What do you feel?
Guns are the cause of killing, they need better regulation
45.7% (59)
45.7% (59)
People will always kill. Guns should be free to buy for protection.
46.5% (60)
46.5% (60)
No opinion/Indifferent.
7.8% (10)
7.8% (10)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: "Guns don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

evilneko:

WOPR:

Damn right it's a shitty analogy. The tree is not an actor. It's still Person----Cell Phone----Dead Person. :p

Also your poll options suck.

I know it is and I know they do I was like... Half asleep; my main point on the choices was to keep it a straight forward "ye" or "nay" instead of having on ton of options custom built to everyone's needs.

senordesol:

However, do not deprive us of the right or the tools to defend ourselves.

"Do not deny us our anti-personnel landmines or our chemical weapon traps, lest we fail to defend our homes from intruders."

Go big or go home, right?

tsb247:

The problem is that nobody can agree on how much regulation is needed. I would argue that California goes too far. Restricting magazine size, overall design (c'mon... Pistol grips DO NOT make anything easier to fire from the hip!), etc. is quite ridiculous in my mind. I see California's laws as a knee-jerk reaction to the North Hollywood shootout in the 90s. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, I don't think it really hurts anyone but legal gun owners. The drug smugglers coming up from Mexico certainly won't follow those laws.

I would argue that instead of regulating firearms themselves, we should better regulate those who buy them. How would we do that? Well, I'm not too sure. However, penalizing with taxes and overpriced licensing is NOT the way to go! I am all for more intensive background checks though.

Yeah, personally I'm in the stance of "your rights end where my safety begins" that goes for guns, smoking, drivers, etc etc. I will say that here in California it's nice to see cops doing their jobs... But I was detained for carrying an UMBRELLA in a "suspicious fashion" that apparently made someone think I was carrying an assault firearm... Yeah it's pretty nuts...

But I'm thinking that if people want guns for "self defense" then make it a defensive item, sell guns that are more inclined to incapacitate instead of kill. Such as lower calibers, weaker firearms, and rubber bullets instead of FMJ's. Alternatively we could just sell tazers or pepper spray.

I agree. people do kill people but guns make it damn much easier. I could easily shoot someone at a distance of 20 meters but i can't see myself even coming close to hitting someone with a kitchen knife at that distance.

WOPR:
But I'm thinking that if people want guns for "self defense" then make it a defensive item, sell guns that are more inclined to incapacitate instead of kill. Such as lower calibers, weaker firearms, and rubber bullets instead of FMJ's. Alternatively we could just sell tazers or pepper spray.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. There's no way (currently) to reliably put a person down right away to stop them hurting anyone, without seriously injuring them.

You can totally destroy a person's heart, and they can have up to 10 seconds of full voluntary movement before they die. If they are holding a firearm themselves, there are obvious problems.

Also, when firing in anger, a lot of shots are going to miss. People are trained that if they start firing, they keep firing until the target goes down, because they won't be able to tell how many shots hit, and how many that hit did enough damage, until afterwards. So, err on the side of safety and use the whole magazine.

Nikolaz72:

No.. But in theory tyrranies can be made on the extremes of both sides of the spectrum.

Thats what I thought, you had be confused for a second. lol.

Nikolaz72:

Also, gun's do kill people. Vending machines also kill people. Although you can argue that in both cases its stupidity thats the cause of death in most cases.

So thats why I suggest we put forth something I'd like to call 'Stupid People Control' basicly we regulate the flow of stupid people and the ammounts of stupid people in all countries to reduce the ammount of death caused by stupidity.

Its so brilliant I wonder why nobody has thought of it be--

No ser, that would be impossible. You simply have to regulate guns, guns make it wayyy easier for stupid people to kill others. And if we look on the stats of Virginia there are a lot of people there that you wouldnt want to give guns to, and most of the people im talking about 'have' guns.

I'm not against some form of gun control, I just wouldn't support the type of gun control that they have in places like Western Europe. It is our right as US citizens to own firearms and though I personally have no desire to own such things I reserve the right to do so.

Also look at what SillyBear had to say, she brings up a good point about culture.

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:

OP: People kill people, guns are just the tools they use. If you ban guns, people will use knives.

I'd rather they kill with knives.

Innocent people in their own houses are not killed by a drive by knifing out on the street.

Innocent people in malls don't get killed by a knife fight between two people in one corner of the food court.

