Gun Control

[kbate]

95% of gun violence would disappear overnight if you legalized drugs and shifted the DEA and ATF's budgets over to HHS to provide treatment for those who become addicted.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

95% of gun violence would disappear overnight if you legalized drugs and shifted the DEA and ATF's budgets over to HHS to provide treatment for those who become addicted.

While Drugs do contribute to violence. I don't think that would get rid of 95% of gun crimes. Maybe 25%.

Guns are a modifier/multiplier and nothing more just like any other tool. People will do what people will do no matter what.

 

[Not Normal]

I have to add my two cents here:

First off, I support the second amendment. Saying I, a reasonable, moral and responsible person cannot own a gun because somebody else has in the past or might in the future commit a crime with one is absurd.

People get stabbed everyday too and there is no movement to ban knives on ANY level.

The was a murder on my street last year. He was beaten to death. Beaten with fists. Not a brick, not a bat, FISTS. Nobody is calling for a single Karate studio to be shut down.

When was the last mass stabbing where one person stabbed and killed several people and wounded others? How about a mass beating where one person took down sever inocent others?

Yes, its terrible, and I don't condone the behavior you mention. BUT, knives and fists aren't, by design and intent, killing machines.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

When was the last mass stabbing where one person stabbed and killed several people and wounded others? How about a mass beating where one person took down sever inocent others?

Yes, its terrible, and I don't condone the behavior you mention. BUT, knives and fists aren't, by design and intent, killing machines.

I'm sure there are those on Lit who would like to read about a mass fisting.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

When was the last mass stabbing where one person stabbed and killed several people and wounded others? How about a mass beating where one person took down sever inocent others?

Yes, its terrible, and I don't condone the behavior you mention. BUT, knives and fists aren't, by design and intent, killing machines.

http://gawker.com/as-many-as-20-students-were-injured-this-morning-during-1561249261

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...-convicted-mass-stabbing-150324094334622.html

http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-children-killed-in-australia-mass-stabbing/2565398.html

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...lestinian-of-mass-stabbing-in-Tel-Aviv-408237

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-australia-stabbing-20141218-story.html


From countries with and without guns.


I would that Humanity managed to kill each other for thousands of years in mass numbers only using knives and fists. Hell Most of the Martial Arts were based completely on the idea that the Government of the time banned the populace from owning weapons.


From the UK:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...n-ban-uk-urges-save-life-surrender-your-knife

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

http://gawker.com/as-many-as-20-students-were-injured-this-morning-during-1561249261

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...-convicted-mass-stabbing-150324094334622.html

http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-children-killed-in-australia-mass-stabbing/2565398.html

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...lestinian-of-mass-stabbing-in-Tel-Aviv-408237

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-australia-stabbing-20141218-story.html


From countries with and without guns.


I would that Humanity managed to kill each other for thousands of years in mass numbers only using knives and fists. Hell Most of the Martial Arts were based completely on the idea that the Government of the time banned the populace from owning weapons.

I've only read your first link, but based on that you missed the point. How many were killed in a stabbing, was the question. That article says people were injured, not killed.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

I've only read your first link, but based on that you missed the point. How many were killed in a stabbing, was the question. That article says people were injured, not killed.

So you'd be okay with being shot and not killed? Attacked is Attacked. The other articles have people being killed. I didn't even post all the articles I found about people being attacked and killed with knives. Just the top five.

Plus if you follow the last link from the UK, they are now calling for people to surrender their knives which even Police there admit will do nothing to stop violence.

Stop blaming a tool, blame the person.


Since you didn't read the articles, here is an excerpt from one:

Queensland state police said they were called to a house in the Cairns suburb of Manoora Friday morning and found a wounded woman and the bodies of eight children aged between 18 months to 15 years.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This is pretty much it. We, as a nation, will NEVER have less shootings, or less violence. We won't have a civil discourse on gun control, and we won't institute any law with any significance. There will be some talk, there will some fairly pedestrian law, that make little difference, but will be enough to make politicians look like they did something to their constituents who show concern about the amount of gun violence. Shortly after the "new law" that does little to nothing is passed, someone will shoot up a mall, or a bank, or a school or whatever. Then the politicians will talk about the terrible tragedy, and they will "pray for the families." Next they will say it's too soon to have the discussion. Then there will be internet discussion where people attempt to make cogent arguments, but are met with ridiculous reactions.

wash, rinse, repeat

ad nauseum.

