Gun control and violence

[Zmid]

I change my mind...

 

People kill people.

 

A gun is simply one of many things designed to do so.

Well, the only things that I know of that is commonly owned by ordinary people in the US that has no purpose except to kill are guns of various types.

 

People are going to kill each other no matter what.

 

Guns are just the main "tool" so they get blamed insted of people.

 

If a new method or "tool" of killing came around everyone would hate that and want to ban that.

 

And quite rightly so. If people are so prone to murder, why have it that it is perfectly legal to own something that is purely and solely designed for killing?

 

Situation:

 

Father and son walking through forest going to hunting stand.

 

Son drops his gun and the gun discharges. Blows father's head off.

 

Would you blame the gun or the son?

 

No-one. This was a very regrettable accident (unless the son deliberately dropped the gun).

 

The Muslim religion clearly states in the Q'ran that they must kill anyone who is not muslim

 

I know the passage you mean. What you leave out is immediately before that passage, the Qur'an says:

 

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

 

then goes on to say, essentially, that, if they do fight you, fight back and give no mercy, no quarter, and persecute them and slay them wherever you find them, then, immediately after that passage, it says:

 

But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

I have read some of the Qur'an.

 

Similar and more violent passages can be found in the Christian bible. For example:

 

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.

Deuteronomy 13:13-19

 

I have also read some of the bible.

 

With only a few exceptions, every religion in the world has passages somewhat similar to above in their holy texts. This does not mean that is the modern preaching of that religion.

 

The extremist of this group is the Shiits. They are the biggest threat to all religious countries. They will hate us for the soul reason that is their faith. Christian believe anyone that doesn't follow their god will go to hell. Muslims believe that anyone that doesn't follow their god must die. That is why when the 9/11 attack happened the attackers clealy called it a "holy war"...

 

Extremists of any religion pose a danger, no matter what that religion is.

[UberBender]

Spoons are not blamed for making someone fat. (people die from obesity)

 

The sun is not be blamed for making people blind.

 

Gravity is not blamed when someone commits suicide off the side of a building.

 

Cars are not blamed in car accidents. (unless it is a mechanical failure)

 

Time is not blamed when people die from old age.

 

Guns should not be blamed for killing someone.

[surian]

However, those items are also not designed to do those things either. They may be inadvertantly used for such things but their purpose is not to harm anything (at least in the cases that have "purposes"). A gun, on the other hand is specifically designed to kill either animals or people (and in some cases only people). I'd take that into consideration. Again, I'm not advocating the removal of all guns, but I am saying that guns do, in fact, kill people. It's what they are designed to do. You'd have a hard time winning a war with only the weapons from clue (excluding the revolver).

 

I don't know, I just don't see the validity of the protection by guns argument. Other countries don't have guns and their violent crime rates are not any higher than the USA's are, in fact they are significantly lower in most cases. One of the better points in Bowling for Columbine was that Canada, a nation with fairly leanient gun laws, has an almost non-existant murder rate from gun related crimes. This, to me, would suggest that it isn't the guns that are inherantly evil but rather it's the culture that we are brought up with in this country that makes us abuse guns so much. With that being said, I can't imagine it's a good idea to let such people have so many guns in the first place.

[Malchik]

If an individual intends to kill another in cold blood they will do so. A push under a tube, smothering while asleep, poison... So yes there are many things beside guns that can be used. However in addition to surian's comment I would add that

 

a) accidents with guns are more likely to be fatal than accidents with other weapons

 

B) guns can be used for multiple killings, no other form of weapon can do this (I am not including bombs which I think even now are unlikely to be found in your average US household)

 

c) who has ever heard of a drive-by knifing?

 

Guns are not the only weapon, they are just by far the most dangerous.

[Zmid]

Spoons are not blamed for making someone fat. (people die from obesity)

Because spoons do not have the sole purpose of making people fat. They are designed and can be used for all manner of things (for example, eating low-fat yoghurt).

 

The sun is not be blamed for making people blind.

 

Because the sun is not specifically designed to make people go blind. It also provides enough light and heat for life on Earth to exist.

 

Gravity is not blamed when someone commits suicide off the side of a building.

 

Because that is not the sole purpose or use of gravity. Without gravity, we wouldn't be here. We'd just spin off into space. Not only that, gravity is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

 

Cars are not blamed in car accidents. (unless it is a mechanical failure)

 

Because cars are not intended to have accidents. Their primary purpose is to transport people from point A to point B.

 

Time is not blamed when people die from old age.

 

Because the passage of time is unavoidable and, again, is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Plus of course, it is actually the fact human beings age with the passage of time that causes death through old age, not just the passage of time itself.

 

Guns should not be blamed for killing someone.

 

Why not? Guns are designed specifically and solely to kill. They have no other purpose.

