"Stricter gun laws" = NOTHING to do with "banning guns"

[Shodan 2.0]

Just saying, it seems like too many people misunderstand this idea or just misinterpret it on purpose in order to have some "problem" to whine about and a "common enemy" as a manipulation tool or simply just to have more things to whine about.

Anyway, "stricter gun laws" would just make it harder for the wrong people to get access to guns. The people who take away other people's freedom. Without such people having access to guns, everyone else would have more freedom. Freedom to live. Freedom to go anywhere without fear of getting shot.

The problem isn't guns or normal gun owners, it's just the wrong people being able to access them too easily and without even knowing how to use them responsibly.

Stricter gun laws would absolutely not affect all the normal gun owners out there who are the majority, so I don't see what's the problem. You would still have your guns for self-defense just in case because you can never fully get rid of criminals, but you would definitely be less likely to have to use them as a last resort.

See, you can have a gun in Massachusetts just fine:

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/gun-ownership-in-massachusetts

But, because Massachusetts has stricter gun laws, mass shootings (specifically school shootings) there are as nonexistent as in Europe and it's generally one of the best states in terms of safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Massachusetts

Just 4 entries here, basically isolated incidents as anywhere else in the world.

Switzerland has a really strong gun culture and plenty of guns, but mass shootings are nonexistent. Go figure. Maybe it's proper regulations, as well as proper education and training?

[GloriousZote]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Początkowo opublikowane przez SlowMango:

That same "If it just saves one..." logic is what was used to rocket the Patriot Act through our legal system.

An act that gave the government more power over it's citizens. A government that has only been trying to increase that power over two decades later.

The slippery slope argument isn't hyperbole, we all watched it, and are currently watching it happen.

Isn't your entire point here a slippery slope? Guns can't and won't go anywhere, and lives being saved is worth it.

If you assume your idea won't change anything about people owning guns, your law also won't really do anything about.. anything at all.
You're proposing a law that you, in the same argument, assume will be ignored. You voice this assumption because you want to convince people that taking away guns won't take away their self-defense.

It is exactly the law-abiding citizens who will lose power here, and the criminals, you know, those that commit all these mass-shootings, will just find a way to get a gun illegally, not like they'll have to worry about breaking more laws after they paint half a school red, right...

[Shodan 2.0]

Początkowo opublikowane przez 󠀡󠀡:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

And yeah, the gun culture isn't going anywhere and it doesn't need to, Switzerland has a strong gun culture and tons of guns too, but without these huge problems. Everyone here just refuses to read and refuses to see that this isn't about banning guns, taking away guns, hating guns and gun cultures and what not, they just copy+paste their stupid generic ♥♥♥♥ over and over and that's it.

Sure. And they'll use the same flimsy crepe paper arguments about it, throwing attention elsewhere like the disastrous states of our mental health care, our justice systems, et al. as though more than one thing cannot possibly be made to be improved upon. They still want to feel like Rambo or Mad Max at the end of the way because they don't really want solutions. They want to see this world go to hell in a handbasket.

Yeah, they keep bringing up "IT'S NOT GUNS, IT'S MENTAL HEALTH"... like, yeah, of course it is, no one is even arguing otherwise, but so what then, does that mean people with such huge mental health problems should remain being allowed to get a gun just like that? Guns and mental health problems don't go together. Yeah, of course mental health is a real problem and that's precisely why those people should be kept away from guns... that's like... you know... the whole point.

Początkowo opublikowane przez SlowMango:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Isn't your entire point here a slippery slope?

That is one part but not the main point. There are other points I have brought up.

People seem hung up on the slippery slope argument so I addressed it with a real example of it happening when you give the government and inch.

So, it's a slippery slope when it's in favor of the other side, but when you do it, then it's because it's REALLY going to happen, so it's not a slippery slope because it will actually come true because you said so?

[Netaris]

Początkowo opublikowane przez 󠀡󠀡:

You’ll get people who state that this is how it all starts and how such regs won’t deter criminals from obtaining such weaponry but if stricter regs can prevent even one child from getting snuffed out and prevented from living a long and fruitful life due to their parent or guardian or neighbor’s idiocy, then it’s worth it.

