🇳🇱
@freemo To be fair, they usually make that argument about *mass* homicides, which are considerably easier to carry out with a gun than with a bat, garrote, or knife.
@LouisIngenthron Sometimes they do, yes. Often times not so much.
The real question is, do they compare other things that can easily be obtained to kill large numbers of people at once and hold it to the same scrutiny? That matters less to me than if a non-mass weapon is treated as a non-mass weapon or not.
@freemo I mean, I think the majority in this country is good with having your ID checked when you buy poison, explosives, or operate a heavy vehicle, so yeah.
@LouisIngenthron Oh really? Everytime I made explosives I never had to give an ID or had any barriers, same when i bought poisons. I have also never once heard a liberal argue that common poisons should be regulated... It would take absolutely no effort for anyone to buy the components of a high yield explosive or poison and use it.
@freemo Components are different. You can't reasonably stop people from making weapons. You can only place restrictions on purchase and ownership. The vast majority of people aren't interested in the effort it takes to make such things, and those that are are probably already being tracked by the feds.
@LouisIngenthron We arent talking about complex components, we are talking about mixing two things and getting a high yield explosion.
Why cant i reasonably prevent people from buying 2 chemicals that when mixed makes a high yield explosive. But its perfectly reasonable to say a person cant buy the components of a gun? Buying the trigger group of a gun, separate from the slide, separate from the bullets are all restricted to buy individually AND combining them is illegal. Why can i do one and not the other?
As for poisons, those arent even components, high-potency poison can be bought in the vast majority of circumstances (there are some exceptions) with no restrictions.
@freemo I'm not denying the simplicity. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and this is a reasonable place to draw it. You can't stop people from buying gasoline or styrofoam, but you can make it illegal to combine them or sell branded napalm.
As for the poisons, "no restrictions" is nonsense. You're definitely going to get your ID checked when you buy poison, just like you do when you buy a lighter. It's not the full background check, but there will be *some* check that at least you're an adult, and it probably stores that ID swipe in some databank somewhere for future investigators.
> I'm not denying the simplicity. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and this is a reasonable place to draw it. You can't stop people from buying gasoline or styrofoam, but you can make it illegal to combine them or sell branded napalm.
Yes, no one is saying drawing the line somewhere is a problem. The problem is that as i stated the reasoning and logic and where you draw the line all has radically different rules for guns than any other source of death and violence.
For guns both the gun, its contituent parts, and even further modifications to said guns are all either illegal or regulated significantly.
Yet for anything else it isnt. Poisons you can get outright, explosives you are welcome to have in "disassembled" form and even once assembled are often legal until used improperly. I can literally go and buy a tank of CO with no regulation and its ready to mass kill. stick it in my backpack, open the valve and leave it and everyone on an entire train would be dead... didnt even need to assemble it.
There is nothing remotely equivelant int he logic behind how a disassembled gun or constiuent parts of a gun are treated, or even a whole gun, as compared to how poisons and explosives are treated, not even remotely comparable.
@freemo I suppose the counter-argument to that is that the number of homicides actually committed with the above-mentioned methods aren't remotely comparable either.
If there were a rash of high-profile mass-poisonings, I'd wager the same people *would* be calling for tighter restrictions.
I suppose the counter-argument to that is that the number of homicides actually committed with the above-mentioned methods aren’t remotely comparable either.
That is one common argument, and that common argument shows my point well.
The fact that people, as you point out, argue against guns due to the deadliness of the weapon. Then refuse to apply that same concern on more deadly things then that means the deadliness of the weapon isnt the issue, they dont mind more dangerous things being accessible. So now the argument becomes “this weapon is used to hurt more people than other more deadly weapons, so THAT is the reason it should be illegal.
Then this logic likewise fails in fantastic fashion. Melee weapons are the most commonly form of weapon used in the USA (bats, blunt objects, knives, etc) for assaults and violence (which would include homicide) Melee for example is ~160K a year where handguns are ~150K a year.
So again if logic was actually applied consistently then melee weapons, being the weapon most often used to inflict violence would be our top concern and most regulated form of weapons, not guns.
If there were a rash of high-profile mass-poisonings, I’d wager the same people would be calling for tighter restrictions.
There is already a consistent pattern of other weapons being used for violence more often than handguns.. I dont hear the screams to regulate bats or knives.
@freemo Lol, “melee weapons” is not a category on the same level as “handguns”. That’s not a fair comparison.
If you want to do “melee weapons” vs “ranged weapons”, that would work. Or likewise, “handguns” vs “pocketknives” would be comparable.
So now the argument becomes “this weapon is used to hurt more people than other more deadly weapons, so THAT is the reason it should be illegal.”
