Gun Control

[Nieninque]

Don't american schools have armed guards?
They should.

Yes, because clearly the answer to this problem is to give more people guns.

[Gan]

Yes, because clearly the answer to this problem is to give more people guns.

It seems unfair for the assailants to be the only ones with guns.

[Nieninque]

It seems unfair for the assailants to be the only ones with guns.

Precisely.

[TheEschaton]

Remember, kids: Guns don't kill people...


...Chuck Norris kills people.

[Back]

The answer is simple. Tougher gun control. Make it a priority. Well, you say, the bad guys will have guns and the good guys won'. No, stupid, it would be the other way around.

[Gan]

Precisely.

Yet its easier to prevent the acquisition of guns for the people assigned to protect than preventing the assailants from getting guns. I mean come on, go figure, a criminal illegally obtaining a firearm... like its not going to happen. /sarcasm

So if its a given that assailants will have guns, what is your proposal for protecting the students against them?


On an aside note:
Here in Houston, all HISD schools have HPD officers as security - to the point that there is a full division of HISD Police officers within HPD. And yes, all of them are armed (firearm and tazer) and jacketed as normal SOP requirements.

[ElanthianSiren]

The answer is simple. Tougher gun control. Make it a priority. Well, you say, the bad guys will have guns and the good guys won'. No, stupid, it would be the other way around.

I disagree with you, as do many people probably that live near a US city with a high percentage of violent crime. I've considered trying for a permit to carry concealed, as three of my friends and one's six year old daughter, were violently murdered (heather, lisa, and avery were stabbed over 30 times; jen was stabbed over 60). My neighbor was also mugged in Philly at knifepoint.

In situations like those, do you plan to just *talk* to the person? -No, you remove the threat. If they're threatening me or my family or friends, I don't give a shit about their life, to be blunt because history has shown me that they don't give a shit either. Part of the problem is when people have guns and hesitate to use them or just have them for show IMO. My dad taught me when I was a kid that when a gun comes out, someone is getting shot.

Gun control isn't the answer; neither is offering school age children up as a frontline sacrifice to lunatics ala newage operation human shield. IMO the problem is that high/middle/and primary schools are targets because assailants *know* people inside most are unarmed. I agree with teaching children to use everyday objects as shields and weapons (as a last resort), but I feel the teacher should take responsibility. If that means screening teachers as to their ability (mentally and physically) around guns, so be it.

I don't agree with fences/prison type setups. I do agree with armed security. I simply don't care for most public school administration, in general and feel most of them aren't worth the doughnuts they consume on taxpayer money (which is my own bias and experience).

-M

[Back]

I disagree with you, as do many people probably that live near a US city with a high percentage of violent crime. I've considered trying for a permit to carry concealed, as three of my friends and one's six year old daughter, were violently murdered (heather, lisa, and avery were stabbed over 30 times; jen was stabbed over 60). My neighbor was also mugged in Philly at knifepoint.

In situations like those, do you plan to just *talk* to the person? -No, you remove the threat. If they're threatening me or my family or friends, I don't give a shit about their life, to be blunt because history has shown me that they don't give a shit either. Part of the problem is when people have guns and hesitate to use them or just have them for show IMO. My dad taught me when I was a kid that when a gun comes out, someone is getting shot.

Gun control isn't the answer; neither is offering school age children up as a frontline sacrifice to lunatics ala newage operation human shield. IMO the problem is that high/middle/and primary schools are targets because assailants *know* people inside most are unarmed. I agree with teaching children to use everyday objects as shields and weapons (as a last resort), but I feel the teacher should take responsibility. If that means screening teachers as to their ability (mentally and physically) around guns, so be it.

I don't agree with fences/prison type setups. I do agree with armed security. I simply don't care for most public school administration, in general and feel most of them aren't worth the doughnuts they consume on taxpayer money (which is my own bias and experience).

-M

I said tougher gun control, and like I said, tougher gun control to keep guns out of the bad guys hands and in the good guys hands... not banning guns altogether. So if you are a fine upstanding citizen, as I know you are, you have nothing to worry about.

[ElanthianSiren]

I said tougher gun control, and like I said, tougher gun control to keep guns out of the bad guys hands and in the good guys hands... not banning guns altogether. So if you are a fine upstanding citizen, as I know you are, you have nothing to worry about.

The bad guys don't buy guns legally, in general, however, so how do you plan to accomplish this?

-M

[Back]

The bad guys don't buy guns legally, in general, however, so how do you plan to accomplish this?

-M

Crack down on illegal gun sales. Make it a top priority. It should be part of National Security anyway.

[Latrinsorm]

The answer is simple.The only moral answer is to gain enough knowledge so we can *predict* these events, not just *react* to them, because as we can see, all the reacting answers are shitty.

Saying "keep guns out of bad guys hands!" necessarily implies that we can tell who the bad guys are before they do anything. The murderer at the Amish school had no criminal record, and it's guys like him that we most have to stop. (It also implies that we give the government total and unequivocal control over firearms, which is a can of worms in and of itself.)

Finally, we can't just get rid of guns (whether from bad guys or altogether) and think that'll get the job done, as a cursory examination of violent in crime in England will show. Humans find a way.

[Some Rogue]

Crack down on illegal gun sales. Make it a top priority. It should be part of National Security anyway.


Yeah, and Prohibition worked really well too.

[ElanthianSiren]

The only moral answer is to gain enough knowledge so we can *predict* these events, not just *react* to them, because as we can see, all the reacting answers are shitty.

Saying "keep guns out of bad guys hands!" necessarily implies that we can tell who the bad guys are before they do anything. The murderer at the Amish school had no criminal record, and it's guys like him that we most have to stop. (It also implies that we give the government total and unequivocal control over firearms, which is a can of worms in and of itself.)

Finally, we can't just get rid of guns (whether from bad guys or altogether) and think that'll get the job done, as a cursory examination of violent in crime in England will show. Humans find a way.

Damn that pesky constitution :)

-M

[Back]

Ok fuck it, give every asshole in the United States a gun then. Its the wild fucking west all over again.

[Latrinsorm]

Damn that pesky constitutionI convinced President Bush to make that part of his fourth-term goals, but don't tell anyone, we're trying to keep that under our hats.
Its the wild fucking west all over again.The way I see it we have three fields of choices:
1) Do nothing and become co-conspirators to the present situation.
2) Implement dangerous or clumsy (but easy to implement) half-measures that almost certainly won't have any detrimental effect on violent crime. (e.g. "tougher" gun control, giving children guns.)
3) Implement effective (but extremely difficult to implement) plans that will put a sizeable dent in violent crime and freedom. (e.g. solving human psychology and legislating accordingly.)

[Skirmisher]

Crack down on illegal gun sales. Make it a top priority. It should be part of National Security anyway.

I think that people are forgetting that increasing gun control laws go hand in hand with increasing the trail of guns from initial production to final sale.

A goodly percentage of the illegal guns that are floating around in this country began as "legal" sales that were never intended for anything more than illegal resale.

By making it harder to eliminate the indentifiability of guns (some ideas I have read of are to make the seriela numbers on areas difficult to file off and in methods more resistant and also to test fire each weapon before shipping to have a huge database of ballistic"fingerprints" for sue should they ever be needed) and increasing the paper trail through their lifetime you WILL start to cut down on the number of illegal weapons by surely reducing the pipelines being used to supply them to criminals.

