#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
You can't get a gun until 21 but you can use machine guns in war at 18
hmmmm
Side Score: 49
|
 |
welp
Side Score: 34
|
|
In terms of immediate policy proposal/revisions--I would argue owning a firearm should require the completion of a program on par with typical Certificate or Associate degree programs found at Community College--in fact, the program could be offered at Community Colleges for a minimal fee. This is to help ensure the quality of citizen who owns & operates a firearm to be at a higher base standard, or else the 'right' will not be extended to those who fail to pass the program. Side: hmmmm
You can't get a gun until 21 but you can use machine guns in war at 18 In my state, you can get a rifle at age 18 while 21 is the age for handguns. Now, more to your point, I find that Adults will define the term 'adult' and 'kid' arbitrarily at varying ages as it fits their particular needs--which leads to all kinds of contradictions & inconsistencies. Side: hmmmm
|
2
points
1
point
@bronto The anti gun fanatics are spewing unhelpful nonsense Also, there fundamentally is not much difference between an AR-15 and handguns--as they are both semi-automatic. The term "assault rifle" or "military-style weapon" is a misnomer based on a lack of understanding. If AR-15's have to be banned because they are perceived to be to dangerous, then, logically, all semi-automatic weapons including handguns would have to be banned--so let 'us' (as a culture) be honest about the conversation that is happening Side: hmmmm
1
point
If 'you' (anyone) can make a gun in 20 minutes, then it can be assumed that everyone has access to firearms at all times. Why then, do we see drastically fewer gun deaths in countries with heavy firearm restrictions and low/negligible firearm ownership? I can only assume your point is bs, either no, the average joe can not make a firearm as quickly or easily as you say, or the firearm they create is poor in its ability to kill such that it's a redundant option, or whatever method you refer to is unknown to everyone else. Side: welp
1
point
That would make sense. While I don't know about ammo, that could mean anyone could freely get a gun, which as I understand it almost nobody wants. Virtually everyone at least wants background checks. However I doubt that's a current issue but one for the future? Most don't have access to 3D printing, though I suppose if you had the money to spare that's no barrier, and that could easily change in the near future as they inevitably get cheaper. Could potentially be a problem. Regardless, I think the correlation between gun ownership and crime involving guns is valid, and even ignoring accidents, owning a gun seems to be an ineffective measure against gun crime. Even if printing out a gun is a possibility, that doesn't mean action regulating gun ownership should just be dropped. Side: hmmmm
1
point
I can't speak for Bronto, though I think he may be referring to '3-D Printing'(?) 3-D printers are not a reason why guns should be legal. There is no logic whatsoever in the belief that, because something dangerous can be produced easily, it is therefore not dangerous. How much sense would it make if I argued to you that bombs should be legal because we can make them easily with a few household chemicals and a 30 minute session on the dark web? Side: hmmmm
Nom, there's no point arguing with these freaks. They are too stupid to comprehend sense. Focus on the real world, where 70% of American citizens now want very tough gun controls. Fuck these idiots. They're already the minority. Won't be long before their surrounded on all fronts and have to concede to democracy. Side: hmmmm
@seanB . Won't be long before their surrounded on all fronts and have to concede to democracy. It is interesting--we do not have a truly Democratic nor Meritocratic system. Rather, it is an elected Oligarchy not based on Merit, who upon election can decide to vote for/implement any policies they wish regardless of public opinion. The public has 0 direct effect on what goes on in the society, and the leaders are not required to be specifically qualified for the job, instead the requirement is popularity. Not a very efficient design, in my view. At least, not for a healthy, stable, rational, functioning system--I suppose it is very efficient for those who are able to win popularity contests as they will be given tremendous power/influence on society Side: hmmmm
1
point
Wow, popular support? What changed? Why now? However I fail to share your optimism, at least not yet. America's gonna have swap some representatives before any actual change even starts no? Gonna have to keep the momentum going. I think this will be a good test for democracy, again, where we'll see if a popular vote is as valid as it should be in theory. Side: hmmmm
1
point
