> A pistol is no more an assault weapon than a knife.
You're just arguing semantics here - if you assault somebody with a pistol, then it's an assault weapon.
Saying that there are more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol is like saying that getting hit by a lorry is worse than getting hit by a car: it doesn't fucking matter, it's still going to kill you.
How is it that you can't see that banning weapons will quickly escalate to other things even in the tech world? "Let's ban X because someone met a group using service Y and killed them", "Let's regulate X because Y happened, hey we did that with guns".
Show me why you believe that this is what will happen: don't just tell me that this is what will happen.
This is precisely why we do everything in our power to stop countries like Iran getting nukes. It's only a matter of time before some nutjob actually goes and uses one - so the sensible thing to do is make it really, really difficult to get one in the first place.
Well sure, if I only ever listened to views that echoed my own, I'm pretty sure I'd feel like that too.
A few points from this video:
1: Horrible presentation: this is fear-mongering at its finest.
2: Not a single argument presented from the anti-gun perspective.
3: Admissions that length of sentences are not high enough (nothing to do with guns at all).
4: Admissions that police are hilariously under-equipped to respond and deal with crime (nothing to do with guns).
If your police force cannot do its job, and your justice system is a joke, then surely you can see how that would reduce the risks for would-be criminals and make it more likely for them to commit a crime? Why is 'no guns' the only explanation for an increased crime rate (if indeed those figures are valid)?
You can't just say that gun control = tyrannical regime (note: I have never once actually advocated an outright gun ban). Stop being ridiculous.
What level of weaponry do you believe individuals should be allowed to own? Would you be happy for Joe Schmoe to own that same level of weaponry?
Gun advocates are fond of saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
Yes, people kill people. Using guns. A gun is such a devastating weapon to the human body - the only reason to point it at somebody is if you want them to die. If it's trivially easy to get hold of a gun, then more people are likely to use them against other humans. This isn't complicated.
The pro-gun lobby seems to think that anybody who advocates gun-control is some kind of idiot: that we don't understand how not owning a deadly weapon reduces the ability to defend myself. Of course we understand that - but we believe that the risks of easy access to guns far outweigh the benefits. I am fully aware that criminals will still get hold of guns - but they have access to them anyway if guns are legal. I'd rather have the odd armed criminal than all of them armed.
Listen powatom, I think we aren't going to change each other's opinions. In my past life i lived in a war zone, been to the army and witnessed first hand what governments can do. Our country is no different, it can easily escalate in the same way here.
There is a clear pattern in history for tyrannical regimes. Every enlightened society in history thought the same as you do now, there is absolutely no difference except that today, citizens can trackback and view what happened in the past and maybe fight for there freedoms and prepare themselves. Gun control is the most frightening thing for me and for millions of Americans because we know that martial law will come soon after.
The only thing i can think of that would maybe make you look at it from a different angle is asking let's say, your grandparents (if they are alive) their thoughts about it. If you do that i bet you'd be very surprised by their input.