Will it be instant?

Of course not, but it would happen.

[DeV]

"If everybody carried a sawed-off shotgun there'd be alot less crime."

Seriously, I'm all for making our streets and classrooms safer for our citizens and especially the children, but not at the cost of completely eliminating guns from legal owners who abide by the laws already in place.

Gun crimes need to carry stiffer penalities, background checks need to be instant or at least performed at a much faster rate than our current system, gun registration should be national instead of just statewide, and lastly mandatory gun education with the purchase of a firearm.

Those are some of the changes I think most people wouldn't mind seeing with regard to the age old "gun control" debate. It all boils down to the fact that killing sprees such as these are largely unpredictable and there would be nothing to stop a law abiding gun owning citizen from snapping one day and going on a killing spree of their own, even though they've never broken the law before.

[Artha]

Ok fuck it, give every asshole in the United States a gun then. Its the wild fucking west all over again.
Every single able-bodied male is in the Swiss militia, where they are equipped with an assault rifle and trained how to use it.

Switzerland has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 on average between 1999 and 2001.

The UK's got pretty strict gun control laws, and the homicide rate over there is 1.61 in England, 1.42 in Ireland, 2.62 in Northern Ireland and 2.16 in Scotland.

By comparison, the US's rate was 5.91 in 2001.

Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime#United_Kingdom_vs._Switzerland).

[Gan]

"God did not make all men equal. Samuel Colt did"

:whistle:

[Nieninque]

Yet its easier to prevent the acquisition of guns for the people assigned to protect than preventing the assailants from getting guns. I mean come on, go figure, a criminal illegally obtaining a firearm... like its not going to happen. /sarcasm

So if its a given that assailants will have guns, what is your proposal for protecting the students against them?

It's only a given that assailants are going to have guns, because you have a culture where it is acceptable and expected that people will have guns.

You are never going to stop all gun crime and you are never going to stop all violent crime. We know that much. But the NRA saying (or whoever it was that said it) that guns dont kill, people do, forgets that the guns make it a damn sight easier for them to do so.

My understanding of the man who killed the Amish kids was that his guns were all legal, is that right? And that the only weapon he had that was not legal was some kind of stun gun? I only partly heard that, so cant remember the exact details.

So how do you know which of the law abiding, level headed gun-toting citizens are going to crack and look for a bunch of school kids to kill? You cant. Yet you still stand up for some archaic right to bear weapons that continue to pose a threat to anyone and everyone.

Ban guns, and you prevent a whole load of those weapons from being used in potential tragedies like we see on the news time and time again. Sure, most gun owners will never commit offences such as those we have seen, but do they really really need to have a gun? Would their lives be negatively affected by not being able to be carrying a firearm around with them?

I doubt it.

[Nieninque]

Gun crimes need to carry stiffer penalities

What penalties can you impose on a murderer who turns the gun on him/herself?


It all boils down to the fact that killing sprees such as these are largely unpredictable and there would be nothing to stop a law abiding gun owning citizen from snapping one day and going on a killing spree of their own, even though they've never broken the law before.

Yep

[Atlanteax]

What penalties can you impose on a murderer who turns the gun on him/herself?


He suffers greater torture in Hell, DUH!

[ElanthianSiren]

Ban guns, and you prevent a whole load of those weapons from being used in potential tragedies like we see on the news time and time again. Sure, most gun owners will never commit offences such as those we have seen, but do they really really need to have a gun? Would their lives be negatively affected by not being able to be carrying a firearm around with them?

I doubt it.

A lack of guns also prevents people from protecting themselves from an armed assailant, as I pointed out in the post about my friends that were killed.

Yes, I really need and like having a gun around, to be honest. If someone like John Eichinger was threatening my life or those close to me, you're damn right I'd put enough bullets in him that he couldn't slice up another six year old little girl, her mom, and her mom's sister, as well as another woman 4 years before. Guns are a great equalizer, also capable of great destruction, but so are diving knives in a psychopath's hands. Since I know I'm not homocidal, while not knowing about the random x element in the population, I'll keep my gun, thanks.

-M

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

What penalties can you impose on a murderer who turns the gun on him/herself?



Yep

The root of the gun control issue is that it's one of our rights set by our Founding Fathers.

If suddenly the Right to Bear Arms is obsolete and deserves to be taken away/reduced, then what other rights are obsolete? In this age of terrorism, people shouldn't be allowed to say what they think! The right to free speech, PFT it's obsolete!

Basically, it would set a precedent that these founding notions were up to be repealed and changed. I don't agree with that on any level.

[Sean]

If my intent is to stab you 60 times I'm not really sure the possibility that you might own a firearm is really going to stop me.

[Gan]

Lets not forget the concept that every citizen bearing arms is what helped America defeat the British in the colonial war.

But beyond that concept. So guns kill people. Well, by my estimation so do cars.


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
In 2004 there were 42,805 traffic related deaths in the US.So by your logic, we should also ban cars, well because, people dont kill people, cars do. And if everyone quit driving/having cars then...


It really does not compute. Face it, guns exist, and can be found in almost every culture through legal or illegal means. They are a tool, used by humans as a force equalizer or a force enhancement, sometimes for good purposes, sometimes for bad purposes. Banning guns will only make the populace even more susceptable to violence, especially here in the US. What we need are harsher penalties for gun related crimes, since a reactionary stance seems to be the only logical solution at this point in time.


More interesting information:
Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[Gan]

If my intent is to stab you 60 times I'm not really sure the possibility that you might own a firearm is really going to stop me.

Only if she uses the gun on you before you can use the knife on her.

[Sean]

Are you comparing traffic accidents to murder? I'm sure some % of those vehicle related deaths are intentional but it seems like an intentional # skew.

[Sean of the Thread]

I was wondering how long before Nienienieneieque piped up with a gun control and "your culture" blast.

I didn't realize so many people had problems with tougher school security.. I guess it never really dawned on me since it's been that way here as far back as I can remember.

[ElanthianSiren]

If my intent is to stab you 60 times I'm not really sure the possibility that you might own a firearm is really going to stop me.

Sean = random x
:P

This was why I noted in my initial post that guns need to not be owned for intimidation. If the gun comes out, someone is getting shot. The decision that the person is a fatal threat has to be made before the gun comes out.

-M

[Sean]

It's really hard to make a point or an arguement around your person experiences because I don't know anything about the situation like how, why, where, etc. But I will say based on my own personal experiences I've never needed or wanted a gun for intimidation nor can I think of a situation where I've felt it necessary to shoot anyone for my protection.

Not that it really applies to my opinion on children taking down attackers at school or school security.

[Gan]

Are you comparing traffic accidents to murder? I'm sure some % of those vehicle related deaths are intentional but it seems like an intentional # skew.

It actually focuses on the premise that guns kill people, and not the people behind the gun.

[Back]

Lets not forget the concept that every citizen bearing arms is what helped America defeat the British in the colonial war.

But beyond that concept. So guns kill people. Well, by my estimation so do cars.


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
In 2004 there were 42,805 traffic related deaths in the US.So by your logic, we should also ban cars, well because, people dont kill people, cars do. And if everyone quit driving/having cars then...