You are aware that and crime of all sorts have been going down in America for something like 18 of the last 20 years right? Gun violence included. The question isn't if we are safer now it's if we are sufficiently safe and nobody really seems to want to go in that direction.

According to the FBI between '07 and '11 we averaged about 13k murders in the US, the vast majority with firearms. (literally most years if you added up every other way to kill someone and then doubled it you wouldn't quite catch fire arm deaths) is 13k a year in a country of 330 million a number that we are okay with? If it is then the laws are working and we should focus on something else. Consider them acceptable losses, collateral or whatever helps you sleep at night. If that number is too high we should discuss how to unfuck it.

I have to add my two cents here:

First off, I support the second amendment. Saying I, a reasonable, moral and responsible person cannot own a gun because somebody else has in the past or might in the future commit a crime with one is absurd.

People get stabbed everyday too and there is no movement to ban knives on ANY level.


The was a murder on my street last year. He was beaten to death. Beaten with fists. Not a brick, not a bat, FISTS. Nobody is calling for a single Karate studio to be shut down.


Now about turning in guns. Cleveland had a gun buyback last week. $100 for handgun and $200 for Semi-automatic rifles.

People were lining up around the damn block to turn them in. They had it set up like a drive through, no questions asked. Give a gun - get a gift card. In and out in less than 5 minutes. I got $200 for a broken and un-fixable rifle. People were turning in really nice guns though. I saw a sweet H&K go into a bin to get melted.

Greedy short term people will turn in their guns. Most Criminals won't. Neither will responsible people who have a significant honest investment in their collection, no matter what the reason is that they have their guns.

Stop thinking inanimate objects are the problem. Start thinking about the mind controlling the hand holding the gun.

Fear the man, not the gun.

God, why do people still make such an obviously false argument?

Saying a reasonable a moral person cannot own a gun or item 'x' because someone has used it to commit a crime in the past is not an absurd idea. Some things are basically designed for this that or the other and we as a society (sometimes without our direct permission since we elect people to do our thinking and acting for us.) We do it all the time and as long as it's not guns people have this habit of pretending it didn't happen.

First there are weapons that are banned both in the country and internationally. The international ones tend to be WMDs but as written the 2nd Amendment protects Korea (or at least it's leaders) right to own a nuke every bit as much as it protects yours to have a gun. But it goes beyond that. Buying grenades, fully automatic weapons, crew served weapons, flamethrowers and tanks are all extremely difficult to get a hold of legally (or ill). Sure some of it you can buy if you're willing to let the government interview the principle of your third grade school and your roommate from college and a shit ton of other things.

According to the FBI you're 5 times more likely to be shot to death than stabbed. Though it does happen roughly five times a day. You make another erroneous claim. I've bolded it above about no movement to ban knives on any level.

That's simply false and shows you're not even passingly aware of current events in this country. While there are no formal movements to ban guns there are tons of restrictions on what you can have in public you know that right?

Yes sometimes people are beat to death, though your comment on karate is stupid. Were these kung fu masters who beat this man or a bunch of thugs? It makes a difference because outlawing kung fu because a bunch of thugs stomped someone to death would be like banning horses because someone got dragged behind a Ford Mustang. Sure they both have horse power.

Oh wow, Cleveland had a gun turn in and it showed positive results. Well ain't that bout a bitch to the argument that people won't.

We don't know if criminals will or will not turn in their guns nor if responsible gun owners would or wouldn't. Honestly if they are "responsible" (a fairly nebulous term here) gun owners and the law changed for whatever reason and they failed to comply at that exact second they become criminals just like any other. If we can put people in jail for years and years for possessing drugs or dealing drugs we sure as fuck could for guns if we so chose.

Of course inanimate objects are part of the problem. That's a grade schooler argument. Not an adult one.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

We don't need it, just require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in case they hurt or maim someone.
The insurance industry would handle the rest.

