I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but why do people want to ban birth control?
7
deleted
· 8 years ago
I haven't seen people arguing to ban it, but I have seen people arguing against insurance covering it/being forced to offer it as part of their insurance.
Also, for some it's a religious issue. I'm under the impression that the catholic church sees it as sin so they don't want to be forced to offer it/pay for it because it's helping someone sin. It seems they're fine with other people using it but they don't want to be helping people do so.
The problem isn't guns, the problem is violence, if people can't use guns for violence they'll use knives or something.
Also a lot of people in America pretty much already have guns, so I don't see a peaceful scenario where they are taken away.
Well maybe if we hadn't legalized them in the first place....but I do see your point guest. Isn't there a protocol in some places you have to verify you are sane before you can purchase anything? Many lawyers like to jump the gun for a criminal and say "s/he was mentally unstable etc."
Forcibly taking away somebodies legally obtained property does not go well. However, the United States has a toxic gun culture that values violence has the means to the ends for most of what you want. We need to evaluate, as a country, why machines used for the express purpose of killing are so valuable to us.
Also, its harder to kill copious amounts of people like the man in oregon did with a knife. Usually, in the vast majority of cases, if a man enters a crowded area with a knife he is stopped befor he can kill someone, at most he just injures someone
Agreed. The usual lines trotted out are either "blood of patriots" or "good guy with a gun." And most people against tougher gun regulations want more of them in the general public because when a shooting happens, what we need are more bullets flying around.
According the the FBI, in 2011 there were approximately 8,500 hand gun deaths, versus about 2,600 knife or stabbing deaths. And that's just hand guns deaths, add in shotgun, rifle, and other firearms that's another 2,500 or so. To pretend that stabbing is as dangerous as shooting is just wrong.
At least with knifes theres a chance to like take it away and or fight fir your life. If someone shoots you acroas the street not much can be done. Killing is to easy with guns, and people are to violent natured.
Really? There's a better chance? Unless trained in disarming an opponent or hand to hand combat most People are just as dead at the end of a knife, and that is assuming you see them coming. People are murdered all over the world with knives and some are even "mass stabbings" (see China). If an individual is intent on doing harm they will find a way. Knives, improvised bombs, hammers, shovel, whatever is available if a gun isn't handy.
Anyone can be trained though.
Yeah, its pretty obvious weapons are deadly. Also obvious that people with murderous intent are dangerous. I could kill someone with straw, or kill someone with a gun, it will obviously be the same outcome. Im just saying at least there is a chance at not getting stabbed by running away, being trained, or maybe even luck.
Jeeze.
No amount of training is going to magically stop that bullet. If someone with a gun wants you dead, you're dead. You can run and still get shot. So i disagree.
@fiestycricket
You can train to disarm someone, you can train to evade lines of sight, and the farther away you are the harder you are to shoot, so running can give you an advantage. I'm not saying these things are full proof, but they will increase the chances of survival.
Yes, It is hard to hit a moving target. Yes, zig zaging does help, im not denying common knowlege. Im just saying I feel like theres measures you can take to curb your chances in a stabbing, not so much with guns.
As far as disarming? The scenario is less likely because of how close they would have to be. Smart people wont hold a gun directly on someone, they will stand far enough away to shoot if you try and get close.
If you don't train with a gun it's kinda hard to hit individual targets at a distance, especially if it's moving. Most of these shootings are fairly up close last I checked... I'll give you that you "may" hurt more people if you shoot into a large group than if you entered that group with a knife, however China is one place that shows how many can be hurt and killed with a knife in a large group of people.
For those of you doubting the effectiveness of knives. Have you ever been assaulted with a knife before...its really fast, faster than your brain can react
I don't think anybody is doubting that knives and stabbings are very serious and deadly. But guns and gun violence is much more rampant and much more lethal.
I'm not sure if the articles in refrence to China are being read here. The particular one I linked was much more lethal than anything we've had in the USA except maybe Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma city, and he used a bomb. As for gun crimes being more rampant in America vs the rest of the world you might want to do more research and less listening to the news media. The problem here is that our news media (and "President") blows these things up for ratings/ more viewers and to push their own agendas.
You're wrong. Not to be mean, but you are wrong. The article quotes 29 dead, while 32 died in 2007 during the Virginia Tech massacre and 27 children died at Sandy Hook. Was what happened in China a tragedy? Absolutely. But using it as an example of stabbings being just as if not more deadly than shootings is factually incorrect.
So the other 130 wounded don't play into your calculation? And you're saying that because 3 more people died in Virginia it isn't as lethal? I'll give it the the China example had multiple assailants but thats a lot of damage done with out firearms. And how is it factually incorrect? This is by no means an apples to apples comparison because we're citing different weapons, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you take away one weapon another will be used in its place.
Ok people arent defending guns themselves we are defending the right to bear arms that freedom to defend ourselves was kinda they whole point. If we had a ammendment saying "we reserve the right to eat tacos" we would defend the shit out of tacos because we want the freedom to eat tacos we dont actually care about the taco itself though thats up for debate
Actually, food, being necessary for a good restaurant, the right of the people to have food shall not be infringed.
The people have a right to form restaurants... to ensure that, we shall not ban food... comma's are a beautiful thing.
The difference is that banning those other things won't hurt anyone, but if my guns are taken away and some criminal got his illegally and he threatens me with it, I'm shit outta luck
Logical fallacy man here... Your logical fallacy: "false comparison"
Banning murder is not the same thing as banning an object. If you don't understand this then you're probably too stupid to discuss it with! *flies away*
Also a lot of people in America pretty much already have guns, so I don't see a peaceful scenario where they are taken away.
Yeah, its pretty obvious weapons are deadly. Also obvious that people with murderous intent are dangerous. I could kill someone with straw, or kill someone with a gun, it will obviously be the same outcome. Im just saying at least there is a chance at not getting stabbed by running away, being trained, or maybe even luck.
Jeeze.
All three of these things can also raise the chances of not getting shot.
You can train to disarm someone, you can train to evade lines of sight, and the farther away you are the harder you are to shoot, so running can give you an advantage. I'm not saying these things are full proof, but they will increase the chances of survival.
As far as disarming? The scenario is less likely because of how close they would have to be. Smart people wont hold a gun directly on someone, they will stand far enough away to shoot if you try and get close.
This was a group of 5 or 6 people and look at the damage they caused with knives. 29 dead over 100 wounded.
The people have a right to form restaurants... to ensure that, we shall not ban food... comma's are a beautiful thing.
Banning murder is not the same thing as banning an object. If you don't understand this then you're probably too stupid to discuss it with! *flies away*