If 'you' (anyone) can make a gun in 20 minutes, then it can be assumed that everyone has access to firearms at all times. Why then, do we see drastically fewer gun deaths in countries with heavy firearm restrictions and low/negligible firearm ownership Because...it's a false equivalency. Those countries are not like America. 1)Those countries have nowhere near the population or cultural diversity of the U.S. 2)Illegals who have no good way to make money flood America and are forced to join gangs. Gangs being the #1 cause of gun deaths in America. 3)A country like Britain is 92% white, meaning it has the white culture bred into it, which is a less violent culture. If you counted only white American gun homicides, it would have numbers like Sweden. 4)European countries don't have giant minority populations taught from birth that the police are the enemy, so they are easier to keep disarmed and have a healthy police vs community relationship. The relationship between minorities and law enforcement in America is one of street and gang wars. 5)Because this is the situation in America, whites then do not want to give up their guns due to minority gun violence to protect themselves. 6)Now, forget about whites, Asians, and Hispanics. Just try to disarm the blacks communities, and you'd have World War 3. Theyd never volunteer their protection against the police TO the police. No chance in hell. The Hispanics don't trust the blacks. Blacks don't trust whites. Whites trust no one. Thus? You'll have to bring in the military to disarm America. Pandora is already out of the box. Make an anti gun law and every redneck will stockpile guns out in the barn. The blacks won't give up their guns because fuck the police. The Hispanics won't give up guns because kill blackie and kill whitie. 7)Some states in America have more people than most countries. 8)America has more blacks than most countries have people. 9)America has more Hispanics than most countries have people. 10)No country on Earth is as culturally and racially divided/diverse as America. 11)None of these groups trust each other as a collective whole. That's why you have white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, and Hispanic neighborhoods. Every group tribalizes, and that's just how it is. Side: hmmmm
1
point
1, 7, 8, 9, 10, all claim America is big. While America is most certainly large, the size of a population has little impact on gun violence rates. The populations of different states seldom interact with each other at all, how does having many people in another state in another city far away from you influence gun violence in your city? Gun death figures are typically per 100,000 people. 2 (but I thought illegals took your jobs?), 3, 4, 5 and 11 are irrelevant to the correlation. Just because a person is not white does not mean they are more likely to commit gun violence, being white does not make you biologically virtuous. It's related to your upbringing and how you were treated. If you treat your minorities like shit and won't even talk to them otherwise, then it's not surprising you're in the cold war-esque situation you describe. But disarming both sides is a fundamentally good thing. 6 is attacking the effectiveness of gun regulation, but just because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't effective at all. Even in the worst case where a group doesn't relinquish firearms at all, you have reduced firearms to a point where fewer people are capable of killing each other with guns. Even if you speculate that a gang of black guys would run around shooting people, they'd be incapable of killing the same amount of people as suicides, accidents and other gun crime. India and china are countries with very large populations and very harsh gun restrictions. They also have very low gun death rates, despite not being white. India specifically has about a sixth of deaths by gun violence. New york is about 45% white has about a third of gun related deaths per 100,000 that West Virginia has. Ethnic groups and gangs are not the sole problem here. Even in the UK, where it's more like 83% white, that still means having hundreds of thousands of people belonging to a minority, more than enough to have gangs of minorities, which they do. Some cities in the Uk, like London are 60% white, similar to some of the more diverse parts of America. So no, you can't just simply blame gun violence on ethnic diversity. Lastly, while it's cute to think you'd be as good as Sweden if not for those terrible foreigners ruining everything, you wouldn't. If we consider white on white gun violence to be 10% of gun related deaths, you'd still have double the gun-homicide rate of sweden. White on white gun violence isn't even the whole story. You'd still have suicide and accidents to deal with Side: welp
1
point
2
points
1
point
The populations of different states seldom interact with each other at all, how does having many people in another state in another city far away from you influence gun violence in your city Notice that the cities with most of the violence are liberal as hell, full of gangs, and filled with illegals and minorities. Side: hmmmm
2
points