It really does not compute. Face it, guns exist, and can be found in almost every culture through legal or illegal means. They are a tool, used by humans as a force equalizer or a force enhancement, sometimes for good purposes, sometimes for bad purposes. Banning guns will only make the populace even more susceptable to violence, especially here in the US. What we need are harsher penalties for gun related crimes, since a reactionary stance seems to be the only logical solution at this point in time.


More interesting information:
Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Those statistics are interesting, but your comparison is stupid.

Whenever someone mentions “gun control”*people flip out about our Second Amendment rights and usually bring up the “criminals can get them anyway” argument. There is just something fundamentally wrong if a criminal can get a gun faster and cheaper than your average Joe good citizen. Majorly majorly wrong and seriously fucked up and thats what needs to be addressed, not taking away guns from people who go through the proper channels and checks.

[Sean of the Thread]

It's really hard to make a point or an arguement around your person experiences because I don't know anything about the situation like how, why, where, etc. But I will say based on my own personal experiences I've never needed or wanted a gun for intimidation nor can I think of a situation where I've felt it necessary to shoot anyone for my protection.

Not that it really applies to my opinion on children taking down attackers at school or school security.

Agreed.

To put it in perspective I obtained my concealed carry permit and started carrying 3 months into my wifes first pregnancy and hadn't ever had a thought of doing so prior than that.

[DeV]

What penalties can you impose on a murderer who turns the gun on him/herself?



Yep
My statement is more represenative of those who sell guns illegally, possess guns illegally, use legal guns to commit violent crimes that don't end in a self-imposed murder-suicide, and so on. It can be said that the war on guns is similiar to the war on drugs, but I firmly believe that imposing longer prison sentences for those convicted of a crime where a gun is used or found to be in possession of one illegally is definitely worth the effort.

Obviously, there is nothing one can do to stop your average Joe or Jane from "snapping" and taking their legally owned firearm and committing a heinus act or two, but that doesn't mean we should overlook a real and growing concern. Taking additional steps that could result in the prevention of even one unnecessary death is well worth the effort involved.

A murderer who turns the gun on him or herself has already been penalized appropriately, imo.

[Gan]

Those statistics are interesting, but your comparison is stupid.

Whenever someone mentions “gun control”*people flip out about our Second Amendment rights and usually bring up the “criminals can get them anyway” argument. There is just something fundamentally wrong if a criminal can get a gun faster and cheaper than your average Joe good citizen. Majorly majorly wrong and seriously fucked up and thats what needs to be addressed, not taking away guns from people who go through the proper channels and checks.

Thats the whole concept of any black market. To obtain things quicker and through less channels than obtaining it legitimately. Face it, if I needed a gun fast or in circumspect of proper channels, and I did not own one myself, I would either buy one off a friend or just visit some fellows down on Harwin St. of questionable morality and buy one that way. Hard to track cash transactions of questionable legality.

So in that case, you make illegal posession of a firearm come with stiff penalties. You make crimes involving firearms, or where they are present come with stiff penalties. If you cant look into the future and predict who will be the next person involved in a gun crime, then you make it where that one gun crime is the last free act that person does for a very very long time. Follow up these stiff penalties with national databases for criminal records to help track felons as well as national identification records for those who wish to purchase firearms so they cant avoid detection by moving across state lines. As well as lock up probation/paroled convicts for longer sentences of they are caught in posession of a firearm at any time they are out in society and under the restrictions of their felonious punishment.

Or we can do like they did in the old days and just ship them all off to an uninhabited island so we wont have to deal with them anymore.

[Latrinsorm]

So how do you know which of the law abiding, level headed gun-toting citizens are going to crack and look for a bunch of school kids to kill? You cant.Not with that attitude, no.
Ban guns, and you prevent a whole load of those weapons from being used in potential tragedies like we see on the news time and time again.Like I tell Stray every time he makes this argument, the point isn't to reduce gun crime, the point is to reduce violent crime. Do you think it makes a bit of difference if a schoolchild gets killed by a gun or a bomb or a knife or plain old strangulation? Do you think it's easier for a teacher to stop the assailant with a pencil and a bunch of schoolkids or a gun?

Murderers got by for millenia without guns, and now we have bombs and jeeps and airplanes.

[Sean]

Where do you propose we start?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Not with that attitude, no.Like I tell Stray every time he makes this argument, the point isn't to reduce gun crime, the point is to reduce violent crime. Do you think it makes a bit of difference if a schoolchild gets killed by a gun or a bomb or a knife or plain old strangulation? Do you think it's easier for a teacher to stop the assailant with a pencil and a bunch of schoolkids or a gun?

Murderers got by for millenia without guns, and now we have bombs and jeeps and airplanes.


QFT.

Guns can making killing a little easier but by no means is it the ONLY way to kill someone. In fact, a lot sociopathic serial killers didn't even use guns-- no, they were more inventive or just a lot more cold-blooded and killed with their hands or other interesting "tools", usually common item.

You have to go after the crime, not pin all the blame of crime onto ONE weapon.

ALL that will happen if Guns are illegal is they'll go onto the Blackmarket. There will be more guns for criminals and people who shouldn't have them in the first place, and none for anyone who should by all means be allowed to own a firearm. Yeah, what a GREAT idea.

[Sean]

I can't wait until Taco Bell wins the fast food wars and someone invents the 3 seashells...

[Latrinsorm]

Where do you propose we start?The psychology version of the Space Race. If we (government and society) can care so much about going to a dead rock in space, we can care so much about not letting 6-year-old girls get shot in the head.

[Gan]

I can't wait until Taco Bell wins the fast food wars and someone invents the 3 seashells...

QFT John Spartan.

[Hulkein]

The answer is simple. Tougher gun control. Make it a priority. Well, you say, the bad guys will have guns and the good guys won'. No, stupid, it would be the other way around.

That would do nothing. The people shooting up schools are getting the weapons from their parents who will have them anyway, no matter how tough the laws are.

[Asha]

Make it so anyone found with a gun, anyone at all barring the authorities, will be punished severly.
The best way to dissuade people from having weapons designed for killing people in their homes and readily available is simply to take them all away.
I know you'll say you have a right to own a gun so you can murder an intruder ect, but I suppose the risk of someone who'll one day flip while owning a gun is the price of your piece of mind.

[Gan]

You'll have a tough time amending that part of the Constitution.

[Asha]

I highly doubt it's possible.

[Sean]

Plz I need my glock for deer hunting!

[Doyle Hargraves]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/LootingTexas.jpg

If you ban guns, the only people that will have them are the bad guys.

Likewise, if you think guns should be banned, you're an idiot that deserves to have their house robbed at gunpoint by someone with an illegal gun.

[Hulkein]

Holy shit look at the gun the guy third from the left has. Hahahaha

[Asha]

Holy shit look at the gun the guy third from the left has. Hahahaha
Hahahah JESUS!
Joker comes to mind.

[Warriorbird]

Fuck gun control.

"Fuck Batman and Robin, I'm robbin with a gat, man."

-Ras Kass

[Bobmuhthol]

Violent crime rates are higher in countries with the most restrictive gun laws. As has been pointed out multiple times, you really deserve to be on the receiving end of a barrel if you think guns should be banned. An armed attacker is a lot more likely to go after someone he knows doesn't have a gun.

[Apathy]

This isn't Vietnam, there are rules.

[Hamurr]

Just have a look towards Canada to see the effects of kneejerk gun control legislation.

