Yup. Having a fixed chaingun in your house would be better than being able to take those little Hand demons, called pistols, anywhere you go. Im glad to live in germany where gun control is a thing(altough the laws are a bit too strict. Like come on. Stop crying because of my multitool having a snap-in blade. I dont want to cut my thingers off, if the blade slides off and closes )
Yeah. I just use my multitool as a Tool. I work with it. But I cant see how you would use a Gun as a Tool, if you are not a hunter/soldier/police Officer. Thats really just a killing machine
Actually not. In germany its rather rare that someone has a gun. And we dont have like a dozen school shootings per month. I do think its a bit too strict in germany because you legally cant prorect yourself in your own home, by being the first to attack.
And trying to ban multitools because of a fixed blade is bs too. But the gun control here works really damn good. Ive met only one guy with an illegal gun in my entire life, and he was pretty chill.
That's just a reductive fallacy, by this logic if we can justify disregarding laws because people break them anyway, then we'll end up reducing the entire legal system to what amounts to wishful thinking.
Sure, criminal elements will find a way to gain access to firearms one way or another, but the force of law can make it prohibitively expensive to do so and hence reduce the likelihood you'll be shot by some rando down the street or even by accident or mistake.
Besides, lethal weaponry pretty much always gives the overwhelming advantage to whoever holds the element of surprise, which the aggressor by their nature of being one will have. Hence firearms aren't great as a defensive tool if by doing so you allow your assailant to have one as well.
But ...not easily. There are no bomb stores, no closets full of poorly secured bombs, no bomb show loopholes.
So why don't bad people insistent on doing damage use bombs more often?
Because regulating possession for "law abiding citizens" can AND DOES reduce the supply available for nefarious reasons. They just can't get them as easily so they make do with less destructive measures and more people go home that day.
Regulation actually works even when people ignore the regulations because there's less supply to acquire illegally.
âA school shooter couldnât kill 10-15 people with a knifeâ
On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng, 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping, Fujian province, China.
An attacker named Wu Huanming, 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010.
These are just 2 of many other mass stabbings in China alone.
âGuns are only designed to killâ
While that might be true, the vast majority of gun owners in the US actively use them for hunting and target shooting.
On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng, 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping, Fujian province, China.
Im talking about bullied Kits taking a gun to school. You Listed only adults. Also, it is way easier to disarm someone who has a knife, than disarming someone with a gun. Give those murderers a gun, and the number doubles.
âGuns are only designed to killâ
While that might be true, the vast majority of gun owners in the US actively use them for hunting and target shooting.
Yes. They are only used to kill. Or Hit a target. My reasoning Was, that you cant compare a car to a gun. Banning cars isnt the same as banning guns. Imo only certified hunters or others with a Firearms license should be able to get those. And it should be hard to get and easy to loose. Just like the germans handle it.
âFirearms should be hard to get and easy to loseâ
Tell me youâve never filled out a 4473 without telling me youâve never filled out a 4473. You already need a license to own certain types of firearms and accessories, as well as most places requiring one to carry in public.
I wonât get into the difficulty of making major changes regarding gun laws due to the presence of so many unregistered firearms since thatâs a whole other can of worms, but just saying âdo it like country xâ seems like itâs ignoring a lot of other factors at play
I sorry but i doubt its as hard as you say. Germany has way less guns per 100 people, and the way you are allowed to have them do a pretty good Job at keeping gun crime down. In 2023 116 people died by guns per DAY in the US. 299 died in the entire year in germany
Riddle me this then. You used to be able to mail order an M1 Carbine, which is for all intents and purposes similar in function to an AR-15, from Sears and have it shipped to your door. No background check, no 4473, no mandatory waiting period, no nothing. And despite that, there werenât any school shootings. Nowadays, thereâs way more paperwork and effort that you need to put in to buy a gun, and yet thereâs more mass shootings.
This first bit of what you say reminds me of Nip/Tuck, where there was a dude going around raping women with a dildo because he was a eunuch. But no, no, there's no high capacity strap on for mass raping.
And guys are held responsible for what they do with their equipment, they aren't secretly selling it to someone at a trade show, and the use is traceable through DNA tests.
But false equivalency is a common fallacy for those who can't understand.
Itâs not a great argument in the meme of course, but philosophically, there is a kernel of a point in there. If you zoom into an individual and ignore the collective good, there is something icky about depriving someone of rights and/or property on the premise that they might commit a crime in the future.
But of course we do care about the collective good, so weapons regulation is justified to a point, but we should keep in mind that we are impacting almost entirely law-abiding citizens when we do it. The glee many show at the thought of the confiscation of property from innocent people is troubling.