I know this is a "throw away" thread, but posting stupid shit like this only undermines the argument you are attempting to make.

"Insurability" is all about whether or not a given risk will occur and the cost of reimbursing the insured if it does. Only in the most extreme cases where BOTH the probability and costs are too high does the industry deem a risk to be uninsurable. But even in that case most insurers would simply jack up the premium and see if some fool was willing to pay it.

True uninsurablity lies with risks that cannot reasonably be calculated at all. See The Top Five Uninsurable Risks.

Last word: In the following table, 14 diseases rank ahead of "Intentional injuries," of which gun violence would only be a subset. When was the last time you heard of ANY of these diseases being uninsurable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

Too bad you did not have coverage for (once again) shooting yourself in the foot. But, then, talk about astronomical premiums....

 

[Not Normal]

http://gawker.com/as-many-as-20-students-were-injured-this-morning-during-1561249261

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...-convicted-mass-stabbing-150324094334622.html

http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-children-killed-in-australia-mass-stabbing/2565398.html

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...lestinian-of-mass-stabbing-in-Tel-Aviv-408237

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-australia-stabbing-20141218-story.html


From countries with and without guns.


I would that Humanity managed to kill each other for thousands of years in mass numbers only using knives and fists. Hell Most of the Martial Arts were based completely on the idea that the Government of the time banned the populace from owning weapons.


From the UK:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...n-ban-uk-urges-save-life-surrender-your-knife

Still not the frequency of mass shootings, or the guaranteed death that a gun ensures. Only one of those was in the US. How many mass shootings have we had THIS YEAR? How many public shootings? How many deaths from guns?

You are aware that and crime of all sorts have been going down in America for something like 18 of the last 20 years right? Gun violence included. The question isn't if we are safer now it's if we are sufficiently safe and nobody really seems to want to go in that direction.

According to the FBI between '07 and '11 we averaged about 13k murders in the US, the vast majority with firearms. (literally most years if you added up every other way to kill someone and then doubled it you wouldn't quite catch fire arm deaths) is 13k a year in a country of 330 million a number that we are okay with? If it is then the laws are working and we should focus on something else. Consider them acceptable losses, collateral or whatever helps you sleep at night. If that number is too high we should discuss how to unfuck it.

I think you miss the point of my post. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned, or that we shouldn't attempt to make stronger, more viable laws and restrictions. I'm saying we won't. I'm saying that conservatives, rednecks and the NRA won't allow it to happen. I actually think this is quite shameful, but I'm generally ashamed of the nation where I was born.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

When was the last mass stabbing where one person stabbed and killed several people and wounded others? How about a mass beating where one person took down sever inocent others?

Yes, its terrible, and I don't condone the behavior you mention. BUT, knives and fists aren't, by design and intent, killing machines.

The same week that Sandy Hook happened, a man in China went to a children's school & started stabbing little kids. I think a couple were killed and over 20 were wounded if I remember correctly.

And I can also recall a couple incidents in the US were a nutjob drove his car through a large crowd.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Still not the frequency of mass shootings, or the guaranteed death that a gun ensures. Only one of those was in the US. How many mass shootings have we had THIS YEAR? How many public shootings? How many deaths from guns?


I think you miss the point of my post. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned, or that we shouldn't attempt to make stronger, more viable laws and restrictions. I'm saying we won't. I'm saying that conservatives, rednecks and the NRA won't allow it to happen. I actually think this is quite shameful, but I'm generally ashamed of the nation where I was born.

The reason why the NRA sues the government so often is because that they realize that if their second amendment right is taken away in small increments, eventually that right would be completely taken away. So they fight hard in court every single time, no matter how small the case is.

I wish there was a group that would sue the government constantly to protect our 4th amendment rights as well. The 4th amendment has been whittled down to the point where it's nearly nonexistent. The government has tapped everyones cellphones and email accounts with a single warrant. There is not even the illusion of privacy anymore.

 

[kbate]

While Drugs do contribute to violence. I don't think that would get rid of 95% of gun crimes. Maybe 25%.

Guns are a modifier/multiplier and nothing more just like any other tool. People will do what people will do no matter what.

