Banning Guns = Banning Islam?
69charger
Posts: 1,045
Here's the argument...
A lot of people on this board would like to see a total ban on guns based on a very small fraction of a percentage of firearms being used to comit high profile crimes. The majority of the millions of guns in this country are never used to comit a crime and in fact are used over a million times a year to prevent crime.
So the logic goes...
Based on the small fraction of a percentage of crimes being comitted by Muslim extremeists we should ban the worship of Islam because it is apparently dangerous. That majority of Muslims in the world have never comitted a crime and in fact are appalled by the violence comitted in the name of their religion.
Does anyone get the point I'm trying to make?
A lot of people on this board would like to see a total ban on guns based on a very small fraction of a percentage of firearms being used to comit high profile crimes. The majority of the millions of guns in this country are never used to comit a crime and in fact are used over a million times a year to prevent crime.
So the logic goes...
Based on the small fraction of a percentage of crimes being comitted by Muslim extremeists we should ban the worship of Islam because it is apparently dangerous. That majority of Muslims in the world have never comitted a crime and in fact are appalled by the violence comitted in the name of their religion.
Does anyone get the point I'm trying to make?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
who are this 'lot'??? i think there are only 2 or 3 on here who advocate a total ban!
and as for your point you are making... my point is that 3 schoolkids were shot yesterday by a spasmatroid with a gun (highly probable it was his!)
and as for banning Islam... i thought "people killed people" now you are telling me "religion kills people"... make your minds up... guns DONT kill people, but Islam does.... i'm fucking lost!?
But I dunno how many on here are for total banning of guns. Most I read are calling for stricter regulation of them. But then again, some on here seem to be arguing that muslims should be banned or whatever. This place is crazy at times.
I am all for heavy restrictions for gun purchase and ownership, but people should still get them and have them without having to explain themselves overtly. Guns are dangerous, and I see no reason for them being an item you can grab by the counter and put next to your gum and shampoo either.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think he's saying that both 'guns kills people' and 'Islam kills people' are both misconceptions, or at least too simplistic.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
No, that's exactly my point.
Banning guns makes as much sense as banning Islam.
banning guns = innocent kids lives will be saved
banning Islam = the equivalent of being a Nazi
how about making guns extremely difficult to have, full checks to be made, guns licenced, handguns to be kept in authorised safes, etc..
and at the same time you can go and search for the religious extremists people appear to fear so much
more kids have died in the states in the last two years as a result of being shot by ACCIDENT in a handgun misuse scenario than renegade 'Muslims' have killed since the year 0....
i fail to see your correalition... its a poor analogy
if you want to get technical banning / full registration of guns = equivalent of nazi germany as well.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
Those people were killed, deported, put in camps because of gun registration. Right. Can anyone say "marginal side-issue"? Sheesh.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i only brought it up b/c the person above me did. if they can use it as a valid comparison, i can use it as a valid comparison. I realize it's a stretch, just like it's a stretch to suggest that the banning of guns is going to stop violent crimes and accidental deaths.
However, guns dont have to be available anywhere at all times, with noone knowing who has how many either. People should be allowed to own them, certainly. But there are many measures that can be tried and used inbetween "I love my 5 million guns" and "Noone should have guns". and most people here, maybe even dunky, are promoting stricter regulation for the most part. As I understand it, you pretty much dont have any regulation over there.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Statistically guns save over 1 million lives a year and only kill 20,000 per year (half of those deaths are suicides), of which approx 3,500 are children of which approximately 1,000 are suicide related.
So will you forsake the lives of millions for that of 3,500?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
On the contrary! We have tens of thousands of laws that regulate the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, possession, and uses of guns.
None of which will keep a criminal from comitting a crime with a gun.
you don't think background checks accomplish anything?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
2.55 Million! I was low-balling for arguments sake.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html
"...that same year there were an estimated 2.55 million defensive gun uses (DGUs), 37.3% of them in the victim/defender's home, or about 950,000 in the home.[9] Although gun control advocates have questioned DGU estimates,[4,11] the claim of large numbers of DGUs has been confirmed in at least 16 surveys, and the criticisms concerning flaws in DGU surveys have been rebutted.[5,9,12] These criticisms were based on one-sided speculation about errors in surveys, rather than empirical evidence. To date, there is no empirical evidence that false-positive reports of DGU outnumber false negatives (ie, failure to report DGUs), and thus no foundation for the claim that surveys overestimate the prevalence of DGUs.[12] In sum, the best available estimates indicate that there are about 6 times as many DGUs in US homes each year as criminal/aggressive uses (950,000:155,000). "
I am for background checks. I've had 3 this year.
However, it will not stop a determined criminal from getting a firearm.
I'm not for complete de-regulation of ownership, but some of the laws out there are completely idiotic.
Than you are arguing out of ignorance. We have plenty of laws concerning guns and who, when and how they can get them. Unfortunately, as there is in any country, there's a very healthy black market here. Much the same as if you banned them outright, only the people (for the most part) who ARE responsible follow the laws currently in place as far as guns are concerned.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I guess you do. But does any of the laws entail licensing of selling and owning guns? Are there anything in place to revoke the license of an unfit individual? Background checks?
compared to Norwegian standards, I just skimmed through our laws on the subject. The gun salesman must have a license from the police, as must any purchaser of a gun. Walking around with weapons on your person in town is not allowed. You must always carry your license with your gun, and if you are deemed unfit to own a gun, your license is revoked.