Montreal has had two horrible school shootings now. Taber Alberta had a slaughter in a school and Toronto has been having an epidemic of murders committed by illegal handguns.

All this despite massive gun restrictions in our country and a national registry that has cost us billions.

Controls added to law abiding gun owners have no effect upon crime. That has been proven again and again. Look at how Australia's crime rates went when they disarmed the public in the 90s.

[Jazuela]

I am saddened that the whole issue is an issue. I hope someone can come up with a solution, because right now we have kids killing each other - with guns, without guns - over what? A pair of sneakers? Their next drug fix? Lunch money? People are violent because they are brought up with violence. They're hammered with it on TV, the news, in the movies, in music. It's glorified to the point where we have kids thinking it's "cool" to be called Gangsta.

There were violent movies and TV shows and news and music back in the stone age (when me and Parkbandit were kids), but something changed, and it wasn't guns. Guns existed then too. If we could figure out what changed - how it changed. And change it again - if it's something in the water, if it's the stress of modern technology, the need to rush rush rush and have everything now instead of being patient - whatever it is. If we could fix what is -causing- the upswing in violence, then maybe then we'll see a dramatic downswing. Stricter gun control isn't the answer. Banning weapons isn't the answer. Giving a gun to every able-bodied citizen isn't the answer. Changing the overall attitude of society - that's the answer. Now if someone can just figure out how to do that...

[AestheticDeath]

Ok fuck it, give every asshole in the United States a gun then. Its the wild fucking west all over again.

I would say a majority of Texas households have one or more already. I can't really believe the rest of the US is too much different. I would hazard a guess at over 50% of the homes in the US being armed. Even if its only a hunting rifle. Or a shot gun to get rid of snakes etc..

[Sean]

60% of the time it works everytime.

I'm also saddened that you just compared Mexico2 to the rest of the US :(

[AestheticDeath]

There were 12,805 recorded offences in England and Wales involving firearms in 1997/98, compared to 22,789 in 2004/05. Much of the numerical increase, however, can be attributed to a massive rise in the use of imitation firearms (566 in 1998/99, rising to 3,333 in 2004/05) and air weapons (8,665 in 1998/99, 11,825 in 2004/05). Excluding homicide, 61.1% of "violence against the person" offences are committed with either imitations or air weapons. Such usage figures are likely to be underestimates, however, since only weapons positively identified as such as so classified; many counted as "handguns" may in fact be imitations or air weapons.

From someones wiki post...

Now what the heck are imitation or air guns? Only thing that comes to mind would be like a harpoon for imitation, or BB/pellet guns for air guns. Perhaps paintball guns. Now.. I can see the harpoons happening near water etc.. But could the others be used that way? What else could they mean?

[Artha]

imitation gun = toy gun with the orange cap removed, airsoft gun, two fingers in the coat pocket, etc.

[AestheticDeath]

Doh I overlooked the "Excluding homicide" part. I suppose it would mean non-lethal.. so that makes more sense.

[Asha]

Airgun is just pellet loaded.
And saying someone deserves to either be robbed in their home at gun point, or deserves to be looking down the business end of a barrel just becouse they believe banning them would make them feel safer is as retarded as me telling you you deserve to have your children killed in their schools for believing any firearms should be relatively freely available.

[Satira]

60% of the time it works everytime.

I'm also saddened that you just compared Mexico2 to the rest of the US :(

:lol2:

WTFPWN Texas ftw!

[Stealth]

Are you a Democrat, a Republican or a Southerner?

Here is a test that will help you decide. The answer comes from posing the
following:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children.

Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife,
and charges at you.

You are carrying a Glock 40-caliber, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:


Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think ?
What about the kids?
Instead of shooting, could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his
hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
What do the European courts say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this
send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day, and make this a happier,
healthier street that discourages such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with friends for few a
days and get a consensus.

.................................................. ............. ..

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

.................................................. .................

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....
(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or
Speer Gold Dot Hollow Points?

Son: Can I shoot the next one!

Wife: You ain't taking that thing to the taxidermist!



_______________________

I think I am a Southerner by this guideline.


Stealth

[Stealth]

Although, I would be using Hydroshocks and Glazers.


Stealth

[Stanley Burrell]

Fuck gun control.

"Fuck Batman and Robin, I'm robbin with a gat, man."

-Ras Kass

Word.

The white man wants to take away our straps so that they can control us.

"Let freedom ring with a buckshot."

- Ras Kass

[Gan]

Although, I would be using Hydroshocks and Glazers. Stealth

I was a fan of Black Talons until they became illegal for the general public to posess. Now its simply Hydroshocks.

[Stanley Burrell]

Are you a Democrat, a Republican or a Southerner?

Here is a test that will help you decide. The answer comes from posing the
following:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children.

Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife,
and charges at you.

You are carrying a Glock 40-caliber, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:


Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think ?
What about the kids?
Instead of shooting, could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his
hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
What do the European courts say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this
send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day, and make this a happier,
healthier street that discourages such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with friends for few a
days and get a consensus.

.................................................. ............. ..

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

.................................................. .................

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....
(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or
Speer Gold Dot Hollow Points?

Son: Can I shoot the next one!

Wife: You ain't taking that thing to the taxidermist!



_______________________

I think I am a Southerner by this guideline.


Stealth

I bolded the one part of your story I disagreed with.

You should include a Green Party clause about the hypothetical scenario never having occurred as Bin Laden decided not to start wtrick wflip'ing his machete in peeps' faces after he went on to live a successful, non-violent life via legalizing weed and unbarring pharmaceutical psychotropics.

And speaking of wtrick wflip, do something super cool for warriors, plz (those other classes have Guilds now, too :()

[Warriorbird]

I'm a Southerner.

[ElanthianSiren]

Holy shit... I'm a closet republican. Who knew?


-M
edit: I may also be southern, which is funny, since I've never lived there. Someone cue "Come to the daaaaaaaaaaaaaark side of the force"

[Alfster]

I am saddened that the whole issue is an issue. I hope someone can come up with a solution, because right now we have kids killing each other - with guns, without guns - over what? A pair of sneakers? Their next drug fix? Lunch money? People are violent because they are brought up with violence. They're hammered with it on TV, the news, in the movies, in music. It's glorified to the point where we have kids thinking it's "cool" to be called Gangsta.

I don't see it as an issue with television or video games.



There were violent movies and TV shows and news and music back in the stone age (when me and Parkbandit were kids), but something changed, and it wasn't guns. Guns existed then too. If we could figure out what changed - how it changed. And change it again - if it's something in the water, if it's the stress of modern technology, the need to rush rush rush and have everything now instead of being patient - whatever it is. If we could fix what is -causing- the upswing in violence, then maybe then we'll see a dramatic downswing. Stricter gun control isn't the answer. Banning weapons isn't the answer. Giving a gun to every able-bodied citizen isn't the answer. Changing the overall attitude of society - that's the answer. Now if someone can just figure out how to do that...

I blame feminism and the woman's movement in general (lol). If the parents were at home with their children and actually taught their children right from wrong we'd have less of a problem imo. It seems from what I"ve read, most of these shootings happen from children who are grasping for attention and have very little family life and very little guidance.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Looks like I'm a closet southerner. :rofl:

[Alfster]

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....
(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or
Speer Gold Dot Hollow Points?