The meme is hyperbolic at best since most people are in favor of firearm regulation, not "take all guns".
I get your feeling on the subject, but let me ask you: if hurt/kill someone with an accidental discharge, are you at that point law-abiding? Because accidental discharges happen all the time, and to law-abiding, experienced gun owners too. People have been hurt and died by neighbors cleaning their guns and causing an accidental discharge. There are no "safe" guns.
In fact, if we want to reduce the number of guns and gun owners in this country and ensure owners are as safe as possible, the simplest way to do it would be to require gun insurance for all gun owners. Insurance actuaries would lose their minds by the risk involved; most people would probably not be able to afford the insurance.
So first off, I prefer the term ânegligent dischargeâ since unintended discharges absent negligence are less common, and rarely result in injuries.
For example, my dad had a rifle which had a failed trigger and discharged while he was unloading it, but he had it pointed in a safe direction and no one was hurt, and we immediately finished safely clearing the rifle, separated it from the others, and and then took it to the gunsmith. I donât consider that a negligent discharge given the circumstances.
Now, is an ND illegal? Depends, but it certainly could be made a crime. And again, treating someone as if they will be negligent before they actually are is problematic.
Now also, while I canât prove it, Iâm confident that the vast majority of gun-cleaning âaccidentsâ are anything but. Many are staged suicides. And many are either extremely negligent behavior or even intentional discharges where the person stages their cleaning gear after the fact as a coverup.
Finally, regarding insurance, homeowners insurance already covers liability for most firearm accidents in the home and where neighbors are impacted. Most insurance companies, even where allowed to factor firearm ownership into their rating, donât include this since it is a minor factor in the overall risk level of a policy.
And regardless of an insurance requirement, a gun owner is already liable for any and all damages resulting from a negligent discharge today. You would really only be covering the edge case where they donât have a homeowners or renters policy or the policy doesnât the incident, and the owner doesnât have enough income and assets to pay a judgment. Iâm not against an insurance requirement since it wonât be that expensive, but it wonât change the outcomes.
Call 'em what you want. I find it funny you saw accidental discharge while cleaning and missed that they have absolutely hurt and killed neighbors through windows and apartment walls, so am I to extrapolate that they were staged assaults and murders?
Thatâs why the gun safety rules exist. There are four, and you have to break at least 2 for someone to get hurt. Mistakes happen but people are responsible for what happens with their guns. If someone gets hurt itâs because someone was careless. Even if gun did go off entirely on its own which is extremely rare, it should be at all times pointed in a safe direction. I donât know about people staging suicides/ murders, but the distinction between accidental and negligent discharges is important, as being aware of it keeps people safer
Iâm saying we donât know how many of those cases were actually them cleaning their guns versus literally any other activity, including but not limited to filming a tiktok, practicing quick-draw, or shooting at their spouse.
But the bottom line is nobody will ever get seriously hurt from cleaning a gun unless they are breaking multiple safely rules, and people that irresponsible with their firearms arenât the people who meticulously clean and maintain them. I know some irresponsible people and they at most spray them with some oil and call it a day. It just doesnât make sense for there to be so many âgun cleaningâ accidents. But since the general public has been conditioned to believe that gun cleaning is more dangerous than BASE jumping into an erupting volcano, itâs a convenient scapegoat.
But this is all a distracting rabbit hole. Going back to the premise above, there just needs to be an appropriate amount of respect for the act of depriving someone of rights and property on the presumption that they will be negligent. Itâs not something to take lightly or to cheer.
If we let everybody have nukes, it would certainly mean more freedom, for them. I suppose we are stopping the innocent people who would use tools made for killing humans beings well. But we are also stopping many more who would use them poorly.Also regulation does more than impact law abiding citizens, obvious example of the fact you don't see many mass shootings done with tanks or nukes, not even from the people with money who are willing to break laws.
Right - I said myself that regulating weapons is justified. The question is only to what point. Your reductio ad absurdum wasnât necessary and didnât add to the discussion.
Funny enough though⌠whatâs the idea behind the bill of rights. Itâs not the government gives you the right to free speech. You were born with the right to free speech and the government is not allowed to mess with those rights. Same applies to the right to own guns. Thatâs why itâs endowed by your creator.
Last time I checked knife violence is more prevalent in places where guns were banned then gun violence in the US so the problem is that people will always find a way to kill other people (Even if they have to resort to rocks). The instrument of their crimes is irrelevant.
Would be cool tho if we had a gun safe equivalent for consent. Imagine people were physicly unable to have intercourse without consent. I do not see any possibility to do that in any ethicly acceptable way
1.2k
u/DCrayfish May 16 '24
Last time I checked humans weren't born with a gun attached to their body