A Different Approach On Gun Control

Post Reply New Topic

I've been biting my tongue on the subject in fear that I might start another Interactive Conflict, but this, frankly, has been tugging at my heart. In the gun control debate, people have been offering "solutions" to the gun violence issue that has plagued us in the recent past. Things like resurrecting the Assault Weapons Ban, limiting high-capacity magazines, installing biometrics in guns, and other things along those lines have been proposed. The one thing people haven't done was think about how those things might actually help. One thing people could have done was ask themselves these questions:

Does gun control make college free of expense or, much less, cheaper than it is, now?

Does it make health care free, if not, cheaper than it is, now?

Does it make it easier for individuals with a mortgage to make payments?

Does it lower gas prices?

Does it make groceries cheaper?

Does it make housing cheaper?

Does it cure mental illness?

In short, does gun control fix social woes that convince normally rational, respectable people to do dirty deeds in order to hold their heads above water?

If the legislation doesn't fix these issues, than why suggest them? Don't use arguments like the 2nd Amendment is outdated, because if this is so, than the rest of the Constitution is outdated, meaning technically, you mindlessly running your mouth is illegal, posting anything on an internet forum is illegal, worshiping freely is illegal, and any other right you hold dearly is illegal. Don't use other countries as examples, we're not like other countries. Besides, Japan has a relatively high rate of blade related violence, Yakuza being a chief contributor. Plus, in Japan, you have to pay a lot of money to obtain a firearm and pass mental health checks and competency tests, all of which Yakuza had accomplished. My stepfather, being that he's from England, said that there was an article in the British news where a man killed his wife and then himself with an ordinary hunting rifle, which with special licensing makes the weapon legal. Don't stand there and tell me it's for the kids. I'm all for making this country safer for kids like my niece and nephew, but if they aren't my relatives, then why should I care? If I'm not offered some kind of incentive to abridge my Constitutional rights, perhaps free groceries or college tuition, then don't bother telling me about the children, because, to tell you the truth, I don't give a sh**. I'm not inhuman for not caring about someone I've never developed a bond with, much less someone I actually met. Drop those arguments before you even start.

I thought you were going to offer a different approach. Every one has heard all the arguments.

I'm for different countries approaching it differently.

I also think comparison of crime statistics between countries are are flawed becuase they don't record crime the same way. There was famous example where some statistics were used by politicians and in several newspapers. When investigating further it was basically insinuating the the UK had higher rate violent crime than South Africa. The is blatantly total utter nonsense, if you take simply reported, not necessarily convicted crime, the two are not even on the same scale unless it is a logarithmic scale you are talking about. Anyone who has lived in both countries which I have knows this is total tripe.

Most of the reasons for crime are related in some way to culture and behavior, and economics naturally.

In fact I'm doubtful it is much about guns. It goes both ways: Less gun or more guns isn't going to stop crime alone, it just changes the nature of crime. I see no evidence to support proponents of either side of the argument, as a general rule of of thumb, I do not buy the claims often cited which are far from conclusive. There is simply no evidence that an armed society has less crime or an unarmed society for that matter. The picture is quite mixed across the world.

However regarding your attitude about why you should care about others safety, there is almost no point in being a citizen if you don't care about public safety. You might as well be an anarchist, in which case don't look to the constitution to back you up, especially as you are not really upholding its principles, intended by the rights provided.

I wonder what would happen if gun ownership was mandatory for every legal adult citizen without a criminal record or history of psychotic episodes.

I think all guns should be banned for all civilians, only the police and military should be allowed to carry guns.

I think the problem is people mold views to fit what is expected of that position, so they sort of need thing to be true, whether it really the case.

For instance those that argue in favour of gay right vs those that don't. they have made it an argument over whether it is a choice.

So most involved need it to be either or. But what if it is not either or?

What differnce does it make if some people choose to be gay, and some people are born with it. Why should either case be less deserving of rights?

This is perverting the science due to politics becuase the science says that whist people are born with sexuality, sexuality is not always a fixed thing. However many people are not ever going to find a particular sex sexually attractive. But as far as the law is concern, it shouldn't concern itself with whether it is a choice or not, it is not the business of the state.

The same sort of stupid simplistic thinking is used in the gun debate on both sides. What if there is no real correlation, or is a more minor fact in violent crime? But no, they need it to be somehow related....which is ahem not objective or empirical.