Son: Can I shoot the next one!

Wife: You ain't taking that thing to the taxidermist!



Hehe, that's me deer hunting. I've been known to take upwards of 12 shots at a single deer before the damn thing drops (my gun only holds 8 shells)

[Atlanteax]

I guess I'd be a Republican.

I'd rather not waste good bullets on a corpse.

[Kranar]

Just have a look towards Canada to see the effects of kneejerk gun control legislation.

Montreal has had two horrible school shootings now. Taber Alberta had a slaughter in a school and Toronto has been having an epidemic of murders committed by illegal handguns.


It's funny because in Canada, anytime there is some incident involving a gun it becomes national news and is perceived as an epidemic, when in fact, our violent crime rate is incredibly low and our gun related crime rate is even lower.

No study has ever conclusively resolved the issue on whether there is a relationship between gun ownership and crime. None. Many studies have provided evidence to support as well as refute the thesis but never in a conclusive manner and these studies even admit this as well as the difficulties involved in trying to resolve this issue conclusively.

My stance on gun control is that rather than seeing it as an issue involving crime, I see it as an issue involving the society. Any society that feels it needs to own a gun, and carry it with them in public is one that lives in fear. To actually go out in public and have to take with you a weapon to kill someone with... it's one of the most extreme forms of fear.

Rather than worrying and wondering whether guns should be illegal or not, I try to think about why it is people have so much fear of where they live that they feel a gun will make them safe.

Focus more on that issue and then once its resolved, gun control will be a moot point.

[Latrinsorm]

I try to think about why it is people have so much fear of where they live that they feel a gun will make them safe.Se7en.
Silence of the Lambs.
Son of Sam.

There's a difference between fear and prudence. It's not courage that makes a person think they are safe, it's ignorance. Do I think everyone should be toting a pistol? No (especially not Xyelin, that lousy Independent). That doesn't mean people who carry guns are entirely or even partially motivated by fear. I look both ways before I cross the street not because I lie awake nights worrying that I'll get hit by a car but because it would be imprudent not to.

What surprises me about your position on this, Kranar, is you seemed to use the exact same language to take the exact opposite position when there was talk about the outlawing of the ritual daggers of the Sikh faith. In that case, you used "fear" to describe people's perception of a weapon while in this case you use "fear" to describe the perception of those who carry the weapon. It's just an odd juxtaposition.

[Kranar]

What surprises me about your position on this, Kranar, is you seemed to use the exact same language to take the exact opposite position when there was talk about the outlawing of the ritual daggers of the Sikh faith.


You'll find I blame fear for a lot of things in the developed world. It's a very strange human phenomenon that causes us to do rather stupid things out of ignorance.

In this case, people fear that some criminal is going to kill them, so they go to the extreme of carrying a gun with them. Of course, most Americans are far more likely to die because they're fat... but because that's not an issue that causes fear in the majority of people, it's an issue that people are willing to do virtually nothing about to resolve for themselves.

I doubt gun ownership leads to a rise in crime, maybe it does, but even if it does it's probably clear that the rise in crime is minimal. The thing is... even though the U.S. has one of the highest crime rates in the developed world, the odds of you or me being harmed by a criminal are so incredibly miniscule. And yet, because of the strong perception in the media that criminals are right around the corner going to get you... people are led to take such extreme measures to defend themselves that they'll carry a gun with them.

Thus, my position is simple... even if gun ownership does not result in an increase in crime, I'd much rather live in a society where its citizens do not feel the need to have to carry a gun with them for protection, than a society in which its citizens do. And because I feel this way, I think it would be far more effective to look at why it is that people are so afraid of where they live and treat that problem, rather than institute frivolous and expensive restrictions on gun ownership and pretend like its doing anything to solve the problem.

[Skirmisher]

Hehe, that's me deer hunting. I've been known to take upwards of 12 shots at a single deer before the damn thing drops (my gun only holds 8 shells)

omg you need to become a better shot or move up in caliber.

[Asha]

I'd be really mad if i was a deer and Alf shot me in the cock when he was aiming for my head.
Use a grenade or something. Don't make them suffer.

[Gan]

Rather than worrying and wondering whether guns should be illegal or not, I try to think about why it is people have so much fear of where they live that they feel a gun will make them safe.

I think the fear you describe was one of the motivating factors for the language of the second amendment. Fear of a despotic state or ruler and the ability for the people to protect themselves from it.



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Which further backs up the reasons as noted in the earlier US Declaration of Independance.



Prudence indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, tothrow off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

[Latrinsorm]

I think you're being too loose in the use of the word "fear" is all. It seems like taking any preventative action against an event X to you is indicative of fear of X. I'd suggest that an equally plausible hypothesis is that a person simply does not want event X to occur; not because of perceived danger or pain but in and of itself.

I don't want to lose my nail clippers not because I have a fear of unclipped nails but simply because I don't want to lose my nail clippers. Thus, always putting them back in approximately the same location (preventing their loss) is not motivated by fear.

[Hamurr]

It's funny because in Canada, anytime there is some incident involving a gun it becomes national news and is perceived as an epidemic, when in fact, our violent crime rate is incredibly low and our gun related crime rate is even lower.

No study has ever conclusively resolved the issue on whether there is a relationship between gun ownership and crime. None. Many studies have provided evidence to support as well as refute the thesis but never in a conclusive manner and these studies even admit this as well as the difficulties involved in trying to resolve this issue conclusively.

My stance on gun control is that rather than seeing it as an issue involving crime, I see it as an issue involving the society. Any society that feels it needs to own a gun, and carry it with them in public is one that lives in fear. To actually go out in public and have to take with you a weapon to kill someone with... it's one of the most extreme forms of fear.

Rather than worrying and wondering whether guns should be illegal or not, I try to think about why it is people have so much fear of where they live that they feel a gun will make them safe.

Focus more on that issue and then once its resolved, gun control will be a moot point.


I think that we are on similar veins of thought.

I am not hoping to see mass firearm proliferation. I just want people to look at more effective measures in crime control as opposed to the often panicked calls to ban guns altogether or at least try to regulate them out of existence.

We have seen that with our national registry which has cost $2 billion so far and is still rising (no small amount in Canadian budgets) and has not managed to prevent crime in any way.

With a little more thought, that two billion could have been spent on mental health, corrections, policing and many other areas which would be far more likely to impact crime in the country.

Instead we took the simplistic route of attacking the weapons instead of the crimes.

[Skirmisher]

I also am not advocating a ban on all weapons as much as much tighter controlon issuance and improved methods of tracking lines of custody of weapons to help law enforcement find and punish those who decide to use them while breaking the law.

[Kranar]

I think you're being too loose in the use of the word "fear" is all. It seems like taking any preventative action against an event X to you is indicative of fear of X. I'd suggest that an equally plausible hypothesis is that a person simply does not want event X to occur; not because of perceived danger or pain but in and of itself.


I'm using fear in the sense of taking an extreme response to a miniscule threat. No, putting your "nailclipper" in the same place to prevent you from losing it is not the result of a fear of losing it. But locking it in a safe surrounded by alarms would indicate fear.

People do not look at the issue of crime, and crime prevention rationally. The fact that people are willing to carry guns with them in public because of some event that has approximately a 1 in 60000 chance of occuring to them in their lifetime is indicative of something other than rational thought.

