Question for anti-gun:

[omega 616]

Using an item desgined to kill, every other thing used to kill has another purpose. Matches, are used to light cigs ... it is only when they are misused to they become dangerous, same for cars, knives, various poisonous substances (like bleach) ... a misused used gun doesn't kill.

You can't even use a gun defensively 'cos a defensive item would be a vest or something that stops wounds ... a gun inflicts wounds.

1. So what is worse? An object being used for it's purpose or an object being misused? To me and object being misused is worse.

2. Misused guns kill. Assume your gun isn't loaded and pull the trigger? Not keeping the finger off the trigger? Not minding your backstop? Not caring about where the muzzle is pointed?

Your logic has killed people before.

3. Your "defensive" logic also means that any kind of punch or even military action can never be defensive. Think whatever you want, but you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense

It depends on the tools reason for being ... death is very rarely a good thing.

No, a gun is designed to kill ... if you're good with guns, then you're good at killing. If you misuse a gun, you don't kill.

As for the rest of number 2 ... what?

Who ever heard of a defensive punch? Defense would be block or dodging and weaving.

There is a defensive military move it's called "a tactical retreat".

A good defense is a good offence? Like how fire fighters fight fire with fire....? Wait ....

Even supressive fire is aggressive, it's not like if you kill a person during it you are going to say "OOPS!".

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

In that case, death from humans is fucking tiny! How many murders are done with hands? "Guns don't kill, bullets do!"

Did you kill him? No, the poison did.

I never said the bullets did it. People did it. People are killers, that's why it's called homicide.

Using an item desgined to kill, every other thing used to kill has another purpose. Matches, are used to light cigs ... it is only when they are misused to they become dangerous, same for cars, knives, various poisonous substances (like bleach) ... a misused used gun doesn't kill.

You can't even use a gun defensively 'cos a defensive item would be a vest or something that stops wounds ... a gun inflicts wounds.

This argument is pointless, a tool's purpose is defined through use, not design.
And far more importantly:
Guns have tons of other uses, just ask the almost 80 million gun owners in america who killed nothing with them yesterday.

Yeah, guns are designed to kill ... they don't fire healing roses.

Tonnes of other uses? Oh right, I never knew ... can you please tell me 10 others that aren't killing? Actually give me 9 'cos I will give you shooting range (this also includes what FPS Russia does) as a freebie ... I imagine a shooting range to be rather cathartic, like a driving range for golfers.

 

[ElPatron]

It depends on the tools reason for being ... death is very rarely a good thing.

No, it does not depend on design. Something not meant to kill being used to kill is much worse than something being used to achieve expected results.

What is worse? A gun being used to killing a person or a flu-shot killing someone?

No, a gun is designed to kill ... if you're good with guns, then you're good at killing.

Then I must suck at guns because I haven't killed anyone.

If you misuse a gun, you don't kill.

Which is why there are 300 million gun deaths in the US every year, right?

As for the rest of number 2 ... what?

Just because you have no clue how to use a firearm, doesn't mean every gun owner is oblivious to safety. If you misuse a gun, people die.

Who ever heard of a defensive punch?

Lawfully speaking a punch is self-defense if you are attacked. And if you think that it's wrong, write to your representatives in the government.

There is a defensive military move it's called "a tactical retreat".

Which involves heavy firing to cover the retreating soldiers. Or did you think they all turned their back at the same time?

A good defense is a good offence? Like how fire fighters fight fire with fire....? Wait ....

Controlled explosions have been used to put out fires. They quickly consume oxygen.

Yeah, guns are designed to kill ... they don't fire healing roses.

NONE of these firearms were designed to kill.

Tonnes of other uses? Oh right, I never knew ... can you please tell me 10 others that aren't killing? Actually give me 9 'cos I will give you shooting range (this also includes what FPS Russia does) as a freebie ... I imagine a shooting range to be rather cathartic, like a driving range for golfers.

Clay shooting/skeet shooting
3 gun shooting
ISSF
IPSC
Research & Development
Practical Shooting
Cowboy Action Shooting
"Plinking"
Scientific testing
Range time - what FPS Russia does
Concealed Carry
Open Carry

There. 12.

If concealed carry and open carry are about killing, then everyone would be dying on the streets.

 

[ElPatron]

snip

The problem is that I don't want minorities having guns. It turns them into an elite. However this is just an opinion.

The fact is that a machete, a knife or whatever is just as practical to kill as a firearm. Sure, you don't have the range. But the practicality of killing isn't always about range. Heck, you wouldn't bring a hunting rifle if you wanted to bring the weapon concealed, right?