Yeah. Not illegal, but restricted for sure. If kids start murdering each other with katanas because it’s a meme on TikTok or some such bullshit, then, yes, restrict the sales of katanas until that bullshit dies down. You could make the same argument for AR-15s. Don’t ban them outright, but add an extra week of waiting period or a higher age limit so the dipshit radicalized young kids can’t get their hands on the meme rifle as easy.
Yeah. Not illegal, but restricted for sure. If kids start murdering each other with katanas because it’s a meme on TikTok or some such bullshit, then, yes, restrict the sales of katanas until that bullshit dies down.
Except we dont… Cutting instruments are used in violent crimes as the top 5 choice of a weapon, above even rifles and assault weapons… so yes thats already happening and you dont see anyone making cutting instruments illegal or asking for background checks.
@freemo Same reason we don’t unduly restrict cars. Because they’re tools, not just weapons. We can’t overly restrict such tools and still have a functioning society.
@LouisIngenthron And now yes another prime example of my point, (thanks your proving me out step by step for me)
Exactly they are a tool, not just used to kill. Same with a gun. It is a tool that saves lives, is used for experimentation purposes (tons of physics experiments have been done utilizing guns), is used in sports, its used simply to make a loud noise for a purpose (starter pistols), its used for fun and to practice skills, its used as a safety device (breaking out of a sinking car)… there is a near endless list of things guns are used for other than violence and other than as a weapon.
So yes, yet another perfect exampkle how people will abandon all the same logic they use on everything else on guns.
@freemo Oh come on. Some tools can be used as a weapon and some weapons can be used as a tool, but that doesn’t make them interchangeable. A rifle is a weapon, not a tool.
@LouisIngenthron As a matter of semantics perhaps, but semantics isnt what matters here, function and effect does.
If we call a gun a weapon or not is irrelevant. What matters is if it is used as a weapon to either harm someone or threaten to harm them, more often than it is used as a tool, that is, to serve some function that is NOT to harm someone but rather something else.
I would argue the overwhelming majority of times a gun is used in the USA it is used not to do harm or threaten to do harm, but for some other purpose (usually non-violent sports, or non-violent recreation)
I wonder how many concealed cars we have seen? Thanks to this enlightening discussion I am all convinced now that guns are in fact mainly tools used in physics experiments.
It is interesting how you can always find counterarguments. The more intelligent and creative you are the more adapt you will be at establishing a coherent worldview matching your personal convictions.
The internet is a force for good … ;-)
Pretending you are dumber than you are to make a poi t is a horrible tactic. You know thats neither what was said or suggested, and as such added nothing of value to the conversation.
While physics experiments arent, obviously, the norm the fact remains the overwhelming majority of the time guns are used it is not to kill things or threaten to kill things. The overwhelming use of most guns are for recreations (friends going out and shooting at a range)
My point was beyond that and the argumentation smacked of sophistry imo.
So, you believe that the civilian and recreational use of guns outweighs military and paramilitary training. Interesting. For those “recreational” uses anyway attack rifles and many automatic weapons would likely not make sense.
But then, noboby needs to carry guns in public and guns could be kept locked away at sports clubs for pure and maximized recreational utility?
For those following along and listening it seems the thread broke. You can follow the replies to this as an orphaned thread here:
@gwr @LouisIngenthron
maybe, as far as the comic itself goes its hard to say, I would need to talk to the author to get a better sense of what sort of examples they really meant. I certainly deal with this constantly when discussing guns, that people use “special” logic to reason why guns are bad, and then when you apply that same logic to other things with the same properties the logic obviously fails and needs changing to work.
Now you pointed out absurd examples which are not valid examples of what I just said. The existance of invalid examples is not a way to even imply that there is a lack of valid examples. So whether your right or wrong your approach to arguing your point did a very poor job at doing it.
That said I suspect a better more effective tactic for you to disagree is first ask questions about what was meant, even ask for valid real world examples. After which argue agains tthose non-absurd (though perhaps wrong) examples.
Thats an odd question. What did I say that suggested this is what I think? No I dont think that, nor did I say it.
I was quite explicit in my words. Shooting a piece of paper is a non-violent act. As I said the overwhelming use of weapons when shot has no intention of harming or threatening anyone. The times in which a weapon is used as a weapon to actually cause harm or the threat of harm is likely <1% if I had to guess of all discharges of weapons.
“attack rifles”… that sounds like a really weird made up word with no real usefulness, similar to the other misused and imaginary term “assault weapon”… Also automatic weapons have been effectively illegal (extremely regulated and only with a lot of money and licensing can you buy an antique). In fact automatic weapons in civilian hands has been effectively illegal for like 60 years.
I can think of plenty of people who need or needed to carry a gun in public. I know people who are dead because they didnt. My argument is not that guns should never be used to kill or threaten to kill, it absolutely should and is the responsible thing to do to own a gun for that purpose. I am only pointing out that that is not exclusively their purpose and framing it as such is a bad faith argument.
@LouisIngenthron