Innocent people at a street BBQ party do not get killed when two gang bangers get mad at each other at the party and knife each other to death.

70 Innocent people are not killed and wounded in a theatre because one nutcase started knifing someone.

Get the idea? Guns are different for a reason.

Murder is murder, a person killing a cheating spouse is still a person killing a cheating spouse. As I said before, if you ban guns people will just murder each other another way.

Batou667:

Helmholtz Watson:
People kill people, guns are just the tools they use. If you ban guns, people will use knives.

"People can kill with their bare hands, and their victims end up every bit as dead as the people who were at ground zero in Hiroshima. We can't ban hands, so it'd be futile to disarm thermonuclear warheads. Nukes are just tools."

;)

Do you have anything serious to say?

Helmholtz Watson:

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:

OP: People kill people, guns are just the tools they use. If you ban guns, people will use knives.

I'd rather they kill with knives.

Innocent people in their own houses are not killed by a drive by knifing out on the street.

Innocent people in malls don't get killed by a knife fight between two people in one corner of the food court.

Innocent people at a street BBQ party do not get killed when two gang bangers get mad at each other at the party and knife each other to death.

70 Innocent people are not killed and wounded in a theatre because one nutcase started knifing someone.

Get the idea? Guns are different for a reason.

Murder is murder, a person killing a cheating spouse is still a person killing a cheating spouse. As I said before, if you ban guns people will just murder each other another way.

Did you even read what I said? It's pretty clear that a lot of innocent people that do die, wouldn't die without guns. The substitutes, as I clearly pointed out and you clearly ignored, don't result in the death of innocents (or as many incidents) in many situations.

Helmholtz Watson:

Batou667:

Helmholtz Watson:
People kill people, guns are just the tools they use. If you ban guns, people will use knives.

"People can kill with their bare hands, and their victims end up every bit as dead as the people who were at ground zero in Hiroshima. We can't ban hands, so it'd be futile to disarm thermonuclear warheads. Nukes are just tools."

;)

Do you have anything serious to say?

He was being serious, and he is right. Your argument is silly on its face. You fail to understand the very basic concept that different methods of potential killing have different impacts and thus need to be controlled differently.

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:

Wolverine18:

I'd rather they kill with knives.

Innocent people in their own houses are not killed by a drive by knifing out on the street.

Innocent people in malls don't get killed by a knife fight between two people in one corner of the food court.

Innocent people at a street BBQ party do not get killed when two gang bangers get mad at each other at the party and knife each other to death.

70 Innocent people are not killed and wounded in a theatre because one nutcase started knifing someone.

Get the idea? Guns are different for a reason.

Murder is murder, a person killing a cheating spouse is still a person killing a cheating spouse. As I said before, if you ban guns people will just murder each other another way.

Did you even read what I said? It's pretty clear that a lot of innocent people that do die, wouldn't die without guns. The substitutes, as I clearly pointed out and you clearly ignored, don't result in the death of innocents (or as many incidents) in many situations.

I read what you said and I disagree. Your not preventing murder from happening if a person is only allowed to own knives, they will still murder the person they intended to murder.

He is comparing apples to oranges.

Amnestic:

senordesol:

However, do not deprive us of the right or the tools to defend ourselves.

"Do not deny us our anti-personnel landmines or our chemical weapon traps, lest we fail to defend our homes from intruders."

Go big or go home, right?

Oh God and here we go.

I could explain to you that a landmine is automatic 'defense' and can just as easily be triggered by a stray dog or kids chasing a wayward ball and therefore is absent the human element required to deploy the device in a descrete manner.

I could explain to you that chemical weapons are inefficient defense weapons as their capacity for collateral damage is extremely high.

But I would be wasting my time wouldn't I? Because you aren't here to be reasonable, you're here to argue. If you're going to do that, however, can't you at least limit your arguments to comperable weapons? The police don't use land mines either.

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:

Wolverine18:

I'd rather they kill with knives.

Innocent people in their own houses are not killed by a drive by knifing out on the street.

Innocent people in malls don't get killed by a knife fight between two people in one corner of the food court.

Innocent people at a street BBQ party do not get killed when two gang bangers get mad at each other at the party and knife each other to death.

70 Innocent people are not killed and wounded in a theatre because one nutcase started knifing someone.

Get the idea? Guns are different for a reason.

Murder is murder, a person killing a cheating spouse is still a person killing a cheating spouse. As I said before, if you ban guns people will just murder each other another way.

