to happen. From all that I've read about them, none of the massacres have been committed by gang members or even people with an kind of serious criminal record. If there was a gun ban in place, it would be much harder for these people to get hold of the guns, in order to commit these massacres. Yes they could use a knife, and in other countries there are occasionally times when some psychotic goes on a stabbing rampage but the casualties are generally much lower because, as I stated earlier, it's a far less efficient way of killing people."
It's always for the children. Anytime anyone pushing an agenda down someone's throat always has to bring in the children. The argument about helping, saving, or making things better for the children comes up in almost every political BS rant that involves taking away someone's freedoms.
If you gave a shit about the children you would be actively doing something to help problems that are far more directly impacting their lives. But you don't your agenda is to strip someone else of their rights for some reason. But giving the benefit of the doubt what of the following issues are you actively working to do something about.
In 2012, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty
15.9 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012
One in 45 children experience homelessness in America each year OR over 1.6 million children.
Now just those few things. Mind you there are a lot of other issues todays children face, but lets just focus on those. What are you doing about them. Or, let me ask it this way, why are guns so much more of a threat to a child than starvation or homelessness.
How many children die, or suffer from issues related to poverty versus school shootings each year?
You don't give a fuck about children. If you did then you would be spending your energy trying to deal with something more important than the gun in my closet.
In summation.
Fuck you.
