Time to ban bows and arrows

[Egon]

Does this mean its time to ban cars and trucks if someone runs over a pedestrian?

[oldoldman]

Until we can find a way to ban irrationality laws are only going to prohibit law abiding citizens.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

In 2005 22,400 people died from drug overdoses. Maybe we should ban narcotics. Oh, we have? Well how's that working out for us?

Do we really need a war on Guns too?

Most of that due to prescription drugs, gj leaving out pertinent information.

All of the arguments above me and after yours are all the same ignorant straw man arguments you've used before. Cars and drugs weren't made with the intent of killing, crime is rarely committed with a gun or drugs being used as the tool of choice for leverage in a situation or to actively kill multiple victims.

You're all idiots for bringing gummi bear arguments into this thread.

[Devek]

In 2005 22,400 people died from drug overdoses. Maybe we should ban narcotics. Oh, we have? Well how's that working out for us?

Do we really need a war on Guns too?

652,091 died in that same year from heart disease.

People don't live in reality.. there is a cognitive flaw in people where people overreact to things that are not dangerous and ignore things that are. I see it all the time in Oklahoma, where a person will talk about how scary tornadoes are while smoking a cigarette. If it doesn't have a name, we shall call it the Finesse syndrome.

If we are really going to judge things based off of how many people are killed... Marijuana has killed 0 people since the beginning of time.

[Dimmauk]

Unless you are Elvaan, its hard to look gangsta shooting a bow and arrow.

[Stiker]

Brings whole new meaning to going medieval on someone's ass.

[Dimmauk]

652,091 died in that same year from heart disease.

People don't live in reality.. there is a cognitive flaw in people where people overreact to things that are not dangerous and ignore things that are. I see it all the time in Oklahoma, where a person will talk about how scary tornadoes are while smoking a cigarette. If it doesn't have a name, we shall call it the Finesse syndrome.

If we are really going to judge things based off of how many people are killed... Marijuana has killed 0 people since the beginning of time.

It has helped kill people with heart conditions. Their heart slowed down too much and had a heart attack. They had a bad heart and probably shouldnt have been smoking weed in the first place.

[Devek]

It has helped kill people with heart conditions. Their heart slowed down too much and had a heart attack. They had a bad heart and probably shouldnt have been smoking weed in the first place.

Who the fuck dies of a heart attack that smokes weed?

That goes against everything I know about people that smoke weed

[Dimmauk]

Who the fuck dies of a heart attack that smokes weed?

That goes against everything I know about people that smoke weed

People smoke weed, then get munchies, then eat alot. Repeat till you are fat with a heart condition. Then smoke so much your heart slows down to much, then they have a heart attack.

[Tristam]

Until we can find a way to ban irrationality laws are only going to prohibit law abiding citizens.

anarchy in the USA?

[Tristam]

Who the fuck dies of a heart attack that smokes weed?

That goes against everything I know about people that smoke weed

THC can both increase and decrease anxiety depending on the person and what other drugs they may be taking, this includes caffeine. I've known people to be hospitalized for dangerously high heart rates ODing on marijuana, sometimes in combination with shit like diet pills, but not always.

The more likely effects from marijuana are on brain development, use by pregnant mothers is known to cause ADHD, FAS-like symptoms, memory impairment, and miscarriage. Chronic use by adults causes changes in brain morphology (hippocampus especially) resulting in the obvious memory impairments.

[Dimmauk]

I have ADHD, and its not that bad.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Who the fuck dies of a heart attack that smokes weed?

That goes against everything I know about people that smoke weed

But it goes with every generalized half-ass unresearched statement you make in your arguments.

[oldoldman]

Most of that due to prescription drugs, gj leaving out pertinent information.

All of the arguments above me and after yours are all the same ignorant straw man arguments you've used before. Cars and drugs weren't made with the intent of killing, crime is rarely committed with a gun or drugs being used as the tool of choice for leverage in a situation or to actively kill multiple victims.

