Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "‘Guns are not the issue’: Florida sheriff warns people to look out for ‘red flags’" video.

  1. "we don't blame the car manufacturers for car accidents" We do, actually, if the manufacturer makes the car in an unsafe way. But then cars are designed to be as safe as possible, whereas guns are designed to kill. So they are not really comparable. "...there have been multiple studys that have disproved the whole video games make people more violent which isn't true" Well, you can make studies come to almost any conclusion you want. But I would believe this one, if it in fact concluded exactly what you said, that it makes people more violent. However, that doesn't rule out that it desensitises people to violence, making them more accepting of it, or that it reinforces bad tendencies that might already exist. In other words, I don't accept that they have no negative influence at all.
    3
  2. "A kid in Argentina recently went on a knife rampage..." How many did he kill? Guns make killing much easier, so no, guns and knives are not comparable.
    2
  3.  @moto3463  "Criminals will ALWAYS have illegal weapons to commit violence against people." Factually false, depending on how those words are understood. Yes, there will always be some criminals with guns. But most criminals in Australia don't have guns. Because Australia has made them hard to get. And killing is easier with guns than with knives.
    2
  4. Cars are designed for transport. Guns are designed to kill. Yes, that's overly simplistic. As is your comment.
    2
  5.  @Axman117  "has ir occurred to you that the prison system in the US is a 5 ae hotel compared to the ones in other countries, " I doubt that they are any more luxurious than in places like Australia. And Adam said that they are part of the problem. I think he's right that the fact that such mass shootings occur mainly in America is due to the number of guns available there. On the other hand, with U.S. gun deaths apparently rising faster than the population, it seems that the number of guns is not the only factor.
    2
  6.  @mplp1959  I think he prefers one-liners that he can't back up.
    2
  7. "now only criminals have the Guns." Not true. Law-abiding citizens are still allowed to own guns, but under strict conditions and restrictions. And before they took the guns away, not that many people had them anyway. I had virtually never seen a gun except on a police officer's belt.
    2
  8. @EcoDemoSocio "Yeah, because violence is always the answer." That does not follow from what he said. Even IF it's legitimate to call a spanking 'violence', the point would be that violence is sometimes the answer.
    1
  9. @studyhardplayhard "if you're having to resort to hitting your kids to discipline them, you aren't doing it right." What's your evidence for that? "children need meaningful consequences. hitting them isn't meaningful." Why isn't it meaningful? It's a consequence that means that they are doing the wrong thing. "it just causes pain and makes them hate you." Yes, the pain is an obvious consequence. But what makes you think that it causes them to hate you? If they know that you are doing it because you care for them, there is no reason for them to hate you. "instead, put in FIRM boundaries from the time they can walk. make it clear who is the parent and who is the child. stop letting them do whateveer they want." All good stuff. But what if that's not enough? How do you enforce that? "i never hit my kids, but they knew not to mess with me." Okay, that's you. My parents didn't spank me much either, but it was there as an option that they used on occasions, and I never hated them. It taught me that there were painful consequences for my actions.
    1
  10. @studyhardplayhard "i was severely hit as punishment and discipline when i was a kid, ..." I'm sorry to hear that. "i guess everyone is different." Definitely. In particular for this case, parents can be different. In your case, did you, as I mentioned, know that they were doing it because they cared for you? Or did you believe that they had a different motive? There is a difference between a justified smack for punishment, and an unjustified beating. And by that I mean two things, that it be justified (i.e. you have actually done something wrong that you knew was wrong), and that it be a smack done in love, not a beating done in anger. And I note that you didn't actually answer my questions. Unless your personal anecdote was meant as evidence for your claim that if you need to do it, you aren't doing it right. A single anecdote is not evidence of that.
    1
  11.  @nenadcubric2663  No, guns—generally—are not designed for sport. Particular models of guns may be, and perhaps all can be used for sport, but they are designed to kill. Hunting with a gun involves killing. Self defence with a gun is using the threat of being killed. As I said, my comment was overly simplistic. But it wasn't wrong. And as I also said, your comment was also overly simplistic.
    1
  12.  @nenadcubric2663  "and tell me, how will the Government, ban those Illegal Guns," Did I say that they would, or could? No. You're asking me to defend a claim that I never made. I do accept that in the U.S. situation, it would be very difficult to do in a reasonable way. "Same like they did on Illegal Drugs??" That's a silly question. You don't ban illegal things. They become illegal by banning them. As for the comparison with drugs, you can ban them, and have the effect of significantly reducing their availability, assuming you have good enforcement. The left's mantra on this seems to assume that because banning particular drugs is not 100% effective, such bans are completely useless and you should therefore not have such bans. That is illogical. You might as well make murder legal, because the ban on murder is not 100% effective!
    1
  13.  @megarth1  "there is no safe way to transport overland over 80 mph." Your analogy fails because this premise is false.
    1
  14.  @nenadcubric2663  "i mean a car can be used to drive in a crowd of people" I know, and I addressed that. Unlike a gun that is designed to kill, a car is not. That it can be used to kill makes it different to guns that are designed to kill. Your original argument remains overly simplistic.
    1
  15.  @nenadcubric2663  "every thing can be used to harm or kill People, " Yes. But not everything is designed to kill. "Not the thing itself, but You know that, you just make yourself a fantasy World, what you would like to be" Yes, I know the argument. It has some merit, but it's also simplistic. (For example, I could counter that the person with the gun doesn't kill—it's the bullet that kills.) However, the point remains that I was pointing out a shortcoming in your argument; I wasn't saying that guns are evil and should be banned, as you seem to be assuming.
    1
  16.  @nenadcubric2663  "you just cant stop??" Well, you haven't, so it's rather hypocritical to have a go at me!
    1
  17. @EcoDemoSocio "Why is it that Canada ... experiences around 1/10 per capita of the gun deaths that the USA does?" Presumably because the U.S. has a lot more guns. But then why is that the U.S. has (I believe) had a big increase in gun deaths in recent decades despite it having had lots of guns for many decades? My point is that yes, guns are a factor. But it's not just about guns. Something else is going on too.
    1
  18. How would that help stop the people who choose to shoot others in a school or wherever?
    1