What do you think is the root of the killings in Chicago, Baltimore and Washington D.C? What do you think would happen if those who are shooting each other over drug territory suddenly had no customers because people started buying drugs in pharmacies?

Nobody knows what percentage of murders result from drug use, drug wars, war on drugs and so on. But we'd certainly have plenty of money to find out - 40 billion a year could be routed to something worth-the-while if we stopped fighting our 60 year old war on drugs.

People won't do what they're going to do, if what they do is no longer necessary. Drug users won't rob houses and mug people if they can buy reasonably priced drugs in the pharmacy. Drug dealers won't be shooting each other because they won't have territories to protect (and won't exist at all in a short time), and we won't be imprisoning 400,000 non-violent people (and the number of violent drug offenders will fall to nearly zero in a few years).

It wouldn't help the kids of Sandy Hook, or the two Journalists shot last week, but South Chicago wouldn't be a war zone and SE DC might see tourists again.

Barring anyone with a violent record or a domestic violence arrest from purchasing alcohol would also lower murder rates.

 

[Sean]

and we won't be imprisoning 400,000 non-violent people .

But what about the for profit prison system? Don't you care about the millionaires making money off slavery and human misery?

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

What do you think is the root of the killings in Chicago, Baltimore and Washington D.C? What do you think would happen if those who are shooting each other over drug territory suddenly had no customers because people started buying drugs in pharmacies?

Nobody knows what percentage of murders result from drug use, drug wars, war on drugs and so on. But we'd certainly have plenty of money to find out - 40 billion a year could be routed to something worth-the-while if we stopped fighting our 60 year old war on drugs.

People won't do what they're going to do, if what they do is no longer necessary. Drug users won't rob houses and mug people if they can buy reasonably priced drugs in the pharmacy. Drug dealers won't be shooting each other because they won't have territories to protect (and won't exist at all in a short time), and we won't be imprisoning 400,000 non-violent people (and the number of violent drug offenders will fall to nearly zero in a few years).

It wouldn't help the kids of Sandy Hook, or the two Journalists shot last week, but South Chicago wouldn't be a war zone and SE DC might see tourists again.

Barring anyone with a violent record or a domestic violence arrest from purchasing alcohol would also lower murder rates.

You bring up Chicago, Baltimore and Washington D.C. They have some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country & yet they are also some of the most violent cities in the United States. That is not just a coincidence.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Still not the frequency of mass shootings, or the guaranteed death that a gun ensures. Only one of those was in the US. How many mass shootings have we had THIS YEAR? How many public shootings? How many deaths from guns?


I think you miss the point of my post. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned, or that we shouldn't attempt to make stronger, more viable laws and restrictions. I'm saying we won't. I'm saying that conservatives, rednecks and the NRA won't allow it to happen. I actually think this is quite shameful, but I'm generally ashamed of the nation where I was born.

To your first paragraph as I noted above if the trend continues you can bet on between 8k and 11k gun deaths this year.

To your second perhaps I was unclear. overall violence has been and is on the decline. So we will, trends willing, see less violence in the future regardless of anything else we do or don't do. I agree we won't make any meaningful gun changes.

The same week that Sandy Hook happened, a man in China went to a children's school & started stabbing little kids. I think a couple were killed and over 20 were wounded if I remember correctly.

And I can also recall a couple incidents in the US were a nutjob drove his car through a large crowd.

I'm pretty sure they had zero fatalities but I'm not going to look it up. 20 stabbed and lets say until someone bothers to look it up 5 deaths. Mass shootings could easily have doubled that body count.

We require people to be licensed and insured to drive a car and can take it away at will. So right there your argument falls flat. More to the point cars make for poor weapons. They are fairly easily avoided, near impossible to conceal, have plenty of limits on where they can be used and their primary purpose is not to be a weapon. There is no inteligent comparison to be made.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

To your first paragraph as I noted above if the trend continues you can bet on between 8k and 11k gun deaths this year.

To your second perhaps I was unclear. overall violence has been and is on the decline. So we will, trends willing, see less violence in the future regardless of anything else we do or don't do. I agree we won't make any meaningful gun changes.



I'm pretty sure they had zero fatalities but I'm not going to look it up. 20 stabbed and lets say until someone bothers to look it up 5 deaths. Mass shootings could easily have doubled that body count.

