Do guns, cigarettes and speed kill?

Post Reply New Topic

And I agreed, but I've also said that making them legal won't do much good either - it's basic logic that it's harder to escape a criminal with a projectile weapon.

How about the people who use them for legitimate purposes though, like hunting?

I said in my previous post that you don't need a real loaded gun for recreational use for stuff like target practice or whatever.

Hunting, though, should (and I think is in the UK) be illegal, because killing innocent animals for pleasure is horrible and sadistic.

Yes. It's their function. Carrying any weapon whose purpose is to kill implies that you are prepared to use it to kill.
(Which, though people don't often acknowledge it, we almost all are. Mostly we delegate the duty to the police, justice system and military. It shouldn't be shocking or surprising or unusual to think of the average member of the public as a killer. We just do it by proxy.)

Yes. Though usually it's a self-inflicted harm only. Second-hand smoke is only a serious risk in the family home or for people who spend time in crowded, smoky environments.

Yes. It depends where and when, but if I drive at 90mph on a motorway instead of 70mph I place myself at slightly higher risk (and if there's anyone around, I place them at slightly higher risk) simply because it is slightly harder to maneouvre a vehicle at higher speed, braking distance is longer, and if a mechanical failure occurs it is likely to have worse consequences.
Personally I don't think the increased risk between 70mph and 90mph is significant in most situations, especially as the limit was put in place when cars were much cruder machines; but it isn't zero.

It isn't illegal. Farming, hunting and some target shooting/recreational firearms are allowed. I grew up shooting at things.

The UK, or at least Great Britain, is on an island. A bit easier to keep track of what is coming in and out. Easier to spot guns coming into the country.

If the US banned guns, it wouldn't do anything... we have a nearly 2000 mile border with Mexico. Just about anything can get across from there.

Fair enough I guess, I just resent the idea that people have the right to own lethal weapons and that they need them for anything other than going out and murdering - whether the victim of the murder is human or otherwise.

I will also add, my father and brother both have guns. They are in a sports club in town here, and there's leagues where they target shoot: typical fixed bullseye and clay pigeons.

No harm in that.

As I said in my last post on the previous page - that's fine, but why do you need a real gun with real ammunition in it, which has the ability to kill, for such activities?

Since homicides and assaults stay the same, no matter the firearm laws in effect, it's moot to have laws in place. An individual attacking you with a knife has the upper hand in most cases if you are unarmed, and by their very nature, violent felons will find firearms if they want, so again, laws are moot. Public safety isn't really an issue here, as the public will be about as safe as they always have been based on the same demographic. Some areas with the highest firearm ownership in the world have less homicides where there's virtually none, so again, another thing pointing to the uselessness of taking firearms away (albeit, a longbow with a broadhead will kill you as dead as anything, and you can make the bow and arrowhead easily enough; it takes about a week for a single bow on your first go).

Smoking..., well, it depends on how your medical system functions; if taxpayers pay for free medical care for all, then restrictions on such are prudent in regards to economic factors, but again, you're governing and telling others how they should live, which is always a sore spot for the libertarians out there. Smoking itself can cause fatal illnesses, as does a bullet in the brain; as does a club to the back of the head or drinking too much water.

Speed, or better, an abrupt change in velocity, does indeed kill humans; it breaks bones and damages vital organs and blood vessels when there's enough change. I don't know what the instantaneous g-limit is that kills, but cars can easily reach this when they come to an instantaneous stop. If the government values public safety, again, you govern it. But again, the libertarians shudder at being governed and controlled.

What kills people in car-crashes is either aortic damage or a loose rib-cage ripping or stabbing a vital organ. Speed kills people as much as bullets do.

Guns have been too ingrained in American culture. And look now since Obama and the Democrats have taken office - armed militias and gun sales are on the dramatic upswing, for a supposed potential ban on guns (which is all nonsense anyway.)

All gun violence is unfortunate, I wish it never happened. But look at what most gun violence results from: drug trade and domestic incidents.

In the drug trade, there's no value for human life to begin with. In domestic disputes, once someone decides the other side has to die - there's no turning back. Either way, they would find other ways to murder. Shall we ban kitchen knives too?

That's an argument based on "need", which isn't valid (it's a subjective point based on personal preference). Humans don't actually "need" most things in modern society. You don't "need" cars, because they kill lots and lots of people each year (about a zillion times more than firearms); just move closer to work or get a closer job. You don't "need" to play contact sports, which also kill more people than firearms do each year.

Recreational use of firearms is way down there on the list of public safety concerns.

Kitchen knives are not made to kill, and the vast majority buy them to cut food, not kill.

Guns, however, are made to kill and everyone buys it with the purpose to kill. This might scare an otherwise "normal" society, but I think it's awesome.

That, plus more:

CNS disruption (your brain getting smashed in your skull), broken necks; these are from too much instantaneous g-load. Then there's secondary problems, like fatal blunt impact trauma and perforating injuries (O, fatal thermal and electrical injuries happen too). Car "accidents" suck, and when you've been in a decent one [or a few], you kinda dread the next one.

Cancer sucks too.

Getting shot sucks, but your chance of that happening is pretty slim compared to the other two.

If I didn't need to go on the internet and send e-mails, I wouldn't own an iPhone, I'd buy a cheap crappy Nokia instead. If I didn't watch TV a lot and didn't care about it, I wouldn't upgrade to HD. And if you're gonna use a gun for recreation, you don't need a lethal one.

On your argument about crime - less of our crime involves guns, that's a fact. As I said before, it's pretty much impossible to escape from a criminal with a projectile weapon, even if you have one yourself, whereas it's easier to escape from someone just using their fists or even something like a knife (the possession of which, on the street, is also illegal here, unless you have a legitimate reason for needing to carry knives around).

Why make things unnecessarily worse?

I dunno about clay pigeon shooting, but for target shooting if you want to shoot something at mid to long range, you need a gun which can throw a chunk of hot metal three hundred metres (or more) accurately. Anything which can do that can kill someone. Proper distance shooting is different to shooting on a 25m range - you can't really simulate shooting at one length on a range that's another length.