Government hand-chop proposal

[Rideo]

We all know guns kill people, but when we try and ban them knives start killing people, but if we ban knives you know what will happen?

That's right, people will begin strangling people and beating them to death. It's clear that gun and knife bans won't work at all, people will either move on to the next hot murder weapon or just use the old ones illegally, so we need to chop off the citizens hands.

Think about it, without hands they can't hold guns or knives or choke people, the world would be completely safe if we started doing this to all newborn babies.

Of course the government can't chop of their own hands because they need them to chop off yours, but we can trust them because they're the government and they've never tried to take advantage of us in the past, because I mean that's not their job, right?

Discuss,
while you still have those (malicious) hands.

[JackPhantasm]

But what if someone kicks someone.

[KillerCRS]

At 11/2/08 12:07 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But what if someone kicks someone.

Then everyone is fucked, and humans will be a stubby vegetable race of animals.

[Rideo]

At 11/2/08 12:07 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But what if someone kicks someone.

Very good question. I think to resolve this issue we will cuff everyones feet so they only have enough room to walk, but just barely; anymore than that would be highly dangerous.

[Metalhead772]

At 11/2/08 02:23 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 11/2/08 12:07 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But what if someone kicks someone.

Very good question. I think to resolve this issue we will cuff everyones feet so they only have enough room to walk, but just barely; anymore than that would be highly dangerous.

You could still bite people though.

[Peglay]

if some one kicks or hits some one or stabs him.....just shoot the bastard......problem salved!

[Drakim]

Although it's true that you can't just ban guns and expect crime to dissapear, it's foolish to say that it's POINTLESS to work against the spread of guns.

I mean, if we extend that logic, everybody should be given nukes. I mean, if we don't have nukes, we will just use guns instead. What's the difference?

The difference is clearly that a nuke causes a lot more destruction than a gun, and that a gun causes a lot more destruction than a knife, and a knife causes a lot more destruction than hands.

The knife, although very usable for crime, is a LOT harder to use and less effective than a gun. When was the last time you heard of a "shootout" where the person had knives? It wouldn't work, because it would only take 3 people to overpower the person, despite him having knives.

I'm not saying that we should ban guns because it's better that criminals have knives (indeed, they would most likely just use guns despite them being banned), but, the argument that banning guns will result in nothing because people will just use other weapons is lame and very lacking.

[Prinzy2]

What about the 300 pound chick that just belly flops right on you.
I'll suffocate!

[Rideo]

At 11/3/08 03:58 PM, Drakim wrote: Although it's true that you can't just ban guns and expect crime to dissapear, it's foolish to say that it's POINTLESS to work against the spread of guns.

Of course it isn't pointless. It's just whether or not we will benefit from it. Why should we work against the spread of guns when areas with high gun ownership have the least crime?

The knife, although very usable for crime, is a LOT harder to use and less effective than a gun. When was the last time you heard of a "shootout" where the person had knives?

We call them knife fights.

It wouldn't work, because it would only take 3 people to overpower the person, despite him having knives.

Are you telling me people don't use knives in fights because they're not good weapons?

I'm not saying that we should ban guns because it's better that criminals have knives (indeed, they would most likely just use guns despite them being banned), but, the argument that banning guns will result in nothing because people will just use other weapons is lame and very lacking.

The point is that we shouldn't go after the weapon and think it will resolve anything, we should look at what really causes crime, it's not weapons, it's mostly poverty and bad upbringing.

[SadisticMonkey]

Kicking, biting, headbutting...

[Drakim]

At 11/3/08 04:53 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 11/3/08 03:58 PM, Drakim wrote: Although it's true that you can't just ban guns and expect crime to dissapear, it's foolish to say that it's POINTLESS to work against the spread of guns.

Of course it isn't pointless. It's just whether or not we will benefit from it. Why should we work against the spread of guns when areas with high gun ownership have the least crime?

Perhaps because countries with low gun ownership and no crazy wild west gun culture has even less crime? I'm not saying that less guns = less crime, but, I think all options should be valid. Americans are so happy about their guns that many refuse to even look at all sides. Perhaps spreading more guns to everybody, while at the same time having mandatory gun training and registration, is the ultimate combo at crime? Many pro-gun people won't even consider that, because anything that regulates gun is BAD and EVIL.

The knife, although very usable for crime, is a LOT harder to use and less effective than a gun. When was the last time you heard of a "shootout" where the person had knives?

We call them knife fights.

Which results in that 30-40 people die at a highschool? no?

Knives are dangerous, but not as dangerous as guns. If they were, nobody would bother to get guns as knives are cheaper!

It wouldn't work, because it would only take 3 people to overpower the person, despite him having knives.

Are you telling me people don't use knives in fights because they're not good weapons?

I'm saying that just as a gun doesn't have the hurting power of a nuke, a knife doesn't have the hurting power of a gun. You can't go on high school shootouts with a knife, because it's too ineffective at mass murdering people.