The fact of the matter is that the average American is more than safe. That the average American is far more likely to die because of issues that are not so sensationalized in the media than as a result of crime. That the average American is more of a threat to his/her own life and family, than someone else is.

Yet despite this... Americans spend so much more money on firearms to give themselves a false sense of security, than focusing on issues and matters that are of more importance.

If you don't think this irrational thought process has to do with fear... then whatever you want to call it... that's the real problem that needs to be addressed.

[Sean]

"I don't want to lose my right to bear arms not because I have a fear of shooting someone/getting shot but simply because I don't want to lose my right to bear arms. Thus, always putting them back in approximately the same location (preventing their loss) is not motivated by fear."

I guess your right in that it's not so much fear as it is just stubborness.

[Hamurr]

I also am not advocating a ban on all weapons as much as much tighter controlon issuance and improved methods of tracking lines of custody of weapons to help law enforcement find and punish those who decide to use them while breaking the law.


Again may I suggest you look to Canada's failed efforts in that regard.

Our gun registry has been a phenominally expensive disaster and has provided little to no aid in tracking guns. I would suspect such a registry and tracking efforts in the USA would be even worse.

Cracking down on the ILLEGAL use of firearms however is always a great idea.

[Sean of the Thread]

There are more people carrying guns illegally that would not in Canada because of their "gun control".

[Latrinsorm]

I guess your right in that it's not so much fear as it is just stubborness.Yeah, I really like these nailclippers. :)

[Doyle Hargraves]

NO BLASTERS! NO BLASTERS!
http://www.erikstormtrooper.com/jwcantina6.jpg

[Tisket]

People do not look at the issue of crime, and crime prevention rationally. The fact that people are willing to carry guns with them in public because of some event that has approximately a 1 in 60000 chance of occuring to them in their lifetime is indicative of something other than rational thought.

The fact of the matter is that the average American is more than safe. That the average American is far more likely to die because of issues that are not so sensationalized in the media than as a result of crime. That the average American is more of a threat to his/her own life and family, than someone else is.

Yet despite this... Americans spend so much more money on firearms to give themselves a false sense of security, than focusing on issues and matters that are of more importance.

If you don't think this irrational thought process has to do with fear... then whatever you want to call it... that's the real problem that needs to be addressed.


You've been using the phrase "average American" quite liberally. I consider myself an average American but I don't know anyone that owns a gun. I support the amendment that allows my neighbors to arm themselves but well, I know none that have done so. I think your idea of the "average American" is smug and self-satisfied. And totally wrong. But that's just me.

You're stance on the issue sounds like you believe that ordinary people in the presence of a gun will turn into slaughtering butchers but will revert to normal when the weapon is removed.



Of course, most Americans are far more likely to die because they're fat... but because that's not an issue that causes fear in the majority of people, it's an issue that people are willing to do virtually nothing about to resolve for themselves.


Not that it has anything to do with guns or gun control but I'd say this lack of fear has nothing to do with national borders:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10170

I know American bashing is a favorite Canadian sport but I get tired of it.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

"I don't want to lose my right to bear arms not because I have a fear of shooting someone/getting shot but simply because I don't want to lose my right to bear arms. Thus, always putting them back in approximately the same location (preventing their loss) is not motivated by fear."

I guess your right in that it's not so much fear as it is just stubborness.

No, it's a fear that deciding one of our Constitutional Rights is void, where the hell do they stop?

If they're gonna trample on that right because of statistics and the idea that "times have changed" then what else is gonna go or change?

I don't agree with that, no matter how many gun-related deaths occur each year. It's a price we pay for the rights we get. That's it.

[Sean]

No, it's a fear that deciding one of our Constitutional Rights is void, where the hell do they stop?

If they're gonna trample on that right because of statistics and the idea that "times have changed" then what else is gonna go or change?

I don't agree with that, no matter how many gun-related deaths occur each year. It's a price we pay for the rights we get. That's it.

I didn't make a real arguement either way. I took latrinsorms analogy of his nailclippers and applied it literally to the topic and drew the only conclusion i deemed possible from the analogy. "Simply because I don't want to lose my right to bear arms," if you can draw a different conclusion go ahead. But I don't see what the constitution altering has to do with the concept of not wanting to change for the sake of not wanting to change.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh, is that what you were doing? It's not simply the state of not wanting, it's the state of not wanting to lose a specific thing (nailclippers). It's not that my desire is made manifest on the universe, it's that I don't want to lose my nailclippers. The important part is the clippers, not the want.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I didn't make a real arguement either way. I took latrinsorms analogy of his nailclippers and applied it literally to the topic and drew the only conclusion i deemed possible from the analogy. "Simply because I don't want to lose my right to bear arms," if you can draw a different conclusion go ahead. But I don't see what the constitution altering has to do with the concept of not wanting to change for the sake of not wanting to change.

I guess I interpreted "I don't want to lose it for the sake of not losing it" as a roundabout generalized way of saying that it opens a can of worms and it's the Idea behind it not the thing itself.

[Kranar]

You're stance on the issue sounds like you believe that ordinary people in the presence of a gun will turn into slaughtering butchers but will revert to normal when the weapon is removed.


You've totally missed the point then because what I said was just the exact opposite.

Sometimes we read others arguments with a prejudice of what we expect their conclusion to be and then ignore the logical points being made. For example, when I present my argument, it is often the case that people assume that I am supporting gun control, when in fact, the logical points I make clearly indicate that I do not support gun control.

In your case, you seem to be prejudging that I think the average American is a lunatic and thus if they own a gun they will become some kind of a "slaughtering butcher."

In fact, the complete opposite is what I've said, as I am arguing that the average American has nothing to fear and is no danger, regardless of whether they own a gun or not.

Yes, I admit my point of view is unconventional as most people who are against gun control are ones who wish to own a gun, and those who are against it are those who don't want anyone to own one.

I just think it's time people start asking why it is they feel the need to own a gun. That's the real problem and if peoples resources, efforts, and attention can go into resolving that problem instead, then you'll find that gun control really becomes a moot point.

But of course, if you're one who compulsively prejudges others arguments, then I don't expect that you'll understand any point that I've made and you can continue believing anything you want about what I believe the average American is like.

To be honest... I think the average American is very much like the average Canadian or anyone else. All of us humans beings have a heck of a lot more in common than we sometimes want to admit, but that's an issue best left for another thread.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think it also has to do with the fact that 99% of Americans get boners when observing a glock-shaped object whilst 99% of French Canadians become erect over fine cheese and poutine.

In a less crude fashion; it boils down to the mentality and education of a people from the get-go and what it means to possess a gun in lieu of this.

[Keller]

First of all, when the time comes that people obtain cars to chase people down and kill them -- then, and ONLY then, can you compare the human agency in gun related deaths to the human agency in car-related deaths. That was possibly the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

Second. Maybe it's because I never plan to own a gun, but I don't find the "if everyone had guns there'd be less crime" argument compelling. I'm not certain, that if someone pulled a gun on Doyle and told him to step out of his car, that Doyle would be capable of locating his gun, obtaining his gun, aiming his gun at the criminal, and pulling the trigger before the interior of Doyle's car resembled a Jackson Pollack painting.