Nothing you said here even addresses anything I said. Why do you even make this reply? Notice that the states with most of the violence are liberal as hell, full of gangs, and filled with illegals and minorities. I don't think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirearmdeathratesintheUnitedStatesbystate States that have more gangs are likely to have more violence is a no brainer. However you're just throwing liberals in there too because you like the sound of it. Convesely, the most liberal states on that list have lower than average firearm death rates: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, Rhode Island Otherwise, they're average: Delaware, Oregon, Vermont With one exception, District of Columbia. I hadn't even thought that conservatives were a slightly larger proponent of gun deaths, but hey, you learn something every day. Side: welp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Nice red herring bro. The average violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) in 2008 for the 28 states that voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election was 389 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 22 states that voted for John McCain was 412 incidents per 100,000 residents – or a 5.8 percent higher incidence of violent crime. http://editions.lib.umn.edu/ Edit: Hold up, my apologies. I see now you're the one arguing sense against the brick wall of ignorance which is bronto. My bad. Side: hmmmm
Got to call rank on you Nom. I created you as a retarded Chitlin. I almost erased you from reality. Then I saw your ex-wife, knew she needed punished by marriage with you, and said "fuck it". Later I created light, magic grass, & masterbation. You masterbate way too much my child. Stop now, & what's left of your wanker won't rot off. Continuing at this rate of wank torment & you will go blind. Side: welp
1
point
1
point
2
points
No. The method affects the success rate of suicide. Large deterrents to suicide include the survival instinct, the pain of self harm and frequently the support of others. You can overcome survival instinct through will, as many have proven, but typically for a short time. Those that opt to shoot themselves will often do so quickly enough that there is no time for consultation with themselves or others, no second thoughts. Shooting oneself in the head is popularly thought to be painless. Suicidal people wish they had a gun to kill themselves with. It's easy to mess up other methods such that you survive or are caught, or just not choose them due to fear of pain. Side: welp
2
points
1
point
I don't have that, so instead I've shown you stats from countries with low gun ownership. You however don't seem to believe that applies to America, that America is special, so that's apparently useless. Tough part is that the gun has existed for all of America's history. Those stats for your country don't exist. Not to mention back then America was very different, with higher crime AND widely present guns. I however don't use that against you because it's not valid data, less relevant to the present day, with other factors present. Side: welp
2
points
The problem is... none of the low gun areas are like America. They don't have millions of illegals pouring over the border. They don't have 12% of the population that are the descendants of slavery who aren't giving up guns and see cops like a foreign evil agent to be resisted to the death. In Britain, Australia, etc everyone looks the same and has a general culture. They generally know what their neighbors believe and are like. In America you have no idea if your neighbor wants to blow up a building, steal your shit, thinks Atheists, Christians and Jews are "of the devil, or of any backwards third world culture. These countries don't have a billion guns to try and take from hundreds of millions of people who don't trust each other, nor the people trying to take the guns. It's a standoff in America between subgroups that detest each other and a completely false equivalency. Side: hmmmm
1
point
The problem is... none of the low gun areas are like America. They don't have millions of illegals pouring over the border. You are scrabbling for flimsy excuses and pathetic "differences" which don't actually exist. A gun ban works very much the same in one country as it does in any other. There might be more work involved if the problem is particularly bad, but there is no reason to believe America is the only country yet discovered where a gun ban would not drastically reduce gun violence. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that you are deliberately creating false obstacles, because the only reason you are offering these excuses in the first place is so you do not have to try gun control. If gun control were attempted and ran into the silly excuses you are trying to use, then they would be valid points. However, since gun control has not been attempted (and never will be if violent imbeciles like you have their own way), you are trying to use them the wrong way around, not as real problems to be addressed and overcome, but as cynical inventions of your own mind to be used as weapons to fight the prospect of tighter gun control. Side: welp
1
point
You are scrabbling for flimsy excuses and pathetic "differences" which don't actually exist. A gun ban works very much the same in one country as it does in any other If the British police ordered MS-13, the Bloods, and the Crips to disarm, the British police force would be outgunned and desimated in hours. You are nothing like the United States. To say the races and cultures in the U.S. have no differences is a damn lie. The only way to believe that would be to be deaf, blind, and insane. Side: hmmmm
1
point
Hispanics account for 47% of all U.S. gang members, African Americans for 34%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GangsintheUnitedStates There ya go Nom. Disarm them. You can't even keep a hand full of Muslims from terrorizing London, so good luck.