Stab to the heart/carotid/whatever and the target is already dying.

Everyone has "the power to kill". Look at your hands. Surely, no matter how much of a small person yore you can strangle someone smaller than you. Guns are not about the "power to kill".

The problem with the UK is that it's not even worth using a gun. I generally do not care about guns in the UK because if the majority of the people think that kneejerk reactions to shootouts are reasonable, fine. It's a democracy.

What I don't agree with is that criminals will carry knives against the law but the common law abiding citizen does not have the right to bring a knife with him and state "self-defense" as a reason to carry. Or carry the strongest pepper-spray in the market. I mean, fuck the "equal force" logic.

You call it "fucking common sense" but the fact is that last time only the elite was allowed to have guns in the US, black people were slaves.

 

[omega 616]

It depends on the tools reason for being ... death is very rarely a good thing.

No, it does not depend on design. Something not meant to kill being used to kill is much worse than something being used to achieve expected results.

What is worse? A gun being used to killing a person or a flu-shot killing someone?

No, a gun is designed to kill ... if you're good with guns, then you're good at killing.

Then I must suck at guns because I haven't killed anyone.

If you misuse a gun, you don't kill.

Which is why there are 300 million gun deaths in the US every year, right?

As for the rest of number 2 ... what?

Just because you have no clue how to use a firearm, doesn't mean every gun owner is oblivious to safety. If you misuse a gun, people die.

Who ever heard of a defensive punch?

Lawfully speaking a punch is self-defense if you are attacked. And if you think that it's wrong, write to your representatives in the government.

There is a defensive military move it's called "a tactical retreat".

Which involves heavy firing to cover the retreating soldiers. Or did you think they all turned their back at the same time?

A good defense is a good offence? Like how fire fighters fight fire with fire....? Wait ....

Controlled explosions have been used to put out fires. They quickly consume oxygen.

Yeah, guns are designed to kill ... they don't fire healing roses.

NONE of these firearms were designed to kill.

Tonnes of other uses? Oh right, I never knew ... can you please tell me 10 others that aren't killing? Actually give me 9 'cos I will give you shooting range (this also includes what FPS Russia does) as a freebie ... I imagine a shooting range to be rather cathartic, like a driving range for golfers.

Clay shooting/skeet shooting
3 gun shooting
ISSF
IPSC
Research & Development
Practical Shooting
Cowboy Action Shooting
"Plinking"
Scientific testing
Range time - what FPS Russia does
Concealed Carry
Open Carry

There. 12.

If concealed carry and open carry are about killing, then everyone would be dying on the streets.

Nope, the fact that there is something to intentionally kill speaks volumes about our "civilized" world.

Neither is better, somebody is still dead who didn't need to be.

Just 'cos you haven't killed yet doesn't mean you would be bad at it.

I still don't get number 2, you need to reword it. If you misuse a gun you don't kill ... the only reason we have guns is it's the quickest and easiest way to kill, it's the reason we don't run round battlefields throwing poison at each other.

That is lawful semantics, in a fist fight a defensive "move" would be to bob and weave ... boxer style or run away.

Hey, I didn't say it was perfect!

Yeah, I know all about the firs triangle. It's not like fire fighters are shooting jets of flame into burning buildings.

Why do I get the feeling they could? Also some nice hidden guns there, like hiding them in glasses and ear defenders.

Here we go:
Shooting range
What? X3
Research and develop better guns to more effectively kill people
Practical shooting? To be better at killing people, so another shooting range?
What?X2
Is that the same as research and development?
Hey, I gave you FPSRussia ... you only gave me 11, play fair!
Carrying guns, a use for a gun is to carry it? It was designed to carry? I could have understood to intimidate or scare but carry?

 

[spartan231490]

Using an item desgined to kill, every other thing used to kill has another purpose. Matches, are used to light cigs ... it is only when they are misused to they become dangerous, same for cars, knives, various poisonous substances (like bleach) ... a misused used gun doesn't kill.

You can't even use a gun defensively 'cos a defensive item would be a vest or something that stops wounds ... a gun inflicts wounds.

1. So what is worse? An object being used for it's purpose or an object being misused? To me and object being misused is worse.

2. Misused guns kill. Assume your gun isn't loaded and pull the trigger? Not keeping the finger off the trigger? Not minding your backstop? Not caring about where the muzzle is pointed?

Your logic has killed people before.

3. Your "defensive" logic also means that any kind of punch or even military action can never be defensive. Think whatever you want, but you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense

It depends on the tools reason for being ... death is very rarely a good thing.