We require people to be licensed and insured to drive a car and can take it away at will. So right there your argument falls flat. More to the point cars make for poor weapons. They are fairly easily avoided, near impossible to conceal, have plenty of limits on where they can be used and their primary purpose is not to be a weapon. There is no inteligent comparison to be made.

My argument does not fall flat. People that go nuts & use their cars as weapons typically do it once since they will most likely get arrested afterwards. They are not easily avoided especially going at high speed and during a crowded event like people leaving a stadium after a game.

Example video 1
Example video 2
Example video 3 (There are plenty more on youtube)

Cars are hiding in plain sight because people don't think some nutjob is going to slam on the gas and plow through a crowd. And cars can make an excellent weapon. Not only could you kill & maim dozens of people but you can quickly make an escape.

 

[Sean Renaud]

My argument does not fall flat. People that go nuts & use their cars as weapons typically do it once since they will most likely get arrested afterwards. They are not easily avoided especially going at high speed and during a crowded event like people leaving a stadium after a game.

Example video 1
Example video 2
Example video 3 (There are plenty more on youtube)

Cars are hiding in plain sight because people don't think some nutjob is going to slam on the gas and plow through a crowd. And cars can make an excellent weapon. Not only could you kill & maim dozens of people but you can quickly make an escape.

They are easily avoided. You finding some examples where they are not doesn't change the point at all. And the majority of violent deaths in the country aren't the result of nutbags losing it anyway.

Cars are in plain sight yes, but again not easily wielded as a weapon. They lack the precision to make good weapons. Though at least you did have your escape already planned out!

Which ultimately doesn't change that the primary use for them is not to kill. I could drown you in my pool and the water wouldn't even have fingerprints! That doesn't make a pool my weapon of choice.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Sean,

You are wrong about one thing. You can very easily buy a Flamethrower in Cleveland.

http://throwflame.com/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/13/smallbusiness/flamethrowers-public-sale/

As far as guns only being designed to kill argument? Well, so are Bows and Arrows. True, there's been no mass murders with one. But just because something doesn't have a peaceful purpose doesn't mean no one should be able to own it.

Hell, if that's the case get rid of Fireworks, Samurai Swords, Paintball guns and Machetes.

The statement that my comparison of banning Karate to prevent beating deaths being stupid. No, it's not. The man who beat the man to death wasn't a Kung Fu master but it is the same parallel. Karate makes you better at beating, punching and kicking, someone and doing it to death in this case.

Guns being a multiplier tool is analogous to saying a nailgun is a multiplier tool. It makes a task easier. Karate makes it easier / makes you better at beating someone.

Deal with the problems of people wanting to commit the act, not the tool they might use to do it.

Now with that I will admit to heavily supporting social services to prevent and treat mental illness and a mandatory registration of guns. I don't care if the government know what guns I have, just don't think you are going to take them away without a good and definitive reason.


Now as for the point that legalizing drugs will reduce gun crimes. No, it won't. Addicts will steal, rob, attack people to get that next fix whether it's legal or not. Addiction is a terrible disease that cares not if the fixation is easily accessible. It you can't afford your drugs at Walmart, you will still steal to get them.

And if tomorrow all drugs were legal do you think that Criminals would immediately go straight and get honest jobs? No most would move into some other criminal enterprise. Bootlegging contraband, prostitution etc.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

They are easily avoided. You finding some examples where they are not doesn't change the point at all. And the majority of violent deaths in the country aren't the result of nutbags losing it anyway.

Cars are in plain sight yes, but again not easily wielded as a weapon. They lack the precision to make good weapons. Though at least you did have your escape already planned out!

Which ultimately doesn't change that the primary use for them is not to kill. I could drown you in my pool and the water wouldn't even have fingerprints! That doesn't make a pool my weapon of choice.

My point is that in your fantasy that guns could be removed, that would not stop a motivated individual from killing a lot of people with something else. And cars do not need precision to kill & maim a lot of people. I just showed you three videos that destroy that inane argument. You just need a location where a lot of people will be packed closely together to do some serious damage, no precision required. The crowd won't be able to move out of the way because of the density of the crowd. You can't run full speed through a big crowd, that's impossible.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

I have to add that the deadliest school massacre was in 1927 and used no firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The Bath School disaster was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults and injured at least 58 other people. Kehoe first killed his wife, firebombed his farm, and detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is currently the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history.


