Question for anti-gun:

[ElPatron]

you know what the difference between cars and guns are? Cars aren't made specifically to kill people. Just thought I'd point that out.

Ironically, cars are involved in more deaths than guns.

Jumping from bridges and hanging yourself have the sole purpose of suicide, even thought bridges and ropes don't. The purpose of things is used as an argument that purely falls flat - in this world there are more objects being "misused" to cause death than guns being used "properly" by civilians.

I am just saying that banning something will considerably drop any statistics related to them. Also, with the number of licensed gun owners in Japan (said to be 320,000) and the number of guns in circulation (710,000) completely destroys your argument - that banning guns in Japan is the cause of low number of gun deaths.

Let's not mention that banning guns in the US would involve searching for both legal and illegal guns that are not registered. And there are simply millions of them.

And yes, a "gun" does not kill anyone unless the user actually bashes the victim to death

And all of those fighter planes and tanks and other machines of war don't actually *kill* people either. I guess that's another way to look at the world. And to think, you could have saved time just by typing 'trollface.jpg' lol

Oh, I can see it's time for me to go home. Carry on.

I was just pointing out how the other post was pure semantics.

But tanks still require someone to give the order and fire. You can leave it out in the open and if nobody fires it, it will rust before it will kill anyone.

Besides, you could also point to the huge crime rate decrease from the early 90's to the mid 2000's when the Brady Bill was active as evidence that banning assault weapons can help reduce crime.

Except there is no way to prove it, and most guns involved in crimes aren't even assault weapons.

The Brady Bill was an emotional argument based on AESTHETIC features of guns apart from the "high capacity" thing. Folding/collapsible stocks, pistol grips, foregrips, and barrel-shrouds/heat-shields (for the love of Jebus, their purpose is to protect the hands of the user) have nothing to do with the killing capabilities of a rifle.

Let's not forget that the Mini-14 used by Breivik is far from being a state of the art "assault weapon" (stupid term invented to appeal to the emotions of people). And yet he killed 69 people trapped in an island.

 

[spartan231490]

snip
I would like to say (as I'm sure others within these nine or so pages of discussion have brought up) that we need to get rid of guns altogether in the USA much like it is in Japan (no guns, and no gun crimes. Hey would you look at that! Go figure, that almost abolishes any argument to the contrary)snip

And this is where I did stop taking you seriously. At least do a small amount of research before you try to completely invalidate something based on one data point. How about I counter your data point with one of my own. Switzerland has looser gun laws than many US states, and has the 4rth highest guns per capita in the world, yet their crime rate is phenomenally low. Does that "almost abolish any argument to the contrary" no, and the fact that someone thinks one piece of data could abolish any argument scares me, but does explain a great deal of what's wrong with our civilization.

Educate yourself:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf?new_window=1
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Captcha: How about that? Skynet agrees with me.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

The reason gun control in the U.S. isn't working is because they're going about it all the wrong way, and it's probably too late to even attempt. There are already so many guns in the country that unless we went out of our way to round them all up, trying to stop people from buying them now won't work. Also, the U.S. tends to go about gun control in a more local sense- an individual state or city banning the use of certain weapons, and that's just stupid. If you can't buy a gun in one city, what's to stop you from going to the next city over?

Gun control laws by themselves aren't the problem, the way the laws are implemented are. If you wanted to reduce gun violence at this point, your best bet would be to make the penalties for owning an illegal firearm much harsher. It's not worth it for a criminal to brandish around an illegal weapon for a measly $150 from a gas station if he knows he might spend 20 years in prison because of it.
Besides, you could also point to the huge crime rate decrease from the early 90's to the mid 2000's when the Brady Bill was active as evidence that banning assault weapons can help reduce crime.

Except that the crime rate decrease you're talking about started before the brady bill was passed and continued afterwards, long afterwards, those rates are still decreasing. Also, gun control doesn't reduce crime rates anywhere, it's not just a US problem.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

 

[spartan231490]

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.

 

[omega 616]

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.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

 

[ElPatron]

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

 

[Bvenged]

I used to be intrigued by the gun/anti-gun argument, even weighing in on it myself, but now I don't really care what goes on in your country any more, as long as it doesn't affect mine.

Things are going as well as they could be in the UK at the moment (relating to gun crime), I'm sure legalising guns would throw the current status quo in the shitter. Where's my evidence?

Fucking common sense, that's where. If only a small minority own guns (including police forces), even fewer citizens will go out and do crime with them. So there's machetes and kitchen knives and bows, but none of them are as practical at killing as a gun. If you give everyone the power to kill, you're only raising the stakes and giving those who would maim or kill an easier tool to do it with. Sure, those who would want to kill/steal with the projected power of a gun could get their hands on it one way or another, could, but it slows them down if they're restricted/illegal/regulated more, and would likely raise suspicions with the regulator/law enforcement/gunsmith. You can't neutralise all gun crimes, but you would reduce them by reducing ease of access to them.

To top it off, it's no good of me to compare UK crime to US crime, they're completely different. It's much harder to stop weapons from getting into a country that's the size of multiple European countries than an island. Hence why, from this point forth, I no longer give a shit about this argument.

My apologies for throwing an opinion into things.

 

[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.