[Gan]

First of all, when the time comes that people obtain cars to chase people down and kill them -- then, and ONLY then, can you compare the human agency in gun related deaths to the human agency in car-related deaths. That was possibly the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

And not everyone obtains a gun with the purpose of chasing people down to kill them either. They are a tool of consequence, much like cars. Only cars seem to have more alternative uses than guns. Yet the fact remains that if your argument is that its not people who kill people but guns who kill people, then the analagy with the cars fits quite appropriately.

Furthermore, I seem to recall reading in the news lately that a man who intentionally drove through a crowded market place and running down people, and killing them, was recently sentenced to prison.

Guess that kind of blows your "this is the most retarded argument" theory eh?

[Daniel]

There's also the teenage girl that drove her car into oncoming traffic killing the mother of a 3 year old, cuz another girl wouldn't fuck her.

[Warriorbird]

I like shooting. Sometimes I like shooting tasty animals. Sometimes I shoot tasty animals for the homeless. Why oh why would you stop that sort of thing just because of the actions of a criminal minority?

[Gan]

I sport shoot as well as hunt.

I shot sport clays, as well as rifle/pistol shoot for competition. Someday I hope to travel outside of Houston to compete.

Amazing, all that and I've yet to shoot anyone yet. Even though I was trained to shoot people when I worked for the prison system.

[Keller]

And not everyone obtains a gun with the purpose of chasing people down to kill them either. They are a tool of consequence, much like cars. Only cars seem to have more alternative uses than guns. Yet the fact remains that if your argument is that its not people who kill people but guns who kill people, then the analagy with the cars fits quite appropriately.

Furthermore, I seem to recall reading in the news lately that a man who intentionally drove through a crowded market place and running down people, and killing them, was recently sentenced to prison.

Guess that kind of blows your "this is the most retarded argument" theory eh?

It's painful to believe you wrote this sincerely.

A lot of people purchase guns with the intention of using them either actively or passively (protection) to shoot a living human being. Aside from using guns to shoot animals (which is an issue befitting it's own topic), this is their only other material purpose. Sure, they may be decoration, collectors items, etc -- but their two main purposes are to kill people and kill animals.

This is entirely different from cars, whose sole material purpose is transportation. To be sure, cars have ancillary purposes such as competition, collection, and coitus (where is Michaelous anyways?). But their proliferation is entirely based upon their social utility in transport.

Now, I'm going to dismiss the two cited instances of cars being used as lethal weapons because they are outliers. To drive this point home, imagine the following survey.

Which of the following selections does not belong:

1) Cars are used to:
a) go to work
b) race in circles
c) kill people

2) Guns are used to:
a) Shoot people
b) Shoot animals
c) act as paper weights

So, what you've done is try to neutralize an argument by using an irrational analogy. There is an obvious social utility to a car which is not matched by the social utility of a gun. Additionally, the human agency involved in cars killing people is by accident (or poor judgment for drunk drivers) while the human agency involved when people use guns to kill people is intentional (and usually also accompanied by poor judgment). This is an irrational argument which ties it's hope of success to the susceptability to stupid people to believe stupid arguments.

[Keller]

I sport shoot as well as hunt.

I shot sport clays, as well as rifle/pistol shoot for competition. Someday I hope to travel outside of Houston to compete.

Amazing, all that and I've yet to shoot anyone yet. Even though I was trained to shoot people when I worked for the prison system.


My dad dresses up like a cowboy and shoots his gun on Sunday's with a bunch of other old men dressed as cowboys. It's a funny, FUNNY sight.

Edited because I remember what it's called, "Single Action Shooter Club" or SAS.

[Gan]

Dear Keller,

Try as you might, you totally missed the premise of why cars were used as an analagy. Try as I might, I cant seem to get you to understand. So arguing with you, when you're bent upon attempting to single my argument out because you dont like me is simply futile. But I'll give it a shot anyways.

1. Guns have more than 1 purpose contrary to your opinion. Because you simply refuse to acknowledge that does not make you right. Because you do not view or 'use' guns for more than 1 purpose does not make it a statement of fact that everyone views or uses them in the same way. Its painful that you seem to think that in order to justify your stance.

2. The premise of the analagy was based on the argument, "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and vice versa.

3. Guns in all actuality, are a tool that is used to send an object from point A to point B in a very short time. Cars are also used to send an object from point A to point B in a very short time. Imagine that... Notice the similarity since you're choosing to view the comparison in this light rather than the intended premise as mentioned above.

4. Funny how you dismiss evidence to the contrary that cars are used as a weapon to hurt/kill people when there are instances, in a growing trend, indicating otherwise. Outliers or not, the fact of the matter is that it still happens, and thus is relevant to the argument of the original premise. Dismiss it if it makes you feel better about your argument, just know that its not accepted as the norm by others, including me.

5. You might consider not attempting any more surveys, you seem to suck at them.

6. You actually hinted on something logical about the proliferation of cars based on their utility value; whereas utility on the whole differs from person to person in many degreees. I agree, and view the proliferation of guns in the same light. However, as different or simliar as the purposes from these two tools may be, the propensity for their misuse still exists, and based on the original premise for gun proliferation given in most common arguments, including the one in this debate, you can not justify gun proliferation with the premise that guns kill people, and not also justify car proliferation within the boundries of the same premise, using the same logic.

[Gan]

My dad dresses up like a cowboy and shoots his gun on Sunday's with a bunch of other old men dressed as cowboys. It's a funny, FUNNY sight.

Edited because I remember what it's called, "Single Action Shooter Club" or SAS.

TMI dude. I dont really care what your dad dresses up as on Sundays.

[TheEschaton]

Dude, you're an idiot. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill things. If you want to express that as "transporting an object from A to B", fine, the point is that you're "transporting" A FUCKING BULLET from you to your target, with the PURPOSE of maiming or killing them. Or, if you don't know how to aim correctly, scaring the living shit out of them.

Whereas a car transports a person from A to B, for the PURPOSE OF CONVIENANCE OF TRAVEL.

Unless you can say that firing guns are a convienant way of moving bullets from your hand to your enemy target's (which includes animals) head, you're just an idiot. Please, enlighten us on the "other" uses of guns. Deterence? Deterence from WHAT? FROM GETTING A FUCKING BULLET SHOT AT YOU.

The thing about dismissing trends - cars being used at weapons CAN be measured as a trend. However, guns, which are used to KILL THINGS, cannot "grow" as a trend in being used as weapons SINCE THEY'RE BY THEIR VERY NATURE WEAPONS.

The capital letters in this post were the main points for your pea-sized intellect. That being said, I'm all for the rights to bear arms. But at least acknowledge guns are made for one purpose: to shoot things, with the intention to seriously harm them. If you can do that, look further into the arguments that the serious harm guns can inflict are much more devastating than the harm most ordinary people can do in any other situation, and therefore need to be controlled a bit more.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Dear TheE.

Love you too.


:lol:

[TheEschaton]

Man, I'd love to sit you down in RL and have a political discussion with you. But I'm not going to Texas any time soon.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Dude, you're an idiot. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill things. If you want to express that as "transporting an object from A to B", fine, the point is that you're "transporting" A FUCKING BULLET from you to your target, with the PURPOSE of maiming or killing them. Or, if you don't know how to aim correctly, scaring the living shit out of them.
If you cant see why that was said as a response... then you're too emotional (should I have ALL CAPPED THAT?) for me to try to paint you the picture. Notice I refrained from calling you any derogatory words as well. :lol:



Whereas a car transports a person from A to B, for the PURPOSE OF CONVIENANCE OF TRAVEL.
Again, see above.