Supporting Evidence:
1.4 million people part of gangs more than 33,000 gangs in US
(en.m.wikipedia.org)
Side: hmmmm
1
point
That is just back to why your guns are difficult to remove and why you think you should keep them anyway. Do you disagree with the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths in principle? You've yet to even contest that directly, you've instead moved to the reasons as to why it would be irrelevant in America, which I've been disagreeing with. I don't disagree that it would be difficult to remove guns, but that's no reason not to even try. I agree that you have trust issues with each other, but I see that as a reason to de-escalate the situation and remove guns so as to limit the damage you can do to each other. I also see it as important to limit the damage a criminal can do, which is the source of mass shootings arising every now and then. It's important to limit the damage a legitimate citizens can do on impulse. It's important to limit the damage one can cause simply by accident. It's important to limit the ability of one to kill one's self in the wake of impulse. De-escalation is my point. You can still hate each other after that if you want/have to too. Conversely, would you think escalating the situation is good too? Giving the police a full military arsenal to have a greater killing potential than gangs? I'd hope not. So why is it that guns, a weapon using a principle so lethal that we still use them in wars, are the place you decide to plateau with for self defense? They don't have 12% of the population that are the descendants of slavery Why, you still think they hold a grudge? They're poor, not vengeful. see cops like a foreign evil agent Taking the extreme side, that's based on fairly recent events: police brutality committed using guns. Though I don't even believe all blacks are like that, else what would be the point of going to school or furthering that to college or uni or a job, helping the country that they apparently hate? Yet you can find black people in all these places. Your view of them is false and ridiculous. In America you have no idea if your neighbor wants to blow up a building, steal your shit, thinks Atheists, Christians and Jews are "of the devil, or of any backwards third world culture. This makes no sense. A few terrorists does not justify the mistrust of millions of muslims. Even though black people are more likely to commit crime (with themselves typically as the victims of that crime by the way) , that's not even a majority of blacks. And are you seriously suggesting that Christians, Jews and Atheists are on the brink of a shootout with each other? To the extent that they require guns for self defense? Side: welp
1
point
That is back to why your guns are difficult to remove and why you think you should keep them anyway I'm going to keep them because the groups that hate conservatives and each other aren't giving theirs up. It's like demanding the Sunnis disarm for peace knowing full well the Shias would quickly come into their countries and homes armed to the hilt. You wanna disarm? Go ahead. Don't the call the police when Fernando with gang tattoos walks into your house armed with a smile and rapes your wife and daughter with his friends. Side: hmmmm
1
point
I'm going to keep them because the groups that hate conservatives and each other aren't giving theirs up You make it sound as though if 'they' gave up their guns, you'd give up yours. That's easily understandable, but you're opposing all gun control, saying it's impossible to disarm both sides. This doesn't have to be the case. I'm not advocating some immediate gun ban taking all available guns from one side. However there's no effort for disarmament at all here. Have some scheme that takes weapons equally, not just the easy pickings from the side that resists least. Maybe reduce it to one gun per household for starters. Maybe reduce (and actually continue reducing) the range of the more lethal weapons available for purchase. Campaign for collections of weapons on both sides, set targets for all groups, perhaps even incentivise handing in weapons, perhaps penalise owning one. Side: welp
1
point
They don't have 12% of the population that are the descendants of slavery Why, you still think they hold a grudge? They're poor, not vengeful. Over 12% of the population are black and are either slave descendants or playing the oppressed minority card. The Democrat Party is built on this narrative. Without it they'd never win another election again. There are poor non blacks everywhere, and they don't have nearly the gang membership. Side: hmmmm
1
point
This makes no sense. A few terrorists does not justify the mistrust of millions of muslims I don't need Muslims to enter the equation. Blacks, whites, Asians, Natives and Hispanics all do not trust each other. Gangs are built on the supremacy and/or protection of one's own racial groups. Every time I hear a store was robbed, I assume black male. I'm never wrong. Side: hmmmm
1
point
Ok, but I don't disagree with that. I'm saying the level of mistrust you have is silly and unreasonable, not that you don't mistrust your neighbours. I already addressed that though, I see your mistrust of each other as a reason to de-escalate, to reduce the damage you can do to each other. No, a gang is not a faction supporting racial supremacy. Every time I hear a store was robbed, I assume black male. I'm never wrong. You're never wrong? The statistics disagree. You'd be more likely to be right however. Even so, you all need fewer guns. The best case scenario for you here is that violence is de-escalated to the point where you can beat your opposition without actually killing them. I don't think you'll ever get rid of that awful distrusting nature, but its consequences don't have to be as bad as it is today Side: welp
1
point
Taking the extreme side, that's based on fairly recent events: police brutality committed using guns. Would you like the police to police Compton with spears? Though I don't even believe all blacks are like that They aren't all like that, but almost every single robbery or violent crime on the news (even liberal news) is a black man. It's not a stereotype. It's a reality of their culture overall. else what would be the point of going to school or furthering that to college or uni or a job, helping the country that they apparently hate? Yet you can find black people in all these places. Of course you can. The ones who want a life, peace, and success go find it. Your view of them is false and ridiculous The gang numbers do not lie. The crime numbers do not lie. American eyes can see. Side: hmmmm
1
point
Would you like the police to police Compton with spears? If possible, yes. Fewer criminals, innocents and police would die if everyone was armed only with spears. The less capable anyone is of murder, the better. This does not solve or prevent any crime, but does dull the sheer numbers of lives lost to petty bullshit. Of course you can. The ones who want a life, peace, and success go find it. From a quick google, 1 in 4 black adults have a felony. Assuming anyone with a felony is the monster as is feared, that's 3 out of 4 people of the black community looking for a life, peace and success; with no gang related reasons for not giving up arms. I'm not talking about not all blacks, I'm talking about a significant majority not being remotely like those you describe. Side: welp
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Then I'll reiterate. My interest here is mutual disarmament. If both the police and the people they are policing are equipped with less deadly mediums of force, fewer people will die. You proposed spears, spears are less dangerous than guns, so yes, that fits my agenda. How you bring it down from guns to spears to whatever the heck you want is up to you, but I'm saying you should at least try. There's a heck of a lot of resistance against gun control even in its most rudimentary and minimised form. I'm trying to call that out as logically unjustified. Side: welp
1
point
Suicidal people wish they had a gun to kill themselves with. It's easy to mess up other methods such that you survive or are caught, or just not choose them due to fear of pain There are drugs designed to kill you instantly. The military calls them suicide pills. Side: hmmmm
1
point
And how many people own or could have access to military grade suicide pills? Even if they were widespread, does the general person perceive taking lethal doses of drugs to be painless? I don't understand why you can't just accept high suicide success rates as a consequence of high gun ownership rates, and just say that the benefits of guns outweigh the costs. At this point you've gone to arguing minor details and introducing false elements to debase my arguments, as far as I'm concerned, at this point, you only want to win. So why not just say guns save more people than they condemn or something? Side: welp
1
point
It's a common way that regular civilians kill themselves. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/ Side: hmmmm
1
point
If we consider white on white gun violence to be 10% of gun related deaths, you'd still have double the gun-homicide rate of sweden It's 5%. Some cities in the Uk, like London are 60% white, similar to some of the more diverse parts of America. So no, you can't just simply blame gun violence on ethnic diversity. Of course minorities in the UK are better "pre-selected" as opposed to being mobs of illegals and blacks who have a culture victimhood and of defiance against authority. Side: hmmmm
1
point