Did you even read what I said? It's pretty clear that a lot of innocent people that do die, wouldn't die without guns. The substitutes, as I clearly pointed out and you clearly ignored, don't result in the death of innocents (or as many incidents) in many situations.

Helmholtz Watson:

Batou667:

"People can kill with their bare hands, and their victims end up every bit as dead as the people who were at ground zero in Hiroshima. We can't ban hands, so it'd be futile to disarm thermonuclear warheads. Nukes are just tools."

;)

Do you have anything serious to say?

He was being serious, and he is right. Your argument is silly on its face. You fail to understand the very basic concept that different methods of potential killing have different impacts and thus need to be controlled differently.

I think the British would have a word. Granted, I'm not British so I am just speaking based on what I heard on the forums but the Chavs in Britain can't get access to guns so they use knives. Sharp and dangerous knives. Knives can cause a lot more suffering than guns because they can be slow and painful. Guns, if fired to kill, can end it quickly. I'm not advocating guns over knives but the idea that knives aren't as bad is wrong.

Anyway, I'm going to do my ideal gun laws.

Mental Health check by an official psychologist who has been licensed for it
3 to 7 day wait
Ban SMG's and real assault rifles and/or make it REALLY hard to get them
Grenades obviously banned though that doesn't stop IEDs and the like
Hunting rifles are fine
Hunting shotguns and similar are fine
Pistols can be used for self-defense but cannot be concealed and must be on your side and visible unless you're a cop or maybe a mentally healthy veteran
For women who are worried about sexual assault, mace or pepper spray recommended (Not trying to sound sexist)
Certain gun add-ons are banned like launchers (obviously), shotguns (obviously), laser sights, flashlight, silencer
Convicts of misdemeanors varies on gun use
Convicts of felonies are banned from guns

I can't think of anything else right now but can edit it if people mention stuff.

you know the reasons some give against gun control could be used to justify private ownership of nukes. After all if i wouldn't nuke people i'd just use guns and if i didn't use guns i'd just use knives.

recruit00:

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:

Murder is murder, a person killing a cheating spouse is still a person killing a cheating spouse. As I said before, if you ban guns people will just murder each other another way.

Did you even read what I said? It's pretty clear that a lot of innocent people that do die, wouldn't die without guns. The substitutes, as I clearly pointed out and you clearly ignored, don't result in the death of innocents (or as many incidents) in many situations.

Helmholtz Watson:
Do you have anything serious to say?

He was being serious, and he is right. Your argument is silly on its face. You fail to understand the very basic concept that different methods of potential killing have different impacts and thus need to be controlled differently.

I think the British would have a word. Granted, I'm not British so I am just speaking based on what I heard on the forums but the Chavs in Britain can't get access to guns so they use knives. Sharp and dangerous knives.

Do people not like reading? I'll say the same thing I said to him, go back and read my first comment that you have quoted above. Let me know when one of those chavs with a knife kills an innocent bystander in a drive-by stabbing.

generals3:
you know the reasons some give against gun control could be used to justify private ownership of nukes. After all if i wouldn't nuke people i'd just use guns and if i didn't use guns i'd just use knives.

Wow. Pray tell, how does one defend one's self with a private nuke? You'll kill your assailaint, yourself, your family, and everyone else from miles around. That's quite a different result than a shot no bigger than your finger.

recruit00:

I think the British would have a word. Granted, I'm not British so I am just speaking based on what I heard on the forums but the Chavs in Britain can't get access to guns so they use knives. Sharp and dangerous knives. Knives can cause a lot more suffering than guns because they can be slow and painful. Guns, if fired to kill, can end it quickly. I'm not advocating guns over knives but the idea that knives aren't as bad is wrong.

Anyway, I'm going to do my ideal gun laws.

Mental Health check by an official psychologist who has been licensed for it
3 to 7 day wait
Ban SMG's and real assault rifles and/or make it REALLY hard to get them
Grenades obviously banned though that doesn't stop IEDs and the like
Hunting rifles are fine
Hunting shotguns and similar are fine
Pistols can be used for self-defense but cannot be concealed and must be on your side and visible unless you're a cop or maybe a mentally healthy veteran
For women who are worried about sexual assault, mace or pepper spray recommended (Not trying to sound sexist)
Certain gun add-ons are banned like launchers (obviously), shotguns (obviously), laser sights, flashlight, silencer
Convicts of misdemeanors varies on gun use
Convicts of felonies are banned from guns

I can't think of anything else right now but can edit it if people mention stuff.