You're all idiots for bringing gummi bear arguments into this thread.

And I would guess a majority of gun homicides are committed with illegal firearms, (Bought on street or not registered to shooter).

I'm assuming you meant car instead of guns there. My point stands though, we are failing miserably at the "War on Drugs" a ban and subsequent "War on Guns" would just widen the avenue for arms dealers to make money. People who don't obey the law will be largely unaffected, they may just have to pay more for their illegal firearm.

[pohibaba]

And I would guess a majority of gun homicides are committed with illegal firearms, (Bought on street or not registered to shooter).

Where do most of those guns come from? The gang members don't make them themselves so they must have been bought legally at some point in time, right?

[oldoldman]

Where do most of those guns come from? The gang members don't make them themselves so they must have been bought legally at some point in time, right?

Yes, much like prescription drugs are bought legally at some point, that was more of a direct response to The Finesse than my overall point.

[pohibaba]

Yes, much like prescription drugs are bought legally at some point, that was more of a direct response to The Finesse than my overall point.

Well, my point is that banning guns would remove them from honest gun owners, which is where the majority of illegal guns come from, thus eventually reducing criminals who have guns as well, right?

Spoiler: show

By the way, I don't actually buy into this argument myself. I think that banning guns from honest citizens because they MAY eventually fall into the hands of criminals is a retarded policy. Sure, certain crime rates will fall, there's no doubt about that, but there was crime and murder before guns and there will be crime and murder after guns. I think every citizen losing their liberties is not an acceptable casualty of a few people having a harder time committing certain crimes.

[Tristam]

Most of that due to prescription drugs, gj leaving out pertinent information.

All of the arguments above me and after yours are all the same ignorant straw man arguments you've used before. Cars and drugs weren't made with the intent of killing, crime is rarely committed with a gun or drugs being used as the tool of choice for leverage in a situation or to actively kill multiple victims.

You're all idiots for bringing gummi bear arguments into this thread.

Whenever I see people bringing up these sorts of analogies, I try to raise the argument that it's never about what thing kills how many people. Everything is capable of killing or hurting someone. The idea behind our laws is that we can choose which things have a benefit to society and whether or not those benefits outweigh their potential costs. Obviously cars have a gigantic benefit to society, so while many things about cars are regulated (safety features, speed limits, seatbelts, etc.) we have consciously chosen the risk associated with the use of individual automotive transportation. The motive behind the restrictions is to find a balance where things are both safe and effective, although you cannot have it 100% either way (having your cake and eating it too).

for food, obviously we need to eat, and it is entirely up to the individual to monitor their own intake to prevent their own adverse health effects, but again there are restrictions in place to protect people. We can count calories, monitor vitamins, make our own decisions etc. But there are tons of laws protecting people which leaves the decision entirely up to the individual. We have accepted, as a society, the risks associated with choosing our own food, and balance it with the laws that prevent companies from hiding nutritional information.

For guns, the only honest pro-gun argument that I've heard in the thread is that 9-10k gun related homicides, including the 4-5k/year that occur due to "arguments" and however many suicides is "not a big deal". At least that's honest and you can say that the perceived benefit to society is greater than whatever value you place on the loss of those lives. At leas then we can have an honest argument about the benefit or detriment of guns to society, and what level of regulation is appropriate to achieve the balance that satisfies responsible gun owners and gun safety advocates. But all I hear are these shitty analogies about cars, drugs, and food. Or the entirely stupid non-argument that only criminals will have guns.

[Devek]

But it goes with every generalized half-ass unresearched statement you make in your arguments.

It is a joke man.. don't have a heart attack.

[Tristam]

And I would guess a majority of gun homicides are committed with illegal firearms, (Bought on street or not registered to shooter).

I would guess not, most are accidental shootings and shootings over "arguments".

When illegal guns are used in a crime, they are rarely used with the intention to kill. In the undeniably vast majority of cases of illegal gun use, they are used as a threatening device.