No, a gun is designed to kill ... if you're good with guns, then you're good at killing. If you misuse a gun, you don't kill.

As for the rest of number 2 ... what?

Who ever heard of a defensive punch? Defense would be block or dodging and weaving.

There is a defensive military move it's called "a tactical retreat".

A good defense is a good offence? Like how fire fighters fight fire with fire....? Wait ....

Even supressive fire is aggressive, it's not like if you kill a person during it you are going to say "OOPS!".

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

In that case, death from humans is fucking tiny! How many murders are done with hands? "Guns don't kill, bullets do!"

Did you kill him? No, the poison did.

I never said the bullets did it. People did it. People are killers, that's why it's called homicide.

Using an item desgined to kill, every other thing used to kill has another purpose. Matches, are used to light cigs ... it is only when they are misused to they become dangerous, same for cars, knives, various poisonous substances (like bleach) ... a misused used gun doesn't kill.

You can't even use a gun defensively 'cos a defensive item would be a vest or something that stops wounds ... a gun inflicts wounds.

This argument is pointless, a tool's purpose is defined through use, not design.
And far more importantly:
Guns have tons of other uses, just ask the almost 80 million gun owners in america who killed nothing with them yesterday.

Yeah, guns are designed to kill ... they don't fire healing roses.

Tonnes of other uses? Oh right, I never knew ... can you please tell me 10 others that aren't killing? Actually give me 9 'cos I will give you shooting range (this also includes what FPS Russia does) as a freebie ... I imagine a shooting range to be rather cathartic, like a driving range for golfers.

Sport range shooting.
Range shooting.
Trick shooting.
Collecting.
Stress relief.
Hand loading and testing ammunition.
Displaying.
Teaching the next generation about the wilderness.
Entertainment(this is what FPS russia does)
Building and testing your own gun.
Self defense(accomplished by waving the gun in the air or shooting a warning shot into the ground or air, where it can't kill anyone, in over 90% of incidents)
that's 10.

I am so sick of this argument. Knives are designed to kill too, yes they have other uses, but they're designed to kill. So are swords. So are bows and arrows. So is rat poison. So are mouse traps. So is a can of raid. Hell, by your own argument(which I disagree with on so many levels it makes me physically ill to look at it), the vast majority of martial arts are designed to kill. Fireworks are bombs, they're designed to kill. I don't see you arguing for the ban of all these things. A tool's purpose is defined by it's use.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik, gun control isn't about murder rates, and it's a strawman to say they are. Gun control is about accidental death by guns.

I'll be honest here, from what I've seen and heard I could pretty much just buy a gun on the internet and go on a killing spree in the US. Simple as that.

In Norway that's not possible, you have to go through great deals of trouble to get yourself a weapon the legal way. And after that you've got the whole hassle in making the gun useful for a killing spree.
Breivik bought a half automatic rifle in Norway with a magazine with the capacity of 5 rounds. The parts, the 30round magazines and the laser sight was bought from the US and smuggled into the country.

It took him around a year before he had a rifle fixed for the killing spree.

Gun Regulation Laws would have stopped Breivik if it wasn't for the US's lax relationship to guns.
It's Illegal to tinker with a gun in a way that changes It's purpose. The parts aren't sold in Norway.
The Magazines aren't sold in Norway.
The Laser Sight is the only thing I'm not sure about, but pretty sure that's Illegal too.

Please check you facts before you go mentioning stuff like that.
I am one of the unlucky bastards who lost friends to the massacre, who watched other friends cry out in despair when they found out close friends had been shot by a cold blooded extremist.

That's all I've got to say on this subject, I don't care if anyone else has mentioned this.
I'm not digging through 5 more pages.

 

[omega 616]

Sport range shooting.
Range shooting.
Trick shooting.
Collecting.
Stress relief.
Hand loading and testing ammunition.
Displaying.
Teaching the next generation about the wilderness.
Entertainment(this is what FPS russia does)
Building and testing your own gun.
Self defense(accomplished by waving the gun in the air or shooting a warning shot into the ground or air, where it can't kill anyone, in over 90% of incidents)
that's 10.

I am so sick of this argument. Knives are designed to kill too, yes they have other uses, but they're designed to kill. So are swords. So are bows and arrows. So is rat poison. So are mouse traps. So is a can of raid. Hell, by your own argument(which I disagree with on so many levels it makes me physically ill to look at it), the vast majority of martial arts are designed to kill. Fireworks are bombs, they're designed to kill. I don't see you arguing for the ban of all these things. A tool's purpose is defined by it's use.