Finally, someone who has something worth saying. There's not much on here I don't agree with, my only big issue is the psychologist check; such things can be subject to oh-so-many wily interpretations. I would further expand that point in that said psychologist CANNOT be a psych routinely used by the police, and that all judgements are subject to appeal.

Now a more minor issue I have is what's the deal with banning laser sights and flashlights? Such things can be circumvented by duct tape firstly and secondly blinding an assailant or providing a guarantee of accurate fire will do much to de-escalate a situation quickly. Cops have found that when pointing their weapons at suspects, they tend to surrender much more readily with only the simple addition of a laser sight.

Helmholtz Watson:
Do you have anything serious to say?

Only that I think your logic of "people will still find ways to kill each other, therefore gun control is futile" is completely flawed.

Batou667:

Helmholtz Watson:
Do you have anything serious to say?

Only that I think your logic of "people will still find ways to kill each other, therefore gun control is futile" is completely flawed.

Nope, its correct. Knives kill people as well, guns are not the only things that kill people.

As for your nuclear comment, your comparing apples to oranges. School shootings don't prevent trees from growing, animals from reproducing and they don't cause future generations of people to have cancer.

recruit00:
Knives can cause a lot more suffering than guns because they can be slow and painful. Guns, if fired to kill, can end it quickly. I'm not advocating guns over knives but the idea that knives aren't as bad is wrong.

Um...what?

Just because knives sometimes kill painfull and guns sometimes kill relatively painlessly doesn't make knives as bad as guns, that's absurd.

senordesol:

generals3:
you know the reasons some give against gun control could be used to justify private ownership of nukes. After all if i wouldn't nuke people i'd just use guns and if i didn't use guns i'd just use knives.

Wow. Pray tell, how does one defend one's self with a private nuke? You'll kill your assailaint, yourself, your family, and everyone else from miles around. That's quite a different result than a shot no bigger than your finger.

Correct but it does point out why the argument that people will find ways to kill each other regardless is pretty flawed because that argument can be used to justify any kind of weaponry ownership.

And the "self defence" argument can only be used to defend the ownership of handguns because in 99.9% of the scenario's a handgun is just as useful as an assault rifle (which i have seen people defend in this forum).

recruit00:

I think the British would have a word. Granted, I'm not British so I am just speaking based on what I heard on the forums but the Chavs in Britain can't get access to guns so they use knives. Sharp and dangerous knives. Knives can cause a lot more suffering than guns because they can be slow and painful. Guns, if fired to kill, can end it quickly. I'm not advocating guns over knives but the idea that knives aren't as bad is wrong.

I can't speak for handguns but the NATO 5.56mm rounds are specifically designed NOT to kill but to severely injure people. Like they say: a wounded soldier costs more than a dead one. And a screaming soldier has a stronger psychological effect on his comrades than a dead one.

If you want to kill you already need rounds of a higher caliber such as 7.62mm.

Wolverine18:

recruit00:

Wolverine18:

Did you even read what I said? It's pretty clear that a lot of innocent people that do die, wouldn't die without guns. The substitutes, as I clearly pointed out and you clearly ignored, don't result in the death of innocents (or as many incidents) in many situations.

He was being serious, and he is right. Your argument is silly on its face. You fail to understand the very basic concept that different methods of potential killing have different impacts and thus need to be controlled differently.

I think the British would have a word. Granted, I'm not British so I am just speaking based on what I heard on the forums but the Chavs in Britain can't get access to guns so they use knives. Sharp and dangerous knives.

Do people not like reading? I'll say the same thing I said to him, go back and read my first comment that you have quoted above. Let me know when one of those chavs with a knife kills an innocent bystander in a drive-by stabbing.

Knives do need to be regulated if we're talking about the knives I'm thinking of. Besides, go down and read my post about my ideas for gun regulation.

I didn't mean to make it sound like guns are nothing. I'm just saying that knives are something that are to also be considered. Sorry, I'm not trying to be ignorant.

Helmholtz Watson:
Nope, its correct. Knives kill people as well, guns are not the only things that kill people.

How many times has it been said now that guns kill much easier, and therefore statistically more often?

generals3:

senordesol:

generals3:
you know the reasons some give against gun control could be used to justify private ownership of nukes. After all if i wouldn't nuke people i'd just use guns and if i didn't use guns i'd just use knives.