And I'm still very interested in the source of your numbers. (edit) ah, you posted it now. nevermind.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Last I checked the guy down the corner in Brooklyn selling hot guns, doesnt run background checks.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
why did you not say banning christianity. cause quite frankly if you look throughout history, christianity would give islam a very competative run for its money in the violence stakes.
but if i put the quran to your head i can not pull a trigger and watch your lifeless body fall to the dirt. but if i put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, i can indeed watch as your lifeless body falls to the ground.
you know, a few years ago a man went on a rampage down here and killed a bunch of people. the government went a little crazy some thought and banned rifles. we have never been allowed to own handguns. anyway, you know what? we survived. as a nation we are okay with not being armed. and yes sure there are those criminals who do have weapons. and yes there are those members of gun clubs that have weapons. and yes we are safer. gun control is not infalliable but you have to start somewhere. someone has to make that first step.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
that didnt answer my question
so you are saying background checks have accomplished nothing?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Sales by a business require a Federal Firearms License and a Federal Background Check. There is no license required by the purchaser only the seller. Sales to indiviuals by individuals vary state to state. Convicted Felons cannot own or even hold a firearm and yes, crazy people can be deemed unfit to own firearms.
There is some regulation on guns, but it is fairly lose and there are ways around it; though it is getting better. Also, there is such a black market on guns that the gun laws can be ignored if you really want to purchase a gun. It's not like there is only a few cities in the country that have a black market on guns; they all have them and that's why I think it's sometimes fruitless to try and say it will solve problems. I agree that we need to do what we can to prevent the accidental gun deaths, storage, prevention of getting a gun etc... I just can't think of a practical way it can work...who knows maybe i'm too cynical about all of this. Again, I guess the reason for me to be so adamant about keeping guns legal is b/c i know people who have them (I don't) and have a lot of them and keep them locked up in a gun safe. I saw good gun safety modeled and they never had any accidents, I'm fully aware the accidents happen.
I don't live in America, and I have the smallest clue of how your society works and feels so I won't go talking about moral issues, but :
- your statistics comes from a biaised website (guncite)
- your analogy is not based on logic
guns and religion cannot be compared :
gun = physical object wich can be restricted
religion = idea, and you cannot restrict ideas
the heavy control on guns is based on the simple reflection wich goes :
less guns = less gunshots. (Now I don't live in America, so I'm not saying this is the solution)
but less religion does not = less religious fanatics.
People advocating for gun control think it will have an effect on crime control. But where in the world did you come up with => idea control will have an effect on terror?
So no, your argument doesn't work. If you want to fight stupid ideas (ie terror), fight ignorance. If you want to fight shootings, well I'm not american (but it works fine where I live).
OK, that seems aimed at people using arguments I havent forwarded, but okay.
I will put question marks around "defensive gun uses" though. This study then also shows that a gun handy leads to "DGUs". And if I'm not entirely wrong, most nations have a "defense" although somehow someone starts wars all over. Most often in the name of defense. But sure, guns doesn't bring your own doom in any way in themselves. But this study most of all shows how many gun-related incidents occur in the US, and by golly, that's not few. Even if many will claim "defensive use".
Still, making the indirect aggregate claim that the more guns are dispersed in a country, the better it will be for all, well, dont you see the fallacy in that? But maybe the US is too far down the road for any realistic de-militarization of civil society, I dunno. As I see it, guns may put a stop to things in some situations, but in others, escalate them to increase harm caused all round.
Not doubting your statistics, but doubting it's validity, and whether getting more guns solves any problems.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i agree that background checks have stopped some people from getting guns legally. I also think that if you really want a gun you're not going to stop just b/c the guy at walmart said you failed a background check.
It seems there are some regulation, but it also seems obvious it ain't working too well. I will agree that guns isn't the problem per se, but widespread ownership of them can be problematic on the large scale. But the solution is probably not getting rid of all guns. (Or that would be a solution, but I hardly see it happening, and anyone holding out would ruin it) However, strict regulation and punishment on illegal guns will bring those numbers down.
The problem at the bottomline is perhaps your divided society. You have the largest chasm between poor and rich in the western hemisphere. Hence, the reward from going criminal is huge compared to elsewhere. The threshold is lower for higher risks and increased use of violent force. And you have a whole bunch of other problems with the race-stuff, inner cities and so on.
So the problems isn't guns, really, I agree to that. But given a certain context, like for instance the US, it's liberal dispersion throughout the population can do a lot of harm.
I am speculating. But thanks for the info.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I have to agree with your above paragraphs. I think you hit it right on the head when you said that there is a big reward (or perceived reward) for going criminal. We do have a huge divide b/t rich and poor and everyone here equates "stuff" with being better and richer. I think the other problems you listed...race, inner city etc... are a direct reflection on that. Everyone wants to get a head and wants to improve (which is good) but they are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to get there. We are constantly bombarded with what it's like to be rich...turn on mtv or vh1 and all you see is rich people and how they live; it's very easy to get jealous and to want what they have, and it's too bad that some feel the best or easiest way for them to get there is to turn to violence or crime (which can beget violence).
Hey, dont I usually disagree with everything you say and vice versa? Scary
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The solution is enacting good legislation free from emotion and lack of understanding, enforcment of existing laws, and severe punishment for those who choose to break the law.
I'm all for punishing those who choose to break the law regarding firearms. They just make it that more difficult for me to enjoy my rights and my hobby.