[Darnoc]

That was I. If you like it or not, US-cititzens, the EU is economically more powerful than the USA :P

 

Concerning guns: Yes, people kill people, but guns are a tool only designed for exactly this purpose: to kill people (or when it is a hunting gun animals). It is logical that when no guns would exist, the murder rate would drop, because you cannot kill as much people without a gun as with a gun (or a bomb, but as someone said, this is not likely to happen). So, when almost no one would have a gun, the murder rate would drop rapidly. If gun sales would be under control by the government (and black market destroyed), it would be harder to get a gun at all.

[Darnoc]

The Black Market can be destroyed... when the government takes over the business and begins to control it. The government has the means to sell weapons cheaper than the black market, so you can destroy it economically. But that is only the first step. As soon as the black market seized to exist (or has been taken over by government agents or has been reduced to a controllable amount), the government begins to tighten things up. At this time, the government has to control not only the selling of weapons, but also the complete production. No weapon is produced by private firms, all the weapon producing firms are under control of government agents. Foreign weapon firms are bought up or driven into bankrupt, so that the government has the monopole on production and selling of weapons. Because the government controls the market (and has the monopole on it), the government can determine the prices. So, prices are going up, taxes on guns are going straight up the roof, difficult tests are required to gain a licence which gives you the right to own a gun at all.

 

Of course such a thing can never happen in the oh so capitalistic USA. Perhaps in Europe where socialists are rather strong.

 

And prohibition never works. Experience tells. That is why they are discussing the legalization of soft drugs as Marihuana and Hashish (at least in Switzerland). There is a people's initiative which has launched, we will vote on it in some years.

 

That means I can legally smoke a joint in Switzerland, while you poor guys over there in the USA, hehe :P

[UberBender]

That would defeat the purpose of capitalism.

 

Capitalism is based on the fact that if two companies compete prices will lower.

[Darnoc]

Perhaps it is a choice between what is more important to you and what you are willing to sacrifice. The moral choice would certainly be to allow the government to take action. The conservative choice, based on emotional and illogical fear (I don't really want to discuss the problems of capitalism, socialism and communism right now, but if you really want to, go on, I have read "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx, so I'm prepared :P ), would be to say "No, don't let the government into business, we don't want it to have so much power".

 

It's a choice between those two things:

 

- either you choose what morality and logic demands

 

- or you choose to go down the way of tradition and fear of change

 

And as said, I am ready to discuss the usefulness and danger of capitalism and socialism, I am prepared. I warned you.

[Peregrine]

Darnoc, three problems with your fantasy:

 

1) Doing that with any industry would completely contradict the basic principles of our country. Anyone even thinking of a government monopoly in an industry would quickly find themselves out of office and their head on a pike, not only by the corporations who would be destroyed by it, but by the voters who would never support the removal of such a basic freedom.

 

2) Guns are not a perishable item. A well built gun (and the government ones would have to be, otherwise nobody buys them) will outlive its owner by far. 100+ year old WWI era rifles work just as well as the day they were made. And if that's too primitive, you've got millions of surplus M1 Garands (sold direct to your door by the US government!) , AK-47s, SKSs, etc. Semi-auto death and destruction in nice powerful rifle calibers... forget body armor and the hospital, you don't survive that. These aren't going to go away no matter how much the gun-control supporters wish for it. And with your flooding the market strategy, now you've got even more guns to get rid of...

 

3) Guns are far less complicated than you might think. Sure, a precision sniper rifle might be hard to make without expensive tools, but something like an AK-47 has such simple construction and loose tolerances that basic machine tools are all that you need. Or perhaps a little history lesson and build some Sten SMGs.... few parts, all of which are insanely easy to make. Cheap, simple, and effective.

 

So what's that mean? First sign of the government raising prices and those private corporations all come right back. To keep them gone, the government would have to continue supplying quality guns at cheap prices. So congratulations, now you've just made them even easier to get by cutting the price!

 

================================

 

And since quoting such a long debate would be too annoying, general replies on the subject:

 

1) Put the gun violence "problem" in perspective. Even with the worst numbers, you're far more likely to die of countless other things. Car accidents, heart attacks, getting struck by lightning, etc. Gun control (as applied to the average citizen, not criminals) should be a far lower priority than these other problems.

 

2) A weapon of any kind is an inanimate object. Without the will of the person who uses it, it can't do anything. The same gun could just as easily save someone's life as kill someone. Blaming the weapon for the actions of its owner is pure idiocy.

 

3) A gun can't kill someone by itself. It has to be used by someone who already intends to harm their victim. Once that intent is there, anything can be a weapon. Take away the gun and they'll kill with a knife. Take away the knife, they'll kill with a baseball bat.

 

4) Yes, I concede that these alternate weapons are less effective than guns, especially when mass murder is the intent. But again, put it in perspective. Mutliple murders at the same time are a tiny fraction of violent crime as a whole. Even the few criminals who kill multiple victims usually do so spread out in time, over many years in some cases. The potential rate of killing of the weapon is completely irrelevant in nearly all violent crimes.

 

5) For a final kill shot in the gun control argument, look at Switzerland. Every adult male is required to own the standard military rifle (something Americans can only dream of owning legally) and ammunition. But where's high murder rate?