Not sure where the difference lies between the top 2 but it seems pretty much the same to me/
Collecting is not a use
Stress relief is the same as the first
See above
Same as collecting
Killing, this is basically hunting
Entertainment is the same as the first, for others or yours it is still entertaining.
That isn't a use of a gun
Shoot into the sky? Really?

Knives are designed to cut, bread, meat, veg, whatever but to kill is not there primary function. Swords haven't been used in decades, the same goes for bows and arrows .. what are you going for next? A morning star? Bo staff? Rat poison, mouse traps and raid are for insects ... we are talking about humans!

Fireworks primary design is for entertainment, misusing them is what kills. The advertising isn't "kill all your enemies in an instant with the new Roman candle, now with more shots so you can mow down more people" ...

 

[omega 616]

Sport range shooting.
Range shooting.
Trick shooting.
Collecting.
Stress relief.
Hand loading and testing ammunition.
Displaying.
Teaching the next generation about the wilderness.
Entertainment(this is what FPS russia does)
Building and testing your own gun.
Self defense(accomplished by waving the gun in the air or shooting a warning shot into the ground or air, where it can't kill anyone, in over 90% of incidents)
that's 10.

I am so sick of this argument. Knives are designed to kill too, yes they have other uses, but they're designed to kill. So are swords. So are bows and arrows. So is rat poison. So are mouse traps. So is a can of raid. Hell, by your own argument(which I disagree with on so many levels it makes me physically ill to look at it), the vast majority of martial arts are designed to kill. Fireworks are bombs, they're designed to kill. I don't see you arguing for the ban of all these things. A tool's purpose is defined by it's use.

Not sure where the difference lies between the top 2 but it seems pretty much the same to me/
Collecting is not a use
Stress relief is the same as the first
See above
Same as collecting
Killing, this is basically hunting
Entertainment is the same as the first, for others or yours it is still entertaining.
That isn't a use of a gun
Shoot into the sky? Really?

Knives are designed to cut, bread, meat, veg, whatever but to kill is not there primary function. Swords haven't been used in decades, the same goes for bows and arrows .. what are you going for next? A morning star? Bo staff? Rat poison, mouse traps and raid are for insects ... we are talking about humans!

Fireworks primary design is for entertainment, misusing them is what kills. The advertising isn't "kill all your enemies in an instant with the new Roman candle, now with more shots so you can mow down more people" ...

While that is a post chock full of interesting counter points, there is nothing there. You never responded ... at all! I have seen the same thing happen in previous posts, you don't tell me why I am wrong people just flat out state "you're wrong" ... such as this gem from Elpatron, "Think whatever you want, but you're wrong."

Oh, well if that's the case, how can I be so stupid as to argue against that!

If you think I am being stupid say why, don't just post a facepalm picture.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Also
" Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban."

Gun laws have virtually nothing to do with any of that. Look at the US violent crime rates:

and homicide:

All down to the US banning guns?

In the UK crime in general has increased over the latter half of the 20th century, mainly due to increased urbanisation and population. Economics also make a difference, the early 90's and late 2000 coincided with rises in crime rates.

It has never been legal to carry a weapon on the streets and firearms ownership has always been low. The only places you're likely to come across someone with a gun is in the countryside.

Gah...very tired........lzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzr

 

[spartan231490]

Also
" Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban."

Gun laws have virtually nothing to do with any of that. Look at the US violent crime rates:

and homicide:

All down to the US banning guns?

In the UK crime in general has increased over the latter half of the 20th century, mainly due to increased urbanisation and population. Economics also make a difference, the early 90's and late 2000 coincided with rises in crime rates.

It has never been legal to carry a weapon on the streets and firearms ownership has always been low. The only places you're likely to come across someone with a gun is in the countryside.

Gah...very tired........lzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzr

Please people, start reading my posts, not just the one you're quoting. I've said time and time again that there is no correlation, only that these things show that gun control certainly doesn't decrease crime rates

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Please people, start reading my posts, not just the one you're quoting. I've said time and time again that there is no correlation, only that these things show that gun control certainly doesn't decrease crime rates

Fair enough, I was very tired as I said. My main point, had I not been too tired to work out what it was, was: Don't use the UK as evidence in arguments for or against US gun control, the countries might seem very similar in some respects but there are a lot of important differences that make comparisons difficult. There have been huge changes in the UK over the last hundred years, virtually none of them to do with gun control.

Tight gun controls in the UK might well decrease homicide rates, we don't have a spare UK to test things in. Certainly if the UK suddenly adopted the same stance on guns as the US I think the homicide rate would go up and I reckon the same could be said if the US adopted the same laws the UK has.

