Gun control

<< < (16/18) > >>

BoogieMonster (February 14, 2013, 13:36:23 PM):
I'll be willing to bet that a gun-free society will have zero incidences of firearm accidents.


True, if such a thing were possible in real life... But that doesn't address the other side-effects that would stem from such a move. The question is what other types of unwanted effects would increase. I've heard claims that in Australia, "post gun ban" gun violence did in fact go down. But other types of violence increased to compensate, and if I recall correctly, surpassed the previous levels of total violence.

I have to conjecture that gangs of boys in the UK going around randomly beating people to an inch of their life on the street could also be one such side effect.

Quote
Erm, utility? To most people, owning a vehicle of some description is infinitely more important as and aid to put bread on the table, and survival in general, than a gun could ever hope to be.


Okay, it's just an analogy, let's use skydiving instead: 99.9% of people will never skydive. But a small minority do, and of them a small minority die in accidents. Should we ban skydiving if that happens in a tiny percentage of cases?

Quote
The risk of fatal accidents due to dangerous items of very high utility is more justified than the risk of death due to dangerous items with an almost hypothetical utility.


As one of the world's most murderous countries, if the case can be made anywhere, it would be here. For us it's far from hypothetical.

Quote
Quote
Isn't the necessary conclusion to this logic a complete banning of guns?

You know, I guess it is. Just as much as some of the pro-gun lobbies' arguments should logically result in free for all firearms, available otc, no questions asked.


That's not what I'm angling at at all. Much like I don't think everyone should be allowed to drive without training and meeting some criteria (like good eyesight). You said there needs to be "stricter" control, but you don't seem sure what exactly that would entail, and to me it seemed "stricter" was a euphamism for "prohibition".
Majin (February 14, 2013, 13:38:49 PM):
[
Quote
friend due to mistaken identity. Oscar's is just another story of many similar ones that seem to hit the news occasionally. So no, I don't know what would have prevented this specific tragedy, but I'll be willing to bet that a gun-free society will have zero incidences of firearm accidents.

Yes it might have zero incidence with firearm accidents. But is it justified if other innocent people who can't defend themselves get killed by criminals who don't abide the laws of gun control? I don't think so.

And I am sure if your live was threatened you would use any means possible to defend your self.
If the criminals have guns it doesn't help to threaten them with a baseball bat.

If it was possible to take away guns completely it would be great, but unfortunately it's not possible.
cr1t (February 14, 2013, 13:40:24 PM):
I think it was Chris Rock that said, Give everybody a gun, but make bullets cost a $1000, that way when you shoot
somebody you are very positive you want them dead.
Rigil Kent (February 14, 2013, 16:03:08 PM):
You said there needs to be "stricter" control
No, I don't think that I did. I said that accidental death makes a good case for stricter control. I then said that any new regulation that will reduce guns, will cause a drop in accidents ... purely because of probability. (Personally I don't care if sane people walk around armed to the teeth if it pleases them to do so.)

Okay, it's just an analogy, let's use skydiving instead
Skydivers typically only wipe themselves out in an accident. The analogy will be valid if gun owners can be counted on to do the same.

But is it justified if other innocent people who can't defend themselves get killed by criminals who don't abide the laws of gun control? I don't think so.

Acknowledged. In fact, if I may be so vain as to quote myself:
So what is the acceptable accidental death : successful self defense rate? Beats me...

Rigil
BoogieMonster (February 14, 2013, 17:02:53 PM):
You said there needs to be "stricter" control
No, I don't think that I did. I said that accidental death makes a good case for stricter control.

If you believe there is good case, then you do imply that current restrictions are not to your liking. Otherwise you would not believe it's a good case.

Quote
Skydivers typically only wipe themselves out in an accident.

Gun owners typically don't shoot their spouses. And there is no guarantee a skydiver will only hurt himself.

EDIT: Wow, force of habit, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page