Wow. Pray tell, how does one defend one's self with a private nuke? You'll kill your assailaint, yourself, your family, and everyone else from miles around. That's quite a different result than a shot no bigger than your finger.

Correct but it does point out why the argument that people will find ways to kill each other regardless is pretty flawed because that argument can be used to justify any kind of weaponry ownership.

And the "self defence" argument can only be used to defend the ownership of handguns because in 99.9% of the scenario's a handgun is just as useful as an assault rifle (which i have seen people defend in this forum).

Not a flawed argument, but a limited one. Yes, a nuke kills you just as dead as a gun, but if the argument is that a weapon in and of itself should be banned simply because it facilitates death, that too is a limited argument as there are many ways one can bring death about.

This means that neither argument wholly settles the case and we must look for more answers.

With regard to handguns, I'm afraid you've lost me. A handgun is useful as a PDW -yes- but I would much prefer my shotgun as an HDW given my home's hallways. Further, rifles are useful for hunting/PestPop control and are an essential staple for any rural area.

Plainly, those are the three weapon classes I think civilians should be allowed to own (without draconian licensing); handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

Blablahb:

Helmholtz Watson:
Nope, its correct. Knives kill people as well, guns are not the only things that kill people.

How many times has it been said now that guns kill much easier, and therefore statistically more often?

How many times do I have to repeat myself that if a person wants to murder someone, a knife works just as well as a gun?

recruit00:

Wolverine18:

recruit00:

I think the British would have a word. Granted, I'm not British so I am just speaking based on what I heard on the forums but the Chavs in Britain can't get access to guns so they use knives. Sharp and dangerous knives.

Do people not like reading? I'll say the same thing I said to him, go back and read my first comment that you have quoted above. Let me know when one of those chavs with a knife kills an innocent bystander in a drive-by stabbing.

Knives do need to be regulated if we're talking about the knives I'm thinking of. Besides, go down and read my post about my ideas for gun regulation.

I didn't mean to make it sound like guns are nothing. I'm just saying that knives are something that are to also be considered. Sorry, I'm not trying to be ignorant.

Ah, ok, that makes more sense.

And where I am knives are regulated too, although only for a subset of knife types that are used primarily for human on human violence (switchblades, belt buckle knives, spiked wriststraps, push blades, etc). I'm hard pressed to say why certain other knives shouldn't be added to the list, like machete.

Helmholtz Watson:

Blablahb:

Helmholtz Watson:
Nope, its correct. Knives kill people as well, guns are not the only things that kill people.

How many times has it been said now that guns kill much easier, and therefore statistically more often?

How many times do I have to repeat myself that if a person wants to murder someone, a knife works just as well as a gun?

Until you respond to the argument I raised that you have ignored pointing out that bystanders don't get killed by stray knife fire in drive by knifings.

senordesol:

generals3:

senordesol:

Wow. Pray tell, how does one defend one's self with a private nuke? You'll kill your assailaint, yourself, your family, and everyone else from miles around. That's quite a different result than a shot no bigger than your finger.

Correct but it does point out why the argument that people will find ways to kill each other regardless is pretty flawed because that argument can be used to justify any kind of weaponry ownership.

And the "self defence" argument can only be used to defend the ownership of handguns because in 99.9% of the scenario's a handgun is just as useful as an assault rifle (which i have seen people defend in this forum).

Not a flawed argument, but a limited one. Yes, a nuke kills you just as dead as a gun, but if the argument is that a weapon in and of itself should be banned simply because it facilitates death, that too is a limited argument as there are many ways one can bring death about.

This means that neither argument wholly settles the case and we must look for more answers.

With regard to handguns, I'm afraid you've lost me. A handgun is useful as a PDW -yes- but I would much prefer my shotgun as an HDW given my home's hallways. Further, rifles are useful for hunting/PestPop control and are an essential staple for any rural area.

Plainly, those are the three weapon classes I think civilians should be allowed to own (without draconian licensing); handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

Shotguns are too blunt. A shotgun on short range is bound to massacre someone, at least with a handgun you can try to just incapacitate someone. Having a tool that can only kill for self defense is in my opinion by principle as wrong as it can get.

And a rifle, do you mean a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Wolverine18:

recruit00:

Wolverine18:

Do people not like reading? I'll say the same thing I said to him, go back and read my first comment that you have quoted above. Let me know when one of those chavs with a knife kills an innocent bystander in a drive-by stabbing.