And what about the guy, holded at gunpoint by some scums robbing a store, who don't gonna be able to defend himself because some idiots think he'll probably be fine if he give this guy what he want ? You know what ? I've seen countless CCTV footages of robbers actually given anything they wanted and still shooting the guy dead before leaving, for nothing, just like that. Scums don't abide to the same morality as normal peoples, life have a very low value for these guys and they'll kill you for a snack.

That's what a society's weaknesses produce : merciless predators and the actual american society is very weak.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Początkowo opublikowane przez SlowMango:

That same "If it just saves one..." logic is what was used to rocket the Patriot Act through our legal system.

An act that gave the government more power over it's citizens. A government that has only been trying to increase that power over two decades later.

The slippery slope argument isn't hyperbole, we all watched it, and are currently watching it happen.

Isn't your entire point here a slippery slope? Guns can't and won't go anywhere, and lives being saved is worth it.

Obama had the CDC do a study on guns and found that betwee half a million and 3 million lives on average were saved every year due to guns.

So it looks like the real question is, when will the anti-gun movement start removing restrictions because it's very likely children's lives will be saved if they do.

[GloriousZote]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Początkowo opublikowane przez 󠀡󠀡:

Sure. And they'll use the same flimsy crepe paper arguments about it, throwing attention elsewhere like the disastrous states of our mental health care, our justice systems, et al. as though more than one thing cannot possibly be made to be improved upon. They still want to feel like Rambo or Mad Max at the end of the way because they don't really want solutions. They want to see this world go to hell in a handbasket.

Yeah, they keep bringing up "IT'S NOT GUNS, IT'S MENTAL HEALTH"... like, yeah, of course it is, but so what then, does that mean people with such huge mental health problems should remain being allowed to get a gun just like that? Guns and mental health problems don't go together. Yeah, of course mental health is a real problem and that's precisely why those people should be kept away from guns... that's like... you know... the whole point.

Laws won't stop them from getting a gun, just as laws don't stop them from shooting a dozen of children. They'll find a way, as you say, there's too many guns to actually take them away now.

[Shodan 2.0]

Początkowo opublikowane przez GloriousZote:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Isn't your entire point here a slippery slope? Guns can't and won't go anywhere, and lives being saved is worth it.

If you assume your idea won't change anything about people owning guns, your law also won't really do anything about.. anything at all.
You're proposing a law that you, in the same argument, assume will be ignored. You voice this assumption because you want to convince people that taking away guns won't take away their self-defense.

It is exactly the law-abiding citizens who will lose power here, and the criminals, you know, those that commit all these mass-shootings, will just find a way to get a gun illegally, not like they'll have to worry about breaking more laws after they paint half a school red, right...

What ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ taking away? I said a billion times, I'm not talking about any taking away or banning or anything. You need a driver's license to drive, does that means cars are taken away and banned and your freedom to go wherever you want whenever you want is gone? Of course not. No one ever complains about this because it's obviously not a problem, so why wouldn't it be the same with guns?

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

We should have way stronger regulations, if not outright bans on pools.

Think of the lives it would save!

[Boblin the Goblin]

Początkowo opublikowane przez GloriousZote:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Isn't your entire point here a slippery slope? Guns can't and won't go anywhere, and lives being saved is worth it.

If you assume your idea won't change anything about people owning guns, your law also won't really do anything about.. anything at all.
You're proposing a law that you, in the same argument, assume will be ignored. You voice this assumption because you want to convince people that taking away guns won't take away their self-defense.

It is exactly the law-abiding citizens who will lose power here, and the criminals, you know, those that commit all these mass-shootings, will just find a way to get a gun illegally, not like they'll have to worry about breaking more laws after they paint half a school red, right...

Ironically, "lives being saved" is the same logic used to ban abortions in many states. It is a phrase that can be twisted to do anything the user wants it to and as an attempt to shut down any opposition because you can just say they don't care about 'X lives'.

[Shodan 2.0]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Sir Seanicus, Esq.:

We should have way stronger regulations, if not outright bans on pools.

Think of the lives it would save!

I'm not talking about ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bans. Driver's licenses help, they're not perfect, but they help, and it should be left at licenses, cars shouldn't be banned. Same with guns. Jesus ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Christ.

Początkowo opublikowane przez SlowMango:

Początkowo opublikowane przez GloriousZote:

If you assume your idea won't change anything about people owning guns, your law also won't really do anything about.. anything at all.
You're proposing a law that you, in the same argument, assume will be ignored. You voice this assumption because you want to convince people that taking away guns won't take away their self-defense.

It is exactly the law-abiding citizens who will lose power here, and the criminals, you know, those that commit all these mass-shootings, will just find a way to get a gun illegally, not like they'll have to worry about breaking more laws after they paint half a school red, right...

Ironically, "lives being saved" is the same logic used to ban abortions in many states. It is a phrase that can be twisted to do anything the user wants it to and as an attempt to shut down any opposition because you can just say they don't care about 'X lives'.

It's not like you can just decide "OH I DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT AFTER ALL" after being pregnant for 6 months and just go get an abortion. That's not how it works. It's not murder if there's no life to begin with. Either you do it right away or you don't do it. It's that simple, but people keep spreading ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about it for their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reasons, not for actual valid moral concerns. Good reminder, I'll do a thread on that too when this one dies.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

My family fled a country which implemented gun control to save the lives of the people by restricting certain groups from owning guns, it didn't work out for those certain groups. When they came for the guns they claimed it would help the people and save lives. It costs lives....cost milions of lives.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Sir Seanicus, Esq.:

We should have way stronger regulations, if not outright bans on pools.

Think of the lives it would save!

I'm not talking about ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bans. Driver's licenses help, they're not perfect, but they help, and it should be left at licenses, cars shouldn't be banned. Same with guns. Jesus ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Christ.

Gun purchases already require ID. Are you comparing this to a less requirement to make the restrictions you support seem less?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Początkowo opublikowane przez 󠀡󠀡:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Sir Seanicus, Esq.:

We should have way stronger regulations, if not outright bans on pools.

Think of the lives it would save!

We're not talking about swimming in water, dear. We're talking about swimming in a sea of dead bodies. Keep up with the adults. *snap snap*

There is no 'sea of dead bodies'. Hyperbole doesn't help anyone.

[Good Night Owl]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shodan 2.0:

Początkowo opublikowane przez 󠀡󠀡:

Sure. And they'll use the same flimsy crepe paper arguments about it, throwing attention elsewhere like the disastrous states of our mental health care, our justice systems, et al. as though more than one thing cannot possibly be made to be improved upon. They still want to feel like Rambo or Mad Max at the end of the way because they don't really want solutions. They want to see this world go to hell in a handbasket.

Yeah, they keep bringing up "IT'S NOT GUNS, IT'S MENTAL HEALTH"... like, yeah, of course it is, but so what then...

Most of those crimes are usually linked to drug use. I think that's the actual heart of the issue.

I'd rather tackle the issue as a whole, rather than merely altering the way, and date in which they try to kill people. Otherwise, sure you might be standing next to a crazy killer without a gun (they probably STILL have a gun anyway, but we'll pretend they don't), but you're still standing next to a crazy killer either way.

[Netaris]

Początkowo opublikowane przez The Father ☯:

My family fled a country which implemented gun control to save the lives of the people by restricting certain groups from owning guns, it didn't work out for those certain groups. When they came for the guns they claimed it would help the people and save lives. It costs lives....cost milions of lives.

I'm not surprised, never trust a politician, ever, especially if his party already targeted your own.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

Początkowo opublikowane przez 󠀡󠀡:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Sir Seanicus, Esq.:

We should have way stronger regulations, if not outright bans on pools.

Think of the lives it would save!

We're not talking about swimming in water, dear. We're talking about swimming in a sea of dead bodies. Keep up with the adults. *snap snap*

Strange...

Początkowo opublikowane przez 󠀡󠀡:

but if stricter regs can prevent even one child from getting snuffed out and prevented from living a long and fruitful life due to their parent or guardian or neighbor’s idiocy, then it’s worth it.

This you?