Hal, if you cannot see the obvious, then you are blind.... There are bad eggs in every bunch and it doesn't matter if it involves knives, guns, cars, airplane hijacking, fertilizer bombs, etc.... The article was to SHOW that there are knee jerk reactions to every incident and this one (among many others) shows that your precious gunless UK has issues along with the rest of the world.
Get a clue, dude.
Hal, if you cannot see the obvious, then you are blind.... There are bad eggs in every bunch and it doesn't matter if it involves knives, guns, cars, airplane hijacking, fertilizer bombs, etc.... The article was to SHOW that there are knee jerk reactions to every incident and this one (among many others) shows that your precious gunless UK has issues along with the rest of the world.
Get a clue, dude.
Of course it does, but giving those "Bad eggs" easy access to more effective killing tools is not a good plan.
I have a clue, dude.
Well when you invent the time machine sure we can get rid of all the guns. Until then, guns exist, the technology that goes into them isn't all that hard to replicate DIY and there's a huge market for force(violence). So you can either be smart and allow equal access to all and promote education or you can try(can't emphasis this enough) to take them away from everyone else and leave their existence to only those who wish to force their will unto others.
i didn't bring up the analogy in the first place just responding, but why is it COMPLETLY false?
You're right, people would still be able to get illegal weapons, people would also hold onto their (then illegal weapons) but if 1 less gun ends up in the hands of a criminal then it's worth doing.
Thing is, guns aren't even the worst any more. They're very efficient on 1 on 1 killing or 1 vs small numbers killing, but you want to wreck real havok? Cause some real damage? lol @ using a gun now a days. You can cost corporations tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage(easily worth hundreds or more lives, lets be realistic here life and people do have dollar values) or straight ruin an individual or small organization by using a computer. Making bombs isn't all that hard and hell now a days building remote detonators that you could control over twitter isn't even hard or expensive. How about 16 year olds building nuclear reactors in their back yards? You really want to trip out over guns? You're a fucking joke bro, to scared of your own fucking shadow. Life is dangerous, sadly you were born. Get over it.
*too
Yeah, you're too right, it's so simple to get some enriched uranium 235 on eBay right now that all the 16 year olds are building them in science classes.
What we really need to do is take a look at banning 16 year olds from having weapon capable nuclear isotopes.
....
And you think I'm the joke?
I don't deny that. But to link cars and guns together is still a ridiculous comparison. Until people are actively using cars to mow down thousands of people a year with the intent of killing, cars really aren't an issue. Car deaths are due to idiots on the road, negligence, carelessness. I can assure you if people start using cars as a regular weapon that we're going to see controls clamped down on cars.
My concern is the loss of life, and if by banning something that only ends life that lives will be saved, then do it.
If banning something would be extremely detrimental to society while saving lives (i.e. banning cars) then don't do it, if all it will do is remove weapons from peoples homes, nothing else, then sure I'm cool with it.
You know very well the difference between gun deaths and car deaths yet you keep comparing the two. I'm not arguing that we need to take guns away from law abiding citizens at all.
Many gun deaths are the result of murders in which there was a target and there was motive. Even if you talk about 2nd degree or 3rd degree cases, how often do these same cases apply to cars?
How many people plot killing someone and then ready their cars to mow them down? How many people get in an argument and say "fuck it" and walk to the parking lot and come back and ram their car into the person they got into a fight with?
Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado reportedly increased more than 41 percent after last week’s Aurora movie massacre. The Denver Post reports that firearm instructors have also seen increased interest in training needed for a concealed-carry permit.
"A lot of it is people saying, 'I didn't think I needed a gun, but now I do,' " he told the newspaper. "When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing — 'Hey, I go to the movies.'"
well, I mentioned it in my post. A gun is designed for the express purpose of killing people. that's it. That's why they exist. They are also used for killing animals, but the development and historical impetus for creating firearms was to design an efficient and more effective tool for killing people (soldiers).