Knives do need to be regulated if we're talking about the knives I'm thinking of. Besides, go down and read my post about my ideas for gun regulation.

I didn't mean to make it sound like guns are nothing. I'm just saying that knives are something that are to also be considered. Sorry, I'm not trying to be ignorant.

Ah, ok, that makes more sense.

And where I am knives are regulated too, although only for a subset of knife types that are used primarily for human on human violence (switchblades, belt buckle knives, spiked wriststraps, push blades, etc). I'm hard pressed to say why certain other knives shouldn't be added to the list, like machete.

Good, I'm glad that we're back to equal terms.

generals3:

senordesol:

generals3:

Correct but it does point out why the argument that people will find ways to kill each other regardless is pretty flawed because that argument can be used to justify any kind of weaponry ownership.

And the "self defence" argument can only be used to defend the ownership of handguns because in 99.9% of the scenario's a handgun is just as useful as an assault rifle (which i have seen people defend in this forum).

Not a flawed argument, but a limited one. Yes, a nuke kills you just as dead as a gun, but if the argument is that a weapon in and of itself should be banned simply because it facilitates death, that too is a limited argument as there are many ways one can bring death about.

This means that neither argument wholly settles the case and we must look for more answers.

With regard to handguns, I'm afraid you've lost me. A handgun is useful as a PDW -yes- but I would much prefer my shotgun as an HDW given my home's hallways. Further, rifles are useful for hunting/PestPop control and are an essential staple for any rural area.

Plainly, those are the three weapon classes I think civilians should be allowed to own (without draconian licensing); handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

Shotguns are too blunt. A shotgun on short range is bound to massacre someone, at least with a handgun you can try to just incapacitate someone. Having a tool that can only kill for self defense is in my opinion by principle as wrong as it can get.

And a rifle, do you mean a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Yeah, the rifle thing makes a big difference.

Also, as for home defense, having a shotgun isn't that bad especially seeing someone pointing a loaded shotgun at you would definitely get you to back down, if you're smart enough. Pistols are not necessarily the best, though it really is a matter of personal preference.

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:

Blablahb:
How many times has it been said now that guns kill much easier, and therefore statistically more often?

How many times do I have to repeat myself that if a person wants to murder someone, a knife works just as well as a gun?

Until you respond to the argument I raised that you have ignored pointing out that bystanders don't get killed by stray knife fire in drive by knifings.

There is no "drive by knifings", but there are stabbing sprees.

Helmholtz Watson:

Blablahb:

Helmholtz Watson:
Nope, its correct. Knives kill people as well, guns are not the only things that kill people.

How many times has it been said now that guns kill much easier, and therefore statistically more often?

How many times do I have to repeat myself that if a person wants to murder someone, a knife works just as well as a gun?

Oh really? If someone wants to kill me with a gun and he's in front of me i'm done. If he has a knife i can still try to run and live. He'd need to be either very good at throwing knives or at running to get me. With a gun... well, at short range even a moron who never shot with a gun before could get you.

generals3:

Shotguns are too blunt. A shotgun on short range is bound to massacre someone, at least with a handgun you can try to just incapacitate someone. Having a tool that can only kill for self defense is in my opinion by principle as wrong as it can get.

And a rifle, do you mean a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

You don't try to 'incapacitate' someone with a handgun. There are too many variables and it's highly dangerous for both shooter and assailant. Using a firearm is application of lethal force, as such it stands to reason that when you use one; your intent is to kill. When you shoot, you shoot for the center of mass and you keep shooting until he goes down.

With regard to rifles: Anything that's not factory capable of full-auto.

Helmholtz Watson:
As for your nuclear comment, your comparing apples to oranges. School shootings don't prevent trees from growing, animals from reproducing and they don't cause future generations of people to have cancer.

Nobody is claiming that banning guns will magically prevent ALL armed robberies, homicides, muggings and the like. Saying "people will still find a way to kill!" is obvious and not even particularly related to what the gun control advocates are saying.

A gun is a tool designed for killing people[1]. When two countries go to war, do they arm their soldiers with guns, or with knives? Out of guns and knives, then, which can we conclude allows soldiers to kill more effectively, efficiently and from a longer range?

[1] Yes, yes, unless it's a target gun or a hunting rifle

senordesol:
[quote="generals3" post="528.385769.15351740
Shotguns are too blunt. A shotgun on short range is bound to massacre someone, at least with a handgun you can try to just incapacitate someone. Having a tool that can only kill for self defense is in my opinion by principle as wrong as it can get.