It's 5%. Where in the hell did you get that? The extremely generous 10% I mentioned was a lie Trump tweeted which supports your side, but is still a problem. I couldn't actually find anything specifically stating white on white gun violence. Perhaps it's pretended it doesn't happen. I did however find this, stating whites perpetrate 45% of gun homicides. It was actually quite hard to find anything here, which is a shame. Granted, It's true that blacks do commit a largely disproportionate amount of crime to their population, but this is largely due to blacks typically being poor, with strong correlations between poverty and crime, which is a cultural problem America can address. This isn't as relevant, it's more about mass shootings than homicides, but still paints the same picture. Of course minorities in the UK are better "pre-selected" as opposed to being mobs of illegals and blacks who have a culture victimhood and of defiance against authority. How are minorities in the UK better than minorities in the US? We have Illegals here too, many here won't shut up about it. Maybe you falsely believe they're different? You're point seems to be that their ethnicity gives them some intrinsic relationship with gangs and violence, which is demonstrably false. Side: welp
1
point
Here is the UK's immigration system. Managed migration" is the term for all legal labour and student migration from outside of the European Union and this accounts for a substantial percentage of overall immigration figures for the UK. Many of the immigrants who arrive under these schemes bring skills which are in short supply in the UK. This area of immigration is managed by UK Visas and Immigration, a department within the Home Office. Applications are made at UK embassies or consulates or directly to UK Visas and Immigration, depending upon the type of visa or permit required. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ModernimmigrationtotheUnitedKingdom Our immigration system is tens of millions of third worlders who don't speak English pouring across our border with no invitation and no education. If 20 million illegals from god knows where just appeared one day in Great Britain, most Brits would be like "what the fuck is this?" And that's the reaction of American conservatives. And then libs call us racists, try to get them on our dole, and try to get them citizenship. To help the poor migrants? Oh no no. To import voters. If American libs thought they had a secure monopoly on the voting population, they'd build the wall themselves. Hell, they proposed it before Donald Trump. But now with Trump and Brexit, they fear they can't win elections right now without some help. Thus they suddenly think walls that they proposed are racist. Side: hmmmm
1
point
Our immigration system is tens of millions of third worlders who don't speak English pouring across our border with no invitation and no education. No it isn't, that one was easy to google. you exaggerate, again; it's 12.5 million. This is off topic and I don't want to discuss it. I don't know enough about immigration in the US or the UK to debate seriously over it. Perhaps you're partly right though, maybe many immigrants that come to the US are useless (Though some in the US also seem to complain that they take your cheap labour away from citizens that need the jobs). If they are, why not educate them? Or if not them, their children? The US is and always has been a patchwork of ethnicities, I see no reason why they can't be useful educated workers after some training. By the way, perhaps you didn't notice, but 20 million people being sent to a country of 60 million in a single day is not comparable to 20 million in a country of 320 million which have built up over a long period of time. You're justifying your attitude by blowing your problems out of proportion, and it's crap. Maybe the demonic libs really are importing voters and compromising the integrity of the democratic system. But where do you draw the line? Democracy should be in the interest of satisfying a majority. Whether the majority happens to be made up of people that came recently or a generation ago or two generations ago or were there since the beginning, shouldn't they vote in their best interest? Why should your votes be worth more than theirs? Side: welp
1
point
1
point
It's related to your upbringing and how you were treated. If you treat your minorities like shit and won't even talk to them otherwise Oh I talk to all kinds of minorities. They are also here legally and speak normal human English. If you saw a 6'5" black man built like a gladiator, wearing a bandana and speaking jive in Compton, California, your ass would cross the street. Don't give me that shit. Side: hmmmm
1
point