Unless you can say that firing guns are a convienant way of moving bullets from your hand to your enemy target's (which includes animals) head, you're just an idiot. Please, enlighten us on the "other" uses of guns. Deterence? Deterence from WHAT? FROM GETTING A FUCKING BULLET SHOT AT YOU.
Already mentioned in previous posts. Hunting. Sport shooting. And yes, as an offensive or defensive weapon. When you get down to it, its still a tool. I believe you're the first one to mention deterrence.



The thing about dismissing trends - cars being used at weapons CAN be measured as a trend. However, guns, which are used to KILL THINGS, cannot "grow" as a trend in being used as weapons SINCE THEY'RE BY THEIR VERY NATURE WEAPONS.
It still does not discount the premise in this argument. Please try and follow the train of thought all the way through. Without the person behind the tool, it still remains a tool. So justifying the premise that people dont kill people, guns kill people, is illogical. Which was my aim all along.



The capital letters in this post were the main points for your pea-sized intellect. That being said, I'm all for the rights to bear arms. But at least acknowledge guns are made for one purpose: to shoot things, with the intention to seriously harm them.
To say you abhore the harming/killing of another human being, and then to say you support the right to bear arms when in your opinion that all 'arms' (guns) are used for is the intention of harming or killing things (humans included) seems somewhat backwards. What do you really mean?



If you can do that, look further into the arguments that the serious harm guns can inflict are much more devastating than the harm most ordinary people can do in any other situation, and therefore need to be controlled a bit more.
Apples and oranges. Now compare the harm that a ordinary person can inflict with a gun with the harm that an ordinary person can inflict behind the wheel of a car and you might be onto something... :)

Its not the guns that need controlling, its the people and the access that they are given that needs controlling. Control the desire to use the gun as the means of a criminal act or control the instances where a criminal or someone who wishes to become a criminal can have access to a gun sure. But blaming all of society's criminal issues on the presence of guns, and then using that premise to call for the ban of all guns is the issue I'm discussing, and the premise that I take issue with.

[Gan]

Man, I'd love to sit you down in RL and have a political discussion with you. But I'm not going to Texas any time soon.

-TheE-

:lol:

You'll never 'sit me down' in any circumstance. And you're welcome in Texas any time. Just dont litter, obey the laws, and be wary that many people here legally carry guns for reasons other than just so they can shoot someone.

Not to mention that the first time you called me an idiot or any of the other phrases of choice you like to utter here on the internet to my face would probably earn you a fist sandwich. If you cant respect the person your talking to, then you at least better not disrespect them if you dont want reciprocation.

[Back]

If you cant respect the person your talking to, then you at least better not disrespect them if you dont want reciprocation.

I owe you about one-hundred-brazillion “fist sandwiches.”

[Sean of the Thread]

Why do you argue with the idiots about gun control. Oblivious to the situation doesn't quite sum it up.

[Gan]

I owe you about one-hundred-brazillion “fist sandwiches.”

If I ever said these things to you face to face, I deserve every one of them sandwiches.

Alas this is the internet. Amazing what can be said behind the protection of a bunch of 1's and 0's.

[Gan]

Why do you argue with the idiots about gun control. Oblivious to the situation doesn't quite sum it up.

1. Boredom

2. To see if an argument/debate/discussion can actually be undertaken without being deviated on by the participants direction that their opinion takes them on no matter how far off track it is.

3. Did I mention boredom?

[Keller]

Try as you might, you totally missed the premise of why cars were used as an analagy.

No, I understand. It's because cars also kill people. It's just an irrational premise.


Try as I might, I cant seem to get you to understand.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be an insult. I don't understand the irrational argument? Is it worse to make an irrational argument or not understand one?


1. Guns have more than 1 purpose contrary to your opinion.

I said two purpose. Three if you count passive and active protection against humans as separate purposes. But please, do elaborate on the purposes I missed.


Because you do not view or 'use' guns for more than 1 purpose does not make it a statement of fact that everyone views or uses them in the same way.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this. You are the one who purports to posit that cars are increasingly being used as a deadly weapon. You're saying that every conceivable use for a gun should be included in this argument just as every conceivable use for a car should. If that's what you're saying, then you win. I can't argue with logic like that.


Its painful that you seem to think that in order to justify your stance.

That you can't compare the human agency involved in guns killing people to the human agency when cars kill people? Think about it. Are most cases in which a gun kills someone an accident? How about when cars kill people?



3. Guns in all actuality, are a tool that is used to send an object from point A to point B in a very short time. Cars are also used to send an object from point A to point B in a very short time. Imagine that... Notice the similarity since you're choosing to view the comparison in this light rather than the intended premise as mentioned above.

You're wacky. Plain and simply weird. This is some sort of joke, right? I hate to stoop to such low levels, but have you been drinking?


4. Funny how you dismiss evidence to the contrary that cars are used as a weapon to hurt/kill people when there are instances, in a growing trend, indicating otherwise. Outliers or not, the fact of the matter is that it still happens, and thus is relevant to the argument of the original premise. Dismiss it if it makes you feel better about your argument, just know that its not accepted as the norm by others, including me.

I don't know which is funnier. The fact thar you argue guns are similar to cars because they both take things from point A to point B; or that there is a "growing trend" of people consciously using cars as lethal weapons.

That aside, in your initial analogy you listed statistics "proving" that cars were more dangerous [as weapons] than guns. And now you're saying that a handful of instances show a "growing trend" in cars being used as weapons. Are all of those car-related death's due to people consciously using cars as weapons?


5. You might consider not attempting any more surveys, you seem to suck at them.

Zing!


6. You actually hinted on something logical about the proliferation of cars based on their utility value; whereas utility on the whole differs from person to person in many degreees. I agree, and view the proliferation of guns in the same light. However, as different or simliar as the purposes from these two tools may be, the propensity for their misuse still exists, and based on the original premise for gun proliferation given in most common arguments, including the one in this debate, you can not justify gun proliferation with the premise that guns kill people, and not also justify car proliferation within the boundries of the same premise, using the same logic.

I see where you're coming from. I want you to understand that I do. You're saying that both kill people, and you can't justify non-proliferation of one with non-proliferation of the other. But I don't agree. I don't agree because the purpose of the car is so far removed from the purpose of the gun. It's soooo far removed as to make the analogy irrational.

[Keller]

Why do you argue with the idiots about gun control. Oblivious to the situation doesn't quite sum it up.

I know! I don't know why I do it.

[Gan]

I see where you're coming from. I want you to understand that I do. You're saying that both kill people, and you can't justify non-proliferation of one with non-proliferation of the other. But I don't agree. I don't agree because the purpose of the car is so far removed from the purpose of the gun. It's soooo far removed as to make the analogy irrational.

Rationality is as unique as is utility. You might find the basis for comparison irrational; I however do not. And while you have every right to disagree with my comparison, I'm very thankful that you do not represent nor speak for everyone else's perception of rationality or opinion on the matter.

Thanks for participating!
:thanx:

[Warriorbird]

I'm pretty strongly anti gun control in about every way. I still think comparing guns and cars is pretty silly.