The arrogant Brits on this site make me want to gouge out my eyes. You all say the same thing in lock-step of one another and it's ludicrous, so stop it.

If you want to argue, then argue. Stop making shit remarks on "Americans are stupid", etc. It just makes you sound naive, and stupid.

I love that Brits think "Americans live in perpetual fear because they own guns." Ugh. Most people that own guns (everyone I know owns a gun) does so by keeping it in a locker or locked cabinet. The only people that keep "guns under the pillow" and all that nonsense are people unfamiliar with firearms.. i.e. if anyone got a gun in the UK, they'd put it under their pillow.

*SNIP*

I'm really quite sick of this. Everyone that argues gun control on this site does so because they want to shit on America, and it pisses me off. and I am the *last* person here that should care about America, or nationalism. Really no one wants to live in the Orwellian pisshole formerly known as the UK, so you can keep your values to yourself.

I love that you you think "Brits live in an Orwellian pisshole". Ugh....etc etc

Yes, people who make remarks about all Americans being stupid and living in fear are irritating assholes. Please try not to do the same thing yourself.

 

[ElPatron]

Nope, the fact that there is something to intentionally kill speaks volumes about our "civilized" world.

Our world isn't civilized.

Remember Star Wars? Lightsabers were actually considered "civilized" compared to the wretched universe Star Wars is set in.

Just 'cos you haven't killed yet doesn't mean you would be bad at it.

That is a huge logical fallacy.

I still don't get number 2, you need to reword it. If you misuse a gun you don't kill ... the only reason we have guns is it's the quickest and easiest way to kill, it's the reason we don't run round battlefields throwing poison at each other.

Quickest way to kill? A knife can kill faster if you know what you are doing. The most obvious advantage of firearms is the reach and quick successive attacks.

There are battlefield reports of people taking several 5.56x45 and 9mm NATO hits and still running.

If you misuse a gun - i.e. disrespect the safety guidelines - there is a higher chance of someone ending up shot than if you follow the proper procedures while shooting.

That is lawful semantics

As long as I follow the law, I am not doing anything illegal. Get it?

Why do I get the feeling they could? Also some nice hidden guns there, like hiding them in glasses and ear defenders.

Now you're being pedantic. Those are items used in competition to protect eyes and hearing.

That's exactly my point. If you keep shooting, maybe you'll be able to kill someone. But they were never designed to do so. Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill, and when faced with the truth you criticize guns for not being designed to kill.

Research and develop better guns to more effectively kill people

WOW. I assume you have never heard of ballistic plates and bullet-resistant glass. If you want to develop those things you need guns.

Is that the same as research and development?

I didn't know that MythBusters developed guns.

Hey, I gave you FPSRussia ... you only gave me 11, play fair!

YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A CHILD. If you gave it, of course it will count. That's why you said 9 instead of 10. Jesus H. Christ you're starting to annoy me.

Carrying guns, a use for a gun is to carry it? It was designed to carry? I could have understood to intimidate or scare but carry?

Concealed carry. It's not used for intimidation, because anyone who pulls out a gun in a situation that does not require shots to be fired is an idiot.


I'll give you:

>Display/collecting/historical uses (go tell your local shooting club and your museums that they can't display guns)

> Scaring birds: guns firing blanks are used to drive birds away from airports. Blanks do not fire projectiles.

> Shooting flares: there are emergency flares designed to be fired in 12 Gauge firearms.

3 more. None of these kill people.

 

[omega 616]

Nope, the fact that there is something to intentionally kill speaks volumes about our "civilized" world.

Our world isn't civilized.

Remember Star Wars? Lightsabers were actually considered "civilized" compared to the wretched universe Star Wars is set in.

Just 'cos you haven't killed yet doesn't mean you would be bad at it.

That is a huge logical fallacy.

I still don't get number 2, you need to reword it. If you misuse a gun you don't kill ... the only reason we have guns is it's the quickest and easiest way to kill, it's the reason we don't run round battlefields throwing poison at each other.

Quickest way to kill? A knife can kill faster if you know what you are doing. The most obvious advantage of firearms is the reach and quick successive attacks.

There are battlefield reports of people taking several 5.56x45 and 9mm NATO hits and still running.

If you misuse a gun - i.e. disrespect the safety guidelines - there is a higher chance of someone ending up shot than if you follow the proper procedures while shooting.

That is lawful semantics

As long as I follow the law, I am not doing anything illegal. Get it?

Why do I get the feeling they could? Also some nice hidden guns there, like hiding them in glasses and ear defenders.

Now you're being pedantic. Those are items used in competition to protect eyes and hearing.