Now consider this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/2...-drowning-to-make-room-for/?intcmp=latestnews

An East Texas teenager is accused of pushing his pregnant girlfriend's 3-year-old nephew into a pond so the boy would drown to make room for the unborn child to live at their home.

Bobby Woods, 17, faces a charge of capital murder of a person under age 6. He was booked as an adult after his arrest Friday and remained in the Angelina County jail without bond Saturday.



The pond was his weapon of choice.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I stand corrected on flamethrowers. I occasionally forget that California law doesn't stretch beyond it's borders. Still I listed plenty of other weapons that are varying levels of difficult to get a hold of. But I was wrong.

Something not having a peaceful purpose is actually a fairly good reason why people shouldn't be able to own one. I'm sure somewhere some one was a mass murderer with a bow and arrow, a mass shooting requires 4 or more victims. So I'm sure it's happened, probably even made the news for being awesome. It's still an inferior tool for the job.

However ultimately the decision is made by society if the freedom is worth the loss of security that comes with it. It's really as simple as that.

Also fireworks are for entertainment, that is a peaceful use. They aren't even designed as weapons and while dangerous most of them make poor weapons. It's difficult to kill a healthy human with a paintball gun. (I'd say impossible but then you'd google up some dude who got hit in the throat and suffocated.) Machetes actually have use for clearing growth. They are, strictly speaking poor weapons. There is a reason most military swords can be used to thrust. Honestly I don't think anybody would really cry if you decided to ban samurai swords, especially not if they started being a major problem. As is stated above it's a balancing act between freedom and security. Currently we all feel sufficiently secure against mutant ninja turtles and thus katana are just fine to have.

Unless martial arts were used the multiplier (which is not the proper term here) is still stupid. You wouldn't ban golf clubs or baseball bats because someone was beat to death with a tree branch. Stupid argument. And again as the FBI points out it's sufficiently rare and even if it weren't I'm not sure how you'd ban martial arts to begin with. Some things are truly impossible.

Limiting the tools available does deal with the individuals who are going to do various crimes. It's hard to go on a rampage with something that you can't get in the first place.

Of course legalizing drugs would cut way down on crime and overnight. First buying, selling and possession of drugs are all crimes. Right then and there you've limited crime. Most average joes don't want to deal with criminals anyway. Assuming the price wasn't outrageous most people would go to Wal-Mart for their weed rather than Professor Stinkweed for obvious reasons.

How many criminals would go legit vs getting into other jobs is impossible to judge. WE could (and should) legalize prostitution. Eliminates that avenue. Contraband you'd have to list on a case by case basis. Some I don't think they'd make enough money to support a large number of criminals, some we could legalize.

Why wouldn't many of them in the case of drugs or prostitution go legit anyway? If I'm selling weed on the street corner today. Dodging cops, paying off whatever other criminals are in the area, carrying a weapon (possibly illegally if I've been convicted) to protect myself in the past and now the government says "Go forth, set up Shaggy and Scoobie's Doobie Snacks Shack" do you honestly think the average criminal is going to respond "man going legit is for bitches!" and change over to something new simply to remain in crime? Is that how you think things went at the end of prohibition that instead of the owners of Speakeasies opening bars that they decided to leave that to 'good' people and switched over to drugs and prostitution? Most criminals aren't criminals because they think it's fun. It's because it's is viewed (correctly or not) as the most productive thing they can do with their skill set and circumstances.

It of course wouldn't eliminate everything but it would be a huge step.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I stand corrected on flamethrowers. I occasionally forget that California law doesn't stretch beyond it's borders. Still I listed plenty of other weapons that are varying levels of difficult to get a hold of. But I was wrong.

Something not having a peaceful purpose is actually a fairly good reason why people shouldn't be able to own one. I'm sure somewhere some one was a mass murderer with a bow and arrow, a mass shooting requires 4 or more victims. So I'm sure it's happened, probably even made the news for being awesome. It's still an inferior tool for the job.