Cars are not designed for the purpose of killing people. Any deaths that result in the use of a car are incidental, and accidental. Primary deaths that result in the use of a gun, are deaths that occur with the proper use of that tool. Further, accidental, incidental deaths also occur when victims are not the actual targets (drive-bys, kids in their bedrooms off the street, BS like that).
the attempt to use the car comparison assumes that the prejudice against guns is simple: body count. It's not that simple. You say criminals will just use knives? OK, they will. Wwhat happens in a drive-by stabbing, then? does the 4 year-old sleeping in his 2nd floor bedroom in the apartment at the opposite corner get a secondary stabbing in this example, as happens in drive-bys that use guns? No--that is completely impossible.
and as Delerium already mentioned, cars and their use are also heavily regulated: there is training, licensing, registration fees, copious traffic laws and punishments for disobeying these laws, not to mention the overall cost-of-ownership being an ancillary restriction. A vehicle is not designed to be dangerous, but it is recognized as such and is already heavily regulated as such.
so, it's kind of funny--even if you want to apply the false analogy, it further hurts the case. You want less regulation of guns b/c: cars? well....cars are pretty heavily regulated as it is.
they dont only end lives, they have tons of legal usefull purposes,
also, the constitution says you cannot take away firearms, so its a moot point
also of note violent crime in the UK was up in 2009 and 2010(no 2011 figures out yet)
while it was down in the US(and has been decreasing steadily since the early 90's) so lets not pretend like the UK is some bastion of logic and devoid of criminal activity
http://gizmodo.com/5827565/these-men-were-caught-building-homemade-nuclear-reactors
yeah you are a joke because you believe in your own bullshit.
I do!
It's just so damn common that people are building nuclear reactors in their garages.
and it's so rare that someone goes on a shooting spree in America.
Oh me and my bullshit...
You know very well the difference between gun deaths and car deaths yet you keep comparing the two. I'm not arguing that we need to take guns away from law abiding citizens at all.
Point is, illogical comparisons are unwarranted.
*too
Yeah, you're too right, it's so simple to get some enriched uranium 235 on eBay right now that all the 16 year olds are building them in science classes.
What we really need to do is take a look at banning 16 year olds from having weapon capable nuclear isotopes.
....
And you think I'm the joke?
Of course it does, but giving those "Bad eggs" easy access to more effective killing tools is not a good plan.
I have a clue, dude.
How often does this happen? How often is it in the news that someone plotted the murder of his wife by waiting for her and then running her over? How often do people get into arguments, storm away and get in their car and prepare to run the other party over? Compare to getting in an argument and drawing a gun?people use cars as weapons all the time, any statement otherwise is just silly, and its funny to see you bag on cars > guns you do gun death % > lead content in something
Guns serve other purposes, correct, but the purpose of a gun is to kill. You can use it to train at the range or to do whatever you want, but you shoot it on the range so you're familiar with it when it comes down to using it to protect yourself. People say it's used to deter crime. Again, the consequence of a gun being able to kill someone is its power in deterrence. I'm not saying GUNS == DEATH. I'm saying that the purpose of them is to kill. Proper use can result in no deaths or limited deaths. I didn't say we should take them away at any point.they dont only end lives, they have tons of legal usefull purposes, also, the constitution says you cannot take away firearms, so its a moot point, now act like its 1781 and GTFO
And what's the point of that? Violent crime climbs and falls throughout the years. How can you say this change isn't part of normal variance? Or that it's due to gun control laws being passed? 13,000 murders in 1 year versus 13,001 the next doesn't likely indicate an increase. The change is likely negligible. [/quote]also of note violent crime in the UK was up in 2009 and 2010(no 2011 figures out yet) while it was down in the US(and has been decreasing steadily since the early 90's) so lets not pretend like the UK is some bastion of logic and devoid of criminal activity
If you look up vehicular homicide, Wiki says:you are exploiting a loophole because automotive homicide isnt a reportable figure, but I assure you it happens. I work in the business and people use cars as weapons all the time, so much so that in the mid 2000's vehicular homicide was created as a crime code nationally, so its OBVIOUSLY a problem.
I just pretend that we have (proportionally) a lot fewer murders than you do, given the lack of guns.
HAL you got owned, gtfo this thread.
Yes, you do pretend that a lack of guns has anything to do with your proportionally fewer murders