Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scelly9]

Also, things like shooting sprees would be a thing of the past, as mass murders are a bit harder to do with a broadsword.

Don't forget, gunpowder is REALLY easy to make and a pipebomb doesn't really require technical prowess.

[kaijyuu]

Consider the difficulty of going wacko in a school with a semi automatic vs a few pipe bombs. The gun is almost certainly going to have a higher body/maiming count.


Of course, there are bigger bombs, but high power explosives ala the Oklahoma bombings require a lot of time, effort, and prowess. Plus, people who use those tend to have very different motives than those who tend to go nuts with a gun.

[Truean]

Guns are more lethal than swords or knives, though. Slash and stab wounds are easier to treat than gun wounds despite being more dramatic, due to our fleshy nature. The idea of a sword having higher damage potential than a gun is entirely fictional.

Sure murders would still happen, but victims would have a higher chance of survival. Also, things like shooting sprees would be a thing of the past, as mass murders are a bit harder to do with a broadsword.



(note that all of this is ignoring the practicality of outright banning guns in the first place)

I get it man. That's kinda why:

As an incredibly over exaggerated example:

Still though. The point was that if people really wanna hurt or kill each other, then there really isn't a lot you can do to stop 'em once they're determined, or just straight up lose it. Banning guns, even if you could, wouldn't stop the underlying issue: violence.

Though I will respectfully disagree with you on one point. If someone is gonna just gonna kill me and there's nothing to be done about it, then I hope they shoot me dead in one shot as opposed to repeatedly stabbing me or letting me bleed out. It's easier to be kill with a gun; it isn't always easier to be killed by a gun. Course, I hope no one kills me, ever....

[GlyphGryph]

Guns are more lethal than swords or knives, though. Slash and stab wounds are easier to treat than gun wounds despite being more dramatic, due to our fleshy nature. The idea of a sword having higher damage potential than a gun is entirely fictional.

Swords do more damage than guns (at least 9mm pistols) assuming full commitment, but damage is of little importance next to speed, range, and guaranteed 100% commitment with each strike (bullets don't if a person hesitates about whether or not they really want to kill this guy halfway to the target).

[ChairmanPoo]

Plus you have to run after your victims and you get tired. No fun.

[Sheb]

Of course, a lot of dead by guns aren't planned homicide, but burglaries, mugging or other things that went wrong.

Of course, the problem with the US is that there is some many fucking guns around that even a total ban would take years to affect the black market.


Also, totally unrelated, but this made me happy. They've still got like 85% of their funding, and I doubt the Koch brothers will quit, but it's still cool.

[Dutchling]

Since people were using examples of other countries that do have gun bans, I guess that was the impression I got

I'm FOR regulation, I just don't think strict regulation is needed

Nobody is talking about blanket gun bans. I doubt there is any country in the world where such exist.

That sort of depends on where you would use the gun for. Owning guns for self defence is illegal in the Netherlands, as you need a legit reason to own one and shooting other people is not one of them unless you get paid for it by the government. Shooting for sports is a legit reason though, so I guess you could go to a shooting range once every year and then stash all your guns at home to feel more secure.

[scriver]

Hence not a blanket gun ban. Just restrictions.

[Phmcw]

Mostly, I think the problem is that, in some state, it's legal to shoot to defend a property, and guns are seen as a legitimate self defense tool, while in more peaceful European countries, they are seen as a very last resort or a sign that police don't do its job.

A regulation is only useful if it's enforceable, and the first step is getting most people to admit that giving everyone guns is not a good solution to the ambient violence.

[kaijyuu]

The main argument for gun ownership (beyond the amendment that long ago stopped being relevant) is that guns are an equalizer. It doesn't matter if you're a body builder or a wrinkly old lady in a wheelchair, a fight breaking out for whatever reason will be more or less even if both sides have guns (and in favor of a potential victim if they have one and the aggressor doesn't). Whereas, in a gun-less society, whoever's more physically capable will probably have control of the situation, and when you throw the practicality of a gun ban into play, only criminals will have guns.


To convince people that guns aren't a good solution to ambient violence, you have to convince them that violently fighting back isn't a good idea. A bit difficult here; people often have pride in keeping control of their situation and their property. The stereotypical redneck sitting on the front porch stroking a shotgun is an exaggeration, but that mentality is still partially ingrained into our culture.

[Sheb]

Well, the reality in Beglium at least is that most criminals don't use guns. It's simply not worth it most of the time, as it's an aggravating circumstance if you're caught and you don't need it.

And guns may act as equalizer, but they also make it much more likely someone will get hurt real bad. If neither the old lady nor the bodybuilder have weapons, the bodybuilder will win in 100% of the case, and the old lady will loose some jewelry and maybe get some bruise.

If both have guns, the old lady may have a 50% chance of winning, but when she loose, she's much more likely to end badly hurt, or killed.

Also, we Non-American usually consider than when a thief get shot, it's still a sad thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

[Phmcw]

If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

That's the antithesis of justice.

"If you didn't want to get shot, you should not have been speeding" is equally relevant. I mean you could kill someone by speeding.

[scriver]

If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

Victim blaming is always fun, isn't it.

[justinlee999]

Thieves here tend to carry machetes, which is hardly effective against cops with pistols. So you can guess how often thieves are shot and killed when they attempt to charge at the cop with a machete.

I'd say this no-gun law is pretty successful, thieves are much more harmless over here.