That's exactly my point. If you keep shooting, maybe you'll be able to kill someone. But they were never designed to do so. Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill, and when faced with the truth you criticize guns for not being designed to kill.

Research and develop better guns to more effectively kill people

WOW. I assume you have never heard of ballistic plates and bullet-resistant glass. If you want to develop those things you need guns.

Is that the same as research and development?

I didn't know that MythBusters developed guns.

Hey, I gave you FPSRussia ... you only gave me 11, play fair!

YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A CHILD. If you gave it, of course it will count. That's why you said 9 instead of 10. Jesus H. Christ you're starting to annoy me.

Carrying guns, a use for a gun is to carry it? It was designed to carry? I could have understood to intimidate or scare but carry?

Concealed carry. It's not used for intimidation, because anyone who pulls out a gun in a situation that does not require shots to be fired is an idiot.


I'll give you:

>Display/collecting/historical uses (go tell your local shooting club and your museums that they can't display guns)

> Scaring birds: guns firing blanks are used to drive birds away from airports. Blanks do not fire projectiles.

> Shooting flares: there are emergency flares designed to be fired in 12 Gauge firearms.

3 more. None of these kill people.

Ok, here we go!

Did you just reference star wars in your point? Just 'cos it's considered more civilized doesn't mean it's better. This point is getting too abstract, lets just leave it alone.

How is it? If you can shoot a hand gun and hit a paper target "centre mass" 50 meters away 9 times out of 10, how would that be any different to hitting a guy centre mass about 50 meters away? Unless you start adding things to make it more difficult, like panicked crowd, emotions etc.

Depending on the circumstances, yes a knife can kill quicker. To do so, you have to get close enough though, if the guy is already ready to fire ... your fucked, in the time it takes you to take 1 step towards him or move your arm to slash/stab, he has pulled the trigger and a bullet moves faster than you, obviously.

Why do I think you pulled that out of your ass? If your shooting at somebody, you are more likely to hurt somebody if you don't follow the rules? What?

I don't know about you but I am not talking about legalities here, I am talking about things like moral right and wrongs, necessity etc. If we start talking about how legal it is Americans will jump behind that "constitutional right" quicker than a rabbit down a hole! It's like a religion, arguing against it is futile 'cos they always bring up the same Constitution, instead of questioning it.

No, I was making a joke ... to try and lighten the mood, I think intense arguments sometimes need a joke to make peoples heads a little clearer 'cos when people start getting frustrated the argument devolves into petty insults.

What is this about? "That's exactly my point. If you keep shooting, maybe you'll be able to kill someone. But they were never designed to do so. Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill, and when faced with the truth you criticize guns for not being designed to kill."? I am following you till "Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill" then you go off and put words in my mouth or something.

Why would you need ballistic plates and bullet-resistant glass if guns were no longer around? Anyway, I think we have bullet glass and ballistic plates ... had them for some time now.

... Neither did I?

Again, making a joke!

You miss my point, think of this like family feud/fortunes I asked for "a use of/for a gun" ... carrying isn't on the board! You don't carry stuff on a gun like a tray.

You think we have a shooting club in the UK? I can kind of see what you mean about guns, it's like what Snake (big boss) said to ocelot in MGS3 (about 1:05 in)


Some guns are made to look all fancy and show off but I would say, the same as I will say for Olympic/sport shooting, there an off shoot (see what I did thar?) from the primary use of guns, even from the very first gun (the musket or whatever) it was designed to kill 'cos swords and archery were inferior.

Already had it.
Fair enough, can't argue.
I would call that a meeting of the minds but I can't argue with it.

 

[ElPatron]

How is it? If you can shoot a hand gun and hit a paper target "centre mass" 50 meters away 9 times out of 10, how would that be any different to hitting a guy centre mass about 50 meters away? Unless you start adding things to make it more difficult, like panicked crowd, emotions etc.

Paper is not alive on the first place. For once, it would require external force to move. Second, no matter what I do it would not attack me.

50 meters is a stretch for handguns. It's perfectly possible to score 10/10 but then you're testing your gun's precision and your accuracy - not your "combat shooting" skills.

Depending on the circumstances, yes a knife can kill quicker. To do so, you have to get close enough though, if the guy is already ready to fire ... your fucked, in the time it takes you to take 1 step towards him or move your arm to slash/stab, he has pulled the trigger and a bullet moves faster than you, obviously.

Most firearm-related self-defense shootings in the US happen at ranges so close the shooter does not need to use his sights.

Why do I think you pulled that out of your ass? If your shooting at somebody, you are more likely to hurt somebody if you don't follow the rules? What?