And a rifle, do you mean a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?[/quote]

You don't try to 'incapacitate' someone with a handgun. There are too many variables and it's highly dangerous for both shooter and assailant. Using a firearm is application of lethal force, as such it stands to reason that when you use on;, your intent is to kill. When you shoot, you shoot for the center of mass and you keep shooting until he goes down.

With regard to rifles: Anything that's not factory capable of full-auto.

Than i cannot support gun ownership among citizens as apparently it de-facto means vigilantism with the capital punishment as sentence.

Also, cops tend to try and incapacitate instead of killing when they can (it's not always possible). Armies use weapons specifically designed not to kill (5.56mm rounds) so i don't get the "your intent is to kill".

senordesol:

generals3:

Shotguns are too blunt. A shotgun on short range is bound to massacre someone, at least with a handgun you can try to just incapacitate someone. Having a tool that can only kill for self defense is in my opinion by principle as wrong as it can get.

And a rifle, do you mean a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

You don't try to 'incapacitate' someone with a handgun. There are too many variables and it's highly dangerous for both shooter and assailant. Using a firearm is application of lethal force, as such it stands to reason that when you use one; your intent is to kill. When you shoot, you shoot for the center of mass and you keep shooting until he goes down.

With regard to rifles: Anything that's not factory capable of full-auto.

It's called shooting them in the arms or the legs. That is an incapacitating shot.

Helmholtz Watson:
How many times do I have to repeat myself that if a person wants to murder someone, a knife works just as well as a gun?

There is no point to that, because it's a faulty assumption. Before you can claim that, you need to prove that killing with bare hands, knives, clubs, fluffy stuffed animals and other weapons of opportunity, is just as easy as killing with firearms. (otherwise, people wouldn't kill as often as with firearms)

I think that's a pretty hopeless case. Fighting people with your bare hands is a fairly intimidating affair, and the easiest way to kill them, by choking them, is extremely physically demanding, demands technical knowledge and a fair amount of simple bloodymindedness.

You'll never succeed in arguing that's as easy as pulling a trigger, so you can't claim people will also kill without guns.

Helmholtz Watson:

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:
How many times do I have to repeat myself that if a person wants to murder someone, a knife works just as well as a gun?

Until you respond to the argument I raised that you have ignored pointing out that bystanders don't get killed by stray knife fire in drive by knifings.

There is no "drive by knifings", but there are stabbing sprees.

Notice the deathcount is lower than if he had used a gun.

BTW, if you want to continue the silly argument that we shouldn't ban guns because other thinks kill too and its all the same, then your argument can work both ways. Why do you care if we ban guns because you could defend yourself with a knife or your firsts anyway.

generals3:

senordesol:
[quote="generals3" post="528.385769.15351740
Shotguns are too blunt. A shotgun on short range is bound to massacre someone, at least with a handgun you can try to just incapacitate someone. Having a tool that can only kill for self defense is in my opinion by principle as wrong as it can get.

And a rifle, do you mean a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?[/quote]

You don't try to 'incapacitate' someone with a handgun. There are too many variables and it's highly dangerous for both shooter and assailant. Using a firearm is application of lethal force, as such it stands to reason that when you use on;, your intent is to kill. When you shoot, you shoot for the center of mass and you keep shooting until he goes down.

With regard to rifles: Anything that's not factory capable of full-auto.

Than i cannot support gun ownership among citizens as apparently it de-facto means vigilantism with the capital punishment as sentence.

Also, cops tend to try and incapacitate instead of killing when they can (it's not always possible). Armies use weapons specifically designed not to kill (5.56mm rounds) so i don't get the "your intent is to kill".

Who's talking about sentencing or vigilanteism? Self Defense is neither. A sentence is the delivery of judgement once a subject is apprehended. Vigilanteism is seeking to do the police's job for them.

Self defense is a means of dispatching an immediate threat to self.

A police officer's job is to apprehend the suspect, but if threatened they deploy the same techniques I just described. The NATO 5.56 is a small round and therefore more can be easily carried (more rounds in the air), A soldier will fire and continue to fire until that enemy is out of the fight one way or another. They don't shoot to wound.

Here's where I really diverge with folks like you. If I am threatened enough to believe that lethal force is my only recourse to end the threat, why is there any concern at all for my assailant?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked