Without turning this into a quote war, I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.
Even if you apply the term "killing tool" to any other object, it's obvious that a ballistic weapon still offers one of the easiest opportunities to kill someone.
With the press of a trigger, you've ended someones life.
@Wolfman Walt
I don't understand why you bring up other objects as examples, there are practically none of the other ones that we could function without in a society.
If you honestly believe that we could remove cars, or even knives without a larger uproar of defiance than if we tried to
limit gun ownership, then we simply disagree. Having in car, does not encourage you to take revenge, or present you with an opportunity to kill anyone, anywhere as easily as a gun.
Do you truly believe that just having any knife specificly not made for combat, has the same feel of power? Or honestly; a car?
Or even simpler, do you feel that alcohol presents you an obvious opportunity to go on a drunken murder rage?
No one needs a gun to survive, and if you do, you're not in an urban area and even then, it's for protection.
I've already stated that I think anyone who wants to have guns for a hobby, should have that opportunity, why do you keep bringing it up?
Or do you need the comfort of knowing that you can blow away another person?
There's no way you couldn't live with having your guns, but not your ammo unless you were at a designated firing range?
You haven't given me a single argument, that we can handle guns safely, compared to any other object for potential killing.
I'm sure you can, or my next door neighbour who has three kids can, but I also know that there are a lot of unstable people out there who definately can't, or at least has a relative potential to use a gun to hurt someone, far easier than with anything else.
If we were back a hundred years ago, when we on a global scale
needed these to survive through hunting, or self-preservation, the idea of keeping most guns out of public hands would be ridiculous.
I've managed to live without a weapon so far, and granted without a car, but if I didn't live in public transport/bike range of everything I needed including my work, then I would have to have a car, or I couldn't function.
Apart from personal protection(because there are other options, and moving away is a very valid one), what NEED is there for a gun?
Be honest, even if you say MANY more, I can't think of even one, unless I lived in the middle of nowhere in Australia, and then we're talking circumstance.
@Thor
In what way does a simple knife, mind you not a sword or any knife designed for combat, provide the same easy method of killing, as a gun?
None. Because at the very least, you can outrun or defend yourself against a knife.
It should be obvious why the military should be allowed to handle and storage weapons.
As for the political debate of eliminating any chance for an uprisal...
I honestly don't know. I do know, that if it comes down to armed conflict between the people and its government, then guns are the least of your problems.
@spokomptonjdub
My arguments may seem flowery and utopic, but that's the point, it's a start. There's no "fix all" button that suddenly makes everything alright, and I've never claimed so.
But people are jumping to the defensive, obviously some need the comfort of having a weapon at their disposal, which makes me wonder if they have other problems, than just the need "for their right".
Also, I don't believe in an all-ban. I believe in restrictions, because they help discourage weaker willed individuals from getting a gun for any stupid reason. (and man, there are a LOT of those).
An all ban would just mean that you are obviously trying to take peoples rights away, what'd that accomplish?
No, the way to do it would be a gradual stricter system that in the end prevents most from ever even considering to own a gun.
This one, I have to quote;
Meanwhile, New York city saw a steep drop in all crime and accomplished this without stricter gun control, which again points out that guns are not the source of the problem.
These are the arguments I see popping up in most of the replies I get, they look and sound good, but have no valid point.
You know what that statistic proves?
That there are other problems than guns in the world, and that basicly you or I have no idea whether or not removing all guns from a city would have a beneficiary effect.
School shootings: They don't surprise me, but giving teachers weapons, is not a smart move. Not smart, at all.
In hindsight, they aren't what convince me that guns are a bad idea, it just confirms it. What I'm afraid of, is that some idiot out there believes he has the right to pull a gun on me, because he doesn't like me.
Another quote!
Fact is, none of us here will change each other's minds, and it makes it even more difficult because we are debating over cultural lines, I strongly believe that the Denmark model would be disastrous here in the states, and I'm sure you believe our system or my ideas would be terrible for Denmark, and we could both be right, because our societies are very different.
Best argument I've seen in the whole thread.
But even if I can't just dump my culture on another country, there's no reason it couldn't influence anyone.
@Machiavelli
You are insulting. Even if you don't want to.
I've covered most of what you argue for already, although I don't see you trying to face any of my own arguments.
I believe that even if you can handle the responsibility, I know a lot of others can't. Why do you cling to your need to own one though?
You also stated that it was easier to shoot someone than to get up close and stab/beat them. How do you know? Have you ever done it?
I've never attacked anyone, but I have been mugged and been in situations that would only have been worse, if either had a gun.
I think it's fairly obvious that having a gun presents you with a far easier choice to injure someone or worse, kill them, than if you stood with anything else. For SOME there may not be a difference, but for many there is, and that's the point. You can't rule out the possibility based on the few.
I know that I certainly would've taken a shot at someone in anger or fear, not in the least the mugger, or a band of hooligans raging down the streets looking for violence.
Do I believe I should have that choice? Fuck no, and I'm glad that I'm smart enough to find a different solution.
More guns may not be the answer, but removing all guns (from the hands of law abiding citizens THAT'S WHY THE BAD GUYS ARE CALLED OUTLAWS) certainly won't help make anyone safer.
If safety is your concern, then you have other opportunities to pursue, one being to move away, or to another country.
You may believe that you don't want to be pushed away, because you can't own a gun, but I believe that I don't want the risk of having it as a commodity in urban areas.
I think I've argued for everything I could so far, with the exception of Wolfman Walt, I can partly see why some want to be able to have the right to own a gun.
Thor believes that taking away power from the public is the potential for a country ending in disaster or oppression.
Machiavelli has the need to protect his family, and is as far as I know an experienced and responsible person.
I admit, I feel less strong about banning guns outright in the public.
I also believe we can do better, one step at a time, by limiting firearms, and certainly not handing them out to teachers.
