Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnabdabber
This is about the first reasonable post I've seen, thank you. But to say there are NO restrictions on firearms is false. There are already numerous laws in the US restricting what they may or may not own. Don't get me started on Canada.
In response to the car example, they are apples and oranges but I would like to ask a couple questions and see if you can draw a parallel.
Do you have to have a drivers licence to purchase a car?
Do you need a licence/registration/insurance do drive your vehicle on private land?
|
Well fine, I'll admit there are a few minor restrictions on firearms in America, and a few more in Canada. I knew that before too, I was more making a general statement about the amount of restrictions on firearms compared to other very common objects and consumables. Of which there seems to be a lot less, or almost none comparatively. But yes, my comment was an overstatement/exaggeration and incorrect.
And I will agree cars and guns are apples and oranges though I know it's not going to be for the reasons you will probably say, and if you use the argument to make your point, you'll probably get a lot of pushback from me as I see them as apples and oranges but mostly for reasons to make my point. I actually think it's a great example.
As for your questions, all knowledge I have beforehand, plus the small amount of research I did just now, plus the knowledge that you probably wouldn't be asking a question that didn't favorably (at first glance) bolster your argument says the answers are no.
But my question is, why does that matter? Why would a person buy a car to not use it? Same with the gun? Why would a person by a gun to not use it? Sure there may be the odd collector that just wants to buy a gun and keep it unloaded, especially historical guns (which I do believe there should be exceptions for) but that is such an infinitesimally small number. And is mirrored by people who buy cars to collect them anyway. It really doesn't help your argument any.
As for not needing the same level of paperwork and documentation for a vehicle on private property I have to ask again, why does it matter? For the majority of uses you need for a car, there are many strict rules. There is a licensing program. For a gun, there is not. You can argue all you want about people using it solely on their land, or buying it for the purpose and intent of that, but the fact of the matter is 1., this is obviously not happening as much as people think it is, and 2., you don't have these restrictions for public use either. It's a strawman.
I'll hit another few arguments you've made recently. The one in response to UCB's comment about the damage a gun does, you replied with the typical, that's the exact reason you don't wants bans (or tougher rules I assume), alluding to the highly incorrect assumption rampant in NRA circles about guns making things safer. There is ZERO statistical evidence that backs that up, and in fact, there's a lot of evidence that proves the other side of the argument. If you've got statistical evidence that isn't gun lobby based, I'd love to see it, but all there is is a small handful of exceptional stories giving the illusion of circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is more guns make things more dangerous through misuse, incapable untrained users, and mistakes.
It doesn't even make logical sense. Sure, perhaps in the case of a home invader who is brandishing a knife or baseball bat, there may be a logical argument for a gun, barely. But in cases of gun vs gun, it isn't even logical, which is actually what your retort was implying. Gun v gun. All any logic dictates is that there is more chance for things to escalate, more chance for more people to get shot, and more chance for there to be mistakes and people outside the confrontation to get hurt. Heck, even police make mistakes on when to use their guns, and they are trained. Are you really telling me a populace in which everyone has a gun would be safer? It would eliminate most crime cause what, people would suddenly have 'healthy fear of wronging someone else?'
What makes more sense is that it just mean people would just shoot quicker, before the other person would could get their gun out. Criminals would shoot quicker before the other person would have a chance to react. Killing a lot of people who may have just been mugged. Yes, the criminals are still in the wrong, but that's small consolation to the person who is dead. There would be more Zimmerman types shooting sooner to protect themselves against threats possibly real but in most cases likely imagined or overblown. Good families at home would have more accidents shooting first and thinking later. You cited fear in one of your defenses, don't you see how this would ramp up the level of fear? It's a never ending spiral and it has to stop somewhere or it just gets worse.
Finally, I want to touch on your other misconceived notion of logic in that banning guns would have no affect on gun murder rates. I get the idea behind what you are saying, and the very real example when compared to drugs, but to state there is no watershed mark where banning something doesn't help is ludicrous. Of course it will help. Drugs are more popular when they are legal. Look at cigarette abuse, alcohol abuse, and prescription drug abuse compared to illegal drug abuse. Much higher rates. At one point not too long ago 50% of the public smoked. Now I think it's close to 25%. Does 25% of the public use heroin? Cocaine? Heck weed? Nope. Sure, some people still get high. But to suggest the ban doesn't prevent higher numbers makes zero sense, and again has no real evidence backing it up. And yes a lot of those drugs are more harmful than cigarettes and that may affect their popularity, but guess what, weed isn't. Shoot, there's more and more evidence that MDMA isn't. So no, your comparison doesn't fly. Yes a ban doesn't stop things from being used completely, but it does reduce it. Now the morals of such is another case, and I'm a bit of a libertarian on the matter, which is why I'm not against owning guns, just that there are some rules about it. I also think people should be able to do drugs, as long as it's responsible. I would argue for restrictions there as well. But it doesn't change the fact that yeah, bans do help.
Also, resorting to a gun ban is a escalation of the argument that is unnecessary and incorrect. I don't know why the pro gun crowd always goes there. No one (at least no coherent argument) has ever suggest a total gun ban. But for some reason, a lot of the pro gun crowd flips to that black or white reasoning right away. I don't think a gun ban is needed, I think the balance of rules (and culture differences) Canada has works pretty good for the most part. But it's still insane to trot out that argument, as the pro gun crowd does, then argue that a ban wouldn't make things a little better in the short term, and a lot better in the long term as guns are slowly phased out and the culture changes. It obviously would. People would hate it, and there would be pushback, and small difference in the beginning as guns would still be everywhere, but it would.
Whew, I think I had more, but that's pretty long already.