You have a target/person in front of you. If you draw your weapon correctly, keep the finger off the trigger until ready to fire and mind the backstop behind the person/target, you just killed nobody/one person.

If you're unskilled, you can shoot yourself in the foot/leg while drawing, putting the finger on the trigger too early can kill/injury people around you and not minding the backstop might cause your bullet to go trough your target/person and kill another person.

Using guns properly means less kills. What if gangsters used rifles or just walked up to people and shot them? There would be a casualty. But gangs do that retarded thing known as "drive-by", which is more likely to kill bystanders than actual rival gang members.

I use my guns properly. That's why I haven't killed myself or anyone in my family.

I don't know about you but I am not talking about legalities here, I am talking about things like moral right and wrongs, necessity etc. If we start talking about how legal it is Americans will jump behind that "constitutional right" quicker than a rabbit down a hole! It's like a religion, arguing against it is futile 'cos they always bring up the same Constitution, instead of questioning it.

Legal talk is based on morals and ethics. It's unethical to copy an iPad and gain profits. That's why it's illegal. It's ethical to attack someone if they shown the intent to harm you.

>always bringing up the constitution

The American founding fathers knew that people would try to question the ownership of guns. That's why they wrote the constitution. The constitution also safeguards the right of free speech.

I am not American but my constitution allows me free speech. I wouldn't like people questioning my right to free speech.

What is this about? "That's exactly my point. If you keep shooting, maybe you'll be able to kill someone. But they were never designed to do so. Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill, and when faced with the truth you criticize guns for not being designed to kill."? I am following you till "Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill" then you go off and put words in my mouth or something.

No, I did not. I shown you guns that were designed to be used in competitions. You just said that they look like they can kill. They will. Eventually. But you just dodged your own argument.

Why would you need ballistic plates and bullet-resistant glass if guns were no longer around? Anyway, I think we have bullet glass and ballistic plates ... had them for some time now.

First, anyone with access to a machine shop can build a Sten SMG. In 2004 a gang in Australia was building silenced Owen submachine guns.

Second, ballistic plates can save people's lives during war. They are used by soldiers, war journalists, etc.

Third, politicians have armed security. If they were really safe from guns, why do they need guns? Rich people love buying this stuff. Heck, there are billionaires that just buy planes with missile countermeasures and yachts with sonars to detect torpedoes.

You miss my point, think of this like family feud/fortunes I asked for "a use of/for a gun" ... carrying isn't on the board! You don't carry stuff on a gun like a tray.

Concealed Carry has been proven to reduce crime in some states in the US. If there are random, trained citizens with a license to carry firearms then there is a deterrent because criminals will not know if they are going to attack someone with a gun or not.

Sometimes criminals die during self-defense, but concealed carry is a lifestyle, a choice and most importantly a way of keeping the cities peaceful without necessarily involving violence.

You think we have a shooting club in the UK?

http://bit.ly/RzD6Zm
http://bit.ly/RzDo29

Also, there are non-shooting clubs that hang firearms on their walls. We are talking about high-society here. I bet the Royal Family have a huge private collection of guns.

Some guns are made to look all fancy and show off but I would say, the same as I will say for Olympic/sport shooting, there an off shoot (see what I did thar?) from the primary use of guns, even from the very first gun (the musket or whatever) it was designed to kill 'cos swords and archery were inferior.

If you use that argument, then any kind of axe, knife, bow or crossbow can be an offshoot of the developments achieved during wartime.

Heck, I can't think of any other use of bows and crossbows during peace time (that exclude killing or "training for killing"), unlike blades and axes.

 

[ElPatron]

Did you know the 70's and 80's was when guns became so cheap the average criminal could afford them? And suddenly there's a massive increase in violent crime.

Thanks for the graphs. They clearly show that banning firearms will radically lower violent crime.

>cheapness of guns will increase gun sales for violent purposes
>BANNING FIREARMS WILL LOWER VIOLENT CRIME

Wow. You should present this findings to an university. Because I am that mean and I would love to hear everyone laughing at this "dissertation".

Oh, wait. Is that why London has 3,3 times more rapes than New York City? Is that why violent crime has rose in Australia?

- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

If you understand how the derivative of a function works, you'll notice that not only the ban was not capable of affecting the rise of non-gun homicide, it also had no statistical effect on the reduction of gun homicides - as the reduction had been falling at a nearly identical rate for years before the ban.

And here's murder:

Suicides:
No statistical effect on the already decreasing numbers of firearms suicide.

Now UK again:

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Thanks for the graphs. They clearly show that banning firearms will radically lower violent crime.