I'm not saying that we should ban guns because it's better that criminals have knives (indeed, they would most likely just use guns despite them being banned), but, the argument that banning guns will result in nothing because people will just use other weapons is lame and very lacking.

The point is that we shouldn't go after the weapon and think it will resolve anything, we should look at what really causes crime, it's not weapons, it's mostly poverty and bad upbringing.

Yes, but even if guns aren't the problem, they may be the solution. What if doing something as simple as coloring all legal guns violently pink reduced crime? Again, lots of pro-gun people would be very against this, because anything regulating guns is unamerican!

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/3/08 05:03 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/3/08 04:53 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 11/3/08 03:58 PM, Drakim wrote: Although it's true that you can't just ban guns and expect crime to dissapear, it's foolish to say that it's POINTLESS to work against the spread of guns.

Of course it isn't pointless. It's just whether or not we will benefit from it. Why should we work against the spread of guns when areas with high gun ownership have the least crime?

Perhaps because countries with low gun ownership and no crazy wild west gun culture has even less crime? I'm not saying that less guns = less crime, but, I think all options should be valid. Americans are so happy about their guns that many refuse to even look at all sides. Perhaps spreading more guns to everybody, while at the same time having mandatory gun training and registration, is the ultimate combo at crime? Many pro-gun people won't even consider that, because anything that regulates gun is BAD and EVIL.

You're ideas make sense, but it neglects the fact that the majority of gun crimes occur in the urban areas away from the 'wild west gun culture' It's often a mistake of one nation to look at a foreign nation and think that the people there are very like in thinking. When the fact is that most nations are divided regionally. In fact, most of America's history has been due to issues between the different life styles and cultures of people who live in the north east, southeast, and west.

Sorry for the tangent, anyway... you get the point. if you want to reduce gun crime, you have to start at the source, guns are not the source, they're merely a product.

[Slizor]

Of course it isn't pointless. It's just whether or not we will benefit from it. Why should we work against the spread of guns when areas with high gun ownership have the least crime?

Just done a tiny bit of digging on this (it's an oft repeated claim) and it doesn't look like a very strong argument. Most of the research that supports this idea either comes directly from one John R. Lott or is written by someone else whose research is based upon Lott's work. At the same time there is research which directly counters Lott's position that I managed to find with very little digging.

[marchohare]

At 11/3/08 03:58 PM, Drakim wrote: ...if we extend that logic, everybody should be given nukes. I mean, if we don't have nukes, we will just use guns instead. What's the difference?

The cost and obtainability of gunpowder and lead vs. plutonium or U-235.

I can build a deadly little projectile weapon out of junk from my shed--not that I'd have to. There are millions and millions of guns floating around. But I'd have a hell of a time finding parts for a nuke.

[Drakim]

At 11/4/08 07:15 AM, marchohare wrote:

At 11/3/08 03:58 PM, Drakim wrote: ...if we extend that logic, everybody should be given nukes. I mean, if we don't have nukes, we will just use guns instead. What's the difference?

The cost and obtainability of gunpowder and lead vs. plutonium or U-235.

Knifes only need to be sharpened once a year. That's a lot cheaper than bullets.

I can build a deadly little projectile weapon out of junk from my shed--not that I'd have to. There are millions and millions of guns floating around. But I'd have a hell of a time finding parts for a nuke.

Fine, improvised bomb then. You can make that out of household materials.

At 11/3/08 09:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 11/3/08 05:03 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/3/08 04:53 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 11/3/08 03:58 PM, Drakim wrote: Although it's true that you can't just ban guns and expect crime to dissapear, it's foolish to say that it's POINTLESS to work against the spread of guns.

Of course it isn't pointless. It's just whether or not we will benefit from it. Why should we work against the spread of guns when areas with high gun ownership have the least crime?

Perhaps because countries with low gun ownership and no crazy wild west gun culture has even less crime? I'm not saying that less guns = less crime, but, I think all options should be valid. Americans are so happy about their guns that many refuse to even look at all sides. Perhaps spreading more guns to everybody, while at the same time having mandatory gun training and registration, is the ultimate combo at crime? Many pro-gun people won't even consider that, because anything that regulates gun is BAD and EVIL.

You're ideas make sense, but it neglects the fact that the majority of gun crimes occur in the urban areas away from the 'wild west gun culture' It's often a mistake of one nation to look at a foreign nation and think that the people there are very like in thinking. When the fact is that most nations are divided regionally. In fact, most of America's history has been due to issues between the different life styles and cultures of people who live in the north east, southeast, and west.

Yeah, I belive this to be true too (I mean, the gun loving republicans is rarely the ones who go out on the streets and shoot people).

However, I was simply making the point that one should look at all options. The people like OP who compares any action against guns to be equal of the government chopping people's hands off. That's what I was basically arguing against. I believe there are smart regulations which can reduce crime, without necessary taking away guns from people (which many pro-gun fanatics calls ANY regulation upon guns).

I mean, for example, why would anybody be against having a database over guns and who owns them? Not having that is basically BEGGING for legals guns to be resold to the sub urban areas.