1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. From courtside seating to loudville Amazing Tickets offers a fantastic selection of Cavs tickets at the cheapest prices found anywhere.

Jovan Belcher and Gun Control

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Rich, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Rich

    Rich Hall-of-Famer

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    14,010
    Likes Received:
    11,791
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Everyone has heard the story and subsequent uproar that was caused by the comments of Bob Costas and article of Jason Whitlock. I'm going to make a case against gun control, but I will not use self-defense or personal liberty. Instead, I'm going to use an argument that, I think, should appeal to liberals, or at least a great deal of them.

    The Drug War. The Drug is routinely criticized by people of all ideologies. It's hated by libertarians, not well liked by liberals, and a lot of conservatives are starting to get on board with the idea that it really hasn't worked. I, personally, hate the drug war. It has cost billions of dollars, led directly to the deaths of countless lives, created a very large criminal underworld, and led to the overpopulation of our prison facilities (also costing untold dollars). And what has it accomplished? Who exactly CANT get drugs if they want them? Everyone with an IQ above 80 could go out, right now, and purchase illegal drugs. It's not very difficult. And this isn't the first time in our history where we've tried something like this.

    Prohibition. Basically everything I just said about The Drug War applied to Prohibition in the early part of the 20th century. It was a massive failure. It helped create and fuel the Mafia, led to the highest murder rates in our country's history, and kept almost no one from actually obtaining alcohol. It's hard to find anyone who would argue that Prohibition was either successful in its goals or was even a good idea to begin with.

    You see, when the government tries to outlaw an activity that is 1)popular 2)easily accessible and 3)very profitable, it's largely going to fail.

    Which brings me to gun control. It's fascinating how many people will argue against The Drug War, citing it's numerous failures, and will then turn around and argue for gun control and, basically, abolition of the Second Amendment. Exactly what do you think will happen that is any different than the two examples cited above? Do you believe the outlawing of guns won't create a similar criminal syndicate to that of the Mafia and the Mexican Drug Cartels? Of course it will. It will be far to profitable to not do such a thing. Do you think people will be prevented from actually obtaining guns when they want them? Of course they won't. Again, if you can't do it with drugs and/or alcohol, what exactly makes you think you will be successful with guns?

    Now, when the government starts collecting all of the guns, who exactly do you think will turn them in? The Criminals who use the weapons to protect their enterprises? Of course not. If a law telling them they can't sell drugs doesn't prevent them from selling drugs, why in the world would a law telling them they can't own guns prevent them from owning guns? No, only law-abiding citizens will, of their own free-will, turn their guns in.

    So, I ask, if the government were to ban guns, what would that ultimately look like? Well, like The Drug War today or prohibition of yesterday. Those who want to obtain guns will have no problem in doing so. Those who use guns for harmful purposes will continue to do so. As a bonus, the federal government will now have to be spending a boat-load of resources not only fighting the drug war, but now fighting the gun war. Also, our already over-crowded prisons will become even more crowded. And a whole new slew of deaths will come from people illegally running guns and getting in gang wars over said gun running.

    Finally, the argument is made that at the very least, it will help prevent the accidental shootings and the shooting of the type that occurred in the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman probably wouldn't own a gun if the law said he wasn't allowed. Therefore, he would not have shot Martin and Martin would be alive (let's forget, for a moment, that Zimmerman might well not). I'll concede the point. But I ask, which is more dangerous/leads to more deaths, these type of shootings, or drunk driving? You see, if the case is being made that we should outlaw something because, at least, it will stop people who normally obey the law from acting foolishly, then should we not, yet again, prohibit the sale/distribution/etc. of alcohol? Because drunk driving certainly kills more people than those killed in accidental homicides/Zimmerman type cases. Right? And when put like that, the answer becomes obvious. No, we should not outlaw guns. Because we did that once, and we saw the consequences. What lives were potentially saved from prohibition, many, many more were lost (along with dollars) due to the prohibition itself. It wasn't worth it then, and it isn't worth it now.

    If you ban guns, you will be creating yet another prohibition/drug war scenario. There is no upside here.
     
    • Like Like x 9
  2. cavman

    cavman I need your wifes number

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    1,924
    Jovan would have done something to her if he had a gun or not. Without the gun he might have just beat her up and maybe she would still be alive, he also could just have stabbed her and killed her.

    I support gun ownership fully for the responsible gun owner. I don't know what to do about all the illegal guns on the streets, you're not going to get them all. It's just not possible.
     
  3. Soar

    Soar Hall-of-Famer

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Messages:
    9,900
    Likes Received:
    11,627
    Location:
    Ohio/Scotland
    At this point a gun ban is nearly impossible. There are simply way too many guns already out there to effectively "ban" them now. The issue shouldn't be about banning guns. It should be about preventing them from getting into the wrong hands. I know plenty of responsible gun owners. My uncle, a former Marine, owns numerous guns and goes to the range to shoot some of them. Growing up in rural Ohio, interaction with hunters is common. You can't punish all gun owners because a there is a minority of gun abusers. All all Muslims terrorists? No. Are all gun owners bad? No.

    The biggest issue in my opinion is that people now feel justified in taking their anger out by shooting people. It is a cultural problem. Mental illness has always existed and guns have always been accessible. There is another cause. I blame technology, video games, and movies. Movies and video games have made shooting more realistic. When young kids are shooting people within a virtual world it subconsciously numbs them to violence. The games today aren't the Mario and Donkey Kong I grew up with. I remember my mom thinking Donkey Kong was violent when she first saw me play it one Christmas. The thought seems absurd when one compares it to Call of Duty etc.

    Also, kids are living within two separate realities today. There is the physical world and the virtual world through texting, Facebook, chatrooms. It is easy to create an alternative reality. Initially one can see this as a positive because it allows the youth of today to "express themselves." However, cyber bullying and a lack of genuine connections can lead to immense dissatisfaction and loneliness. Does anyone really feel connected to another person through texting? This is a problem. This leads to sadness and anger and can easily lead to violence. If you interact with others in person consistently, you don't think about shooting them because they seem real. They have emotions, families, friends, goals etc. When you only interact with people virtually other forms of communication and understanding are lost and people seem less real. This makes it easier to commit acts of violence.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
  4. KI4MVP

    KI4MVP formerly LJ4MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,197
    Likes Received:
    9,157
    The guns were the problem with prohibition/drug war.

    And I don't get the drunk driving argument. Drinking isn't the problem. Drinking and driving is the problem. Which is why society makes it illegal. If anything, we are too tolerant with DUIs. There really is no excuse. If you can afford to go out and get drunk, you can afford a taxi ride.
     
  5. Pick6

    Pick6 Situational Stopper

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Akron
    guns dont kill people. people kill people.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. KI4MVP

    KI4MVP formerly LJ4MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,197
    Likes Received:
    9,157
    people with guns do it far more efficiently, and at far greater distances, than people without guns.
     
  7. Walter White

    Walter White All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,655
    Likes Received:
    7,120
    Location:
    Albuquerque. My house is the one with the pizza on
    Sweet mother, this thread could get ugly.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Rich

    Rich Hall-of-Famer

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    14,010
    Likes Received:
    11,791
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    K. Let's try this again.

    If the government couldn't successfully take away the alcohol or the drugs from the criminals, what exactly makes you think they can take away the guns from them?

    Now, you next say " Drinking isn't the problem. Drinking and driving is the problem." Well, if that is your attitude then guns aren't the problem, people using the guns in an illegal manner is the problem. Right? How tolerant is society of that, btw? Not very.

    But that wasn't my point. My point when I mentioned drinking and driving was to counter the eventual argument that would go something like this. "No, the criminals will not give up their weapons, BUT, if all that happens is for law-abiding citizens to give up their weapons, then at the very least there will be less accidental homicides and that is worth it." My response to that argument is the one above. If that's the case, and if you think removing guns altogether to stop the accidental homicides (and I included the type of homicides that occurred in the Zimmerman case) is worth it, then why not remove alcohol, yet again, to stop all of accidental deaths that occur from its use? Which then brings us back around to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what the purpose, outlawing either is going to create a far bigger disaster and a far greater death toll than just allowing them to exist.

    EDIT: And you said that guns were/are the problem with prohibition and the drug war. As if there is a time machine that can take us back to the days before guns? Sort of like if we removed guns from the equation, then we could remove drugs too? But please explain to me how you get around to removing the guns from the equation? They exist. We know they exist. Those who wish to make a buck know they exist. If the government shuts down gun manufactures and sellers, someone else will pop up, take their place, and just do it illegally. There is no going back in time to undo what has been done. Whatever you think is the problem, guns exist. There is a very large market for guns. Criminals will ALWAYS have a great need for them. If the government outlaws the manufacture and sale of them, someone will do it anyway. In fact, a great many someones will do it anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012
  9. Notorious

    Notorious Gold Star Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    571
    Isn't it amazing in this day and age, that there are still clueless people out there who think making something illegal will stop those using it illegally from doing so.
     
    • Like Like x 14
  10. The Oi

    The Oi Or Also Schtick

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    31,423
    Likes Received:
    45,113
    I think that illegalization of guns is a moot point. Not gonna happen.

    Probably better off debating the type of restrictions that should be placed on them, and there should certainly be some.

    But if someone has the drive and desire to commit murder or mass murder, no amount of control is going to stop them from getting the weapons needed to do it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. KI4MVP

    KI4MVP formerly LJ4MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,197
    Likes Received:
    9,157
    The rate of private gun ownership per 100 people
    United States 88.82
    United Kingdom is 6.72

    The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population
    United States 2.98
    United Kingdom 0.03

    the non firearm murder rate is roughly the same between the two countries
     
  12. Soda

    Soda Bania'd

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    6,764
    Location:
    East Side of CLE
    I'd rather legalize pot than make guns illegal. Guns are very dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Thing is, the right people should be prepared for those wrong people. It is a crappy situation, but it is a part of the American culture.
     
  13. Tornicade

    Tornicade High five!

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,997
    Likes Received:
    5,728
    Location:
    Columbus, oh
    The rate of private gun ownership per 100 people
    United States 88.82
    United Kingdom is 6.72
    Canada 23.8
    Switzerland 45.7
    Mexico is 15.02
    The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population
    United States 4.96
    United Kingdom 1.2
    Canada 1.8
    Switzerland 0.70
    Mexico 21.5
    The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population
    United States 2.98
    United Kingdom 0.03
    Canada 0.50
    Switzerland 0.52
    Mexico 10.0

    probably should include the full list.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. ChicagoCavFan

    ChicagoCavFan Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,755
    Likes Received:
    5,960
    Location:
    Grayslake, IL
    Where is this 88.82 number coming from?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. KI4MVP

    KI4MVP formerly LJ4MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,197
    Likes Received:
    9,157
    how is that the full list? There are more than 5 countries in the world. I used the one most like the US other than the gun laws.
     
  16. KI4MVP

    KI4MVP formerly LJ4MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,197
    Likes Received:
    9,157
    That is total guns in the country divided by the number of people.
     
  17. chrisrich91

    chrisrich91 Rising Back Up

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,223
    Likes Received:
    12,997
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Oh, so it's a misleading and completely worthless number. Gotcha
     
    • Like Like x 16
  18. ChicagoCavFan

    ChicagoCavFan Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,755
    Likes Received:
    5,960
    Location:
    Grayslake, IL
  19. kosis

    kosis Good Guys Club founder

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    966
    Any info yet on why Belcher might have done this?
     
  20. Lord Mar

    Lord Mar Master

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    9,257
    Likes Received:
    7,525
    Location:
    Ohio
    KI, thank you for your posts. Unfortunately, it appears that you are out of your element on this topic. You make it clear that you are not in favor guns.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page