However ultimately the decision is made by society if the freedom is worth the loss of security that comes with it. It's really as simple as that.

Also fireworks are for entertainment, that is a peaceful use. They aren't even designed as weapons and while dangerous most of them make poor weapons. It's difficult to kill a healthy human with a paintball gun. (I'd say impossible but then you'd google up some dude who got hit in the throat and suffocated.) Machetes actually have use for clearing growth. They are, strictly speaking poor weapons. There is a reason most military swords can be used to thrust. Honestly I don't think anybody would really cry if you decided to ban samurai swords, especially not if they started being a major problem. As is stated above it's a balancing act between freedom and security. Currently we all feel sufficiently secure against mutant ninja turtles and thus katana are just fine to have.

Unless martial arts were used the multiplier (which is not the proper term here) is still stupid. You wouldn't ban golf clubs or baseball bats because someone was beat to death with a tree branch. Stupid argument. And again as the FBI points out it's sufficiently rare and even if it weren't I'm not sure how you'd ban martial arts to begin with. Some things are truly impossible.

Limiting the tools available does deal with the individuals who are going to do various crimes. It's hard to go on a rampage with something that you can't get in the first place.

Of course legalizing drugs would cut way down on crime and overnight. First buying, selling and possession of drugs are all crimes. Right then and there you've limited crime. Most average joes don't want to deal with criminals anyway. Assuming the price wasn't outrageous most people would go to Wal-Mart for their weed rather than Professor Stinkweed for obvious reasons.

How many criminals would go legit vs getting into other jobs is impossible to judge. WE could (and should) legalize prostitution. Eliminates that avenue. Contraband you'd have to list on a case by case basis. Some I don't think they'd make enough money to support a large number of criminals, some we could legalize.

Why wouldn't many of them in the case of drugs or prostitution go legit anyway? If I'm selling weed on the street corner today. Dodging cops, paying off whatever other criminals are in the area, carrying a weapon (possibly illegally if I've been convicted) to protect myself in the past and now the government says "Go forth, set up Shaggy and Scoobie's Doobie Snacks Shack" do you honestly think the average criminal is going to respond "man going legit is for bitches!" and change over to something new simply to remain in crime? Is that how you think things went at the end of prohibition that instead of the owners of Speakeasies opening bars that they decided to leave that to 'good' people and switched over to drugs and prostitution? Most criminals aren't criminals because they think it's fun. It's because it's is viewed (correctly or not) as the most productive thing they can do with their skill set and circumstances.

It of course wouldn't eliminate everything but it would be a huge step.

If you truly care about anything other than your political masters. If you truly want to save lives....then try to outlaw alcohol, obesity, and swimming pools.

You will save roughly 10,000 times the lives. You would also have a greater chance at success.

Because all you are doing now is blowing hot air about a constitutional right that will NEVER be taken away. Hot air fed to you by your masters as they drop their scraps to make you happy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you truly care about anything other than your political masters. If you truly want to save lives....then try to outlaw alcohol, obesity, and swimming pools.

You will save roughly 10,000 times the lives. You would also have a greater chance at success.

Because all you are doing now is blowing hot air about a constitutional right that will NEVER be taken away. Hot air fed to you by your masters as they drop their scraps to make you happy.

We did outlaw alcohol once. The price turned out to be way to high. As it is with drugs but we're slow learners on that. Probably because it disproportionately effects minorities. I'd be happy to take steps to "outlaw" obesity. I don't think any headway would be made but I'd entertain conversations on that. Outlawing swimming pools would be asinine. By the by I have no political masters.

While I know you were being outlandish with your 10k times the lives. Drowning averages around 3k lives per year and that's not just swimming pools. That's all drowning. So if I eliminated liquids from the United States entirely preventing every single drowning death I'd still in an average year be below what would happen if half of shooting deaths were removed.

The 2nd amendment has been chipped at here and there for over a century, no real reason to think it won't continue down the line. We'll never change your sacred piece of paper. We'll just ignore it.

 

[Weird Harold]

... California law doesn't stretch beyond it's borders. ...

Thank God for small favors.