Eh? Is that some sort of joke? They show that violent crime has risen across the US over the last century where guns are comparatively freely available, just like they have in the UK where they aren't. (See Above).

 

[A Distant Star]

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik, gun control isn't about murder rates, and it's a strawman to say they are. Gun control is about accidental death by guns.

I'll be honest here, from what I've seen and heard I could pretty much just buy a gun on the internet and go on a killing spree in the US. Simple as that.

In Norway that's not possible, you have to go through great deals of trouble to get yourself a weapon the legal way. And after that you've got the whole hassle in making the gun useful for a killing spree.
Breivik bought a half automatic rifle in Norway with a magazine with the capacity of 5 rounds. The parts, the 30round magazines and the laser sight was bought from the US and smuggled into the country.

It took him around a year before he had a rifle fixed for the killing spree.

Gun Regulation Laws would have stopped Breivik if it wasn't for the US's lax relationship to guns.
It's Illegal to tinker with a gun in a way that changes It's purpose. The parts aren't sold in Norway.
The Magazines aren't sold in Norway.
The Laser Sight is the only thing I'm not sure about, but pretty sure that's Illegal too.

Please check you facts before you go mentioning stuff like that.
I am one of the unlucky bastards who lost friends to the massacre, who watched other friends cry out in despair when they found out close friends had been shot by a cold blooded extremist.

That's all I've got to say on this subject, I don't care if anyone else has mentioned this.
I'm not digging through 5 more pages.

Maybe you should have read a little closer to what I had to say. I am pro-gun control, I am also not American and come from a country with gun control laws. I think owning a gun should be treated exactly like owning a care. Which means, training, licencing and registering. All I am saying is, gun control will not stop crazy people from doing crazy things. The Genies out of the bottle, guns are out there on the market and there's nothing we can do about it. If some one really wants to shoot up a bunch of people who will probably do it. (Unless he slips up and gets caught.) There are lots of reasons to be pro-gun control, worrying about a small minority of crazy people isn't one of them.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik, gun control isn't about murder rates, and it's a strawman to say they are. Gun control is about accidental death by guns.

I'll be honest here, from what I've seen and heard I could pretty much just buy a gun on the internet and go on a killing spree in the US. Simple as that.[/spoiler]

No... not really. You have to have a federal license to sell ANYWHERE, unless it is a gun made before 1893. Some states, including mine, online purchases can only be picked up from a licensed dealer, who does an instant background check on you (via the internet). You should also note that we don't have mass shootings every day, most gun owners

In Norway that's not possible, you have to go through great deals of trouble to get yourself a weapon the legal way. And after that you've got the whole hassle in making the gun useful for a killing spree.
Breivik bought a half automatic rifle in Norway with a magazine with the capacity of 5 rounds. The parts, the 30round magazines and the laser sight was bought from the US and smuggled into the country.

It isn't that hard to make magazines. All it is, is basically a metal box with a spring on the bottom. He could of taken the clip he had bought, sliced it in half, and then added more metal between the top and a bottom.

A laser sight could of been bought anywhere that has office supplies, and attached to the gun with ducktape.

Making a gun from scratch isn't very hard either. Today, in the Arab world, they are constantly making out guns, ammo, and RPGS in CAVES, often with little more than hammers and basic tools.

Or he could of decided a bomb was less trouble and gone to the gardening shop.

The worst school massacre wasn't actually done with a bomb, it was done with explosives. Colobine would of been a lot worse if the bombs the shooters set went off during lunch time, as they planned.

It took him around a year before he had a rifle fixed for the killing spree.

Which shows the lengths some men will go to kill others.

Gun Regulation Laws would have stopped Breivik if it wasn't for the US's lax relationship to guns.
It's Illegal to tinker with a gun in a way that changes It's purpose. The parts aren't sold in Norway.
The Magazines aren't sold in Norway.
The Laser Sight is the only thing I'm not sure about, but pretty sure that's Illegal too.

Again, no hard to alter mags, laser sights on guns are not much different than laser sights you use at the office to point at graphs.

I am one of the unlucky bastards who lost friends to the massacre, who watched other friends cry out in despair when they found out close friends had been shot by a cold blooded extremist.

That's all I've got to say on this subject, I don't care if anyone else has mentioned this.
I'm not digging through 5 more pages.

I am sorry about that. I also know a guy who is sitting in a wheel chair because instead of shooting a robber in his house when the thief had his back to him, he warmed him that he would shoot.

The robber shot at the noise and hit his spine. If my friend pulled the trigger, if he didn't follow the "required warning" law, he still would of be walking today.