Really? You talk to non-whites? The way you talk and the views you support suggest to me you've never met one. I wouldn't have guessed. If you saw a 6'5" black man built like a gladiator, wearing a bandana and speaking jive in Compton, California, your ass would cross the street. Don't give me that shit. No, I wouldn't, I'm giving you that shit. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd be intimidated as a man given his hypothetical size, intimidated socially at a culture I'm not in touch with (never head of jive until you mentioned it), I'd be uneasy at the slang I don't understand. Why avoid them though? You're that scared you're going to be mugged or killed? In all seriousness, that's no way to live. However I'd put you more at fault of that than the black dude minding his own business. btw, average height for African men is about 5'7", your stereotype is pretty misinformed. Side: welp
1
point
1
point
No, because gun deaths aren't just about bad people killing good people. The theory on your side is supposed to be that if you own a gun, people won't attack you, that weapons are meant to be a deterrent. The statistics show that this is completely wrong in and of itself. But I'm not even talking about criminals assaulting innocents. I'm talking about accidents and suicides, which is conveniently never acknowledged and makes up around 20,000 people annually in the US, a third of the problem. Side: welp
1
point
1
point
The reason few gun death in regulated area's is people tend to use methods other then fire-arm. These methods are much harder to prove so the murders go unrecorded or questioned a lot longer as crime. While instead if accidental shooting their are high recordings of other type accidental death. Which balance out and are in may cases high the gun violence. By the way I agree a fire-arming 20 minutes an stretch. I can see a well skilled person taking at least 5 days from raw materials. A professional three months with a better grade weapon then purchased by most military, or Armed Force. Technically even the most modern fire-arms are on barrowed time. While a well trained mechanic or machinist could recreate many fire-arms with great detail. Side: hmmmm
1
point
It's a valid point that gun deaths migrate to other methods, for both suicides and murders. The main difference without the involvement of firearms however is severity. However these other methods you mention are less dangerous to the user and much harder to kill others with. Other methods typically require close range, involving more deliberation, personal culpability, personal vulnerability and have a better chance of leaving the victim alive than firearms. Other weapons also are far less likely to kill others accidentally. Suicide in particular is much harder without a firearm. Which balance out and are in many cases higher the gun violence. If you already have people using a method, say knives, to kill with and guns don't become an option any more and the people that used guns switch primarily to use knives, then it is possible that you get more deaths from knives than guns, even though murder rates might stay the same, and even if overall murder rates go down. Unless removing firearms specifically causes murder rates to increase overall, by either more occurrences or a more dangerous method. Side: welp
1
point
1
point
1
point
Context is totally different and justifies the different treatment. A machine gun used in war is intended to be used to kill as much of your opposition as possible. The age requirement is meant to correlate to a certain level of responsibility. In domestic situations you ideally neither intend nor act in the interest of killing someone. Kids/teens are more likely to be impulsive and may kill others under certain intensified motives which adults may not. If they have a handgun instead of a machine gun then presumably in the worst case scenario they will be less capable of killing many people, resulting in fewer deaths overall. In war however this is a main objective, where the responsibility of the person wielding the machine gun is irrelevant beyond the point that they're fulfilling their objective. Side: welp
1
point
The battle field is a different environment from the dosmestic or normal human habitat. Battle field is like a jungle of pride(on strength and survival), full of mindless creatures the machines speaks their minds; the weapon is the method of settlement, it requires no agreement tables rather the opposite as a disagreement space. The machine thinks and speaks their minds and hearts for them. No pity or thinking twice. Age doesnt matter. Rebels even use people less than 18yrs. So it's justified in war. Everyone who heads(mind programmed) there is fully aware it's a field death and choas so it's justified. Guess you heard about the amount of American soldiers that commit suicide on yearly basis. But our normal homes isn!t the same. And i wonder why we bring killing machines home. In your own home you protect yourself from an enemy like Messi protecting a ball from Iniesta in the same team? Even if so i thought there is a unit for protection in our domestic environment called the police. Hey America is now Jamaica. Side: welp
|
