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
 

Blablahb:

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.

I'd like to see a battalion of soldiers armed with bayonets fight against a battalion armed with M4's. Who knows... maybe Helmotz will be correct and it will be a draw.

generals3:
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.

That's completely untrue.

There are concerns about the power of the 5.56mm round, but they use it instead of the 7.62 because the recoil is more controllable and the ammunition is lighter.

The 5.56 mm round is used to kill. Soldiers are trained to kill.

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.

Firearms are designed to kill. There's no such thing as shooting to incapacitate without overly harming people. There is "shoot to kill" and there is "don't shoot", not much in between.

When you fire at someone, you are trying to kill them. You keep firing until they go down. You don't fire one shot, see if it hit, and then work out whether or not the target is damaged enough to warrant you putting the weapon away.

recruit00:

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.

That's called a good way to miss and get thrown in jail for reckless use of a firearm.

The deployment of a firearm is both legally and practically the deployment of lethal force. If you are using lethal force for non-lethal means then you are MISUSING it. Legs and arms are hard to hit - particularly if they're moving. Further striking someone in an artery will cause them to bleed out and thus acheive the same result as a chest wound.

To sum: given the difficulty of the shot, the unpredicability of the result, and the weapon that's being used to that end; using a firearm with the express purpose to incapacitate is reckless, dangerous, and very VERY illegal.

If guns ever become illegal I'm getting a crossbow. Best part? No hearing damage if I have to defend myself.

senordesol:

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?

But that's the point isn't it. You claimed that whenever you need to use your firearm you need to kill. That is not correct. While in certain situations it is unavoidable in many it can be. Let's say there is an armed robber in your house and you are behind him and he didn't see you. Do you really need to execute him? Wouldn't a bullet in the arm with which he's holding his gun suffice? Assuming you don't use guns with only one round you can still keep aiming at him to see if he's still acting in a dangerous way and than add a bullet in one of his legs.

Meanwhile not using your gun in this scenario can be dangerous because he might hear you if you take a step and accidentally step on something or he might be stronger than you if you try to take him on with your bare hands. But even if using a gun seems like the only safe solution killing is NOT needed.

Wolverine18:

Helmholtz Watson:

Wolverine18:

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.

You have no way of proving that, never mind the fact that its a red herring. As I said before, there are stabbing sprees.

generals3:

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?

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.

Cutting a major artery is just as deadly as shooting a major artery.

Batou667:

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?

They have soldiers uses machine guns, and military hardware, something I never said I was in favor of civilians having. I'm just apposed to gun regulation that mimics Western Europe or Japan.

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

senordesol:

recruit00:

senordesol:

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.

That's called a good way to miss and get thrown in jail for reckless use of a firearm.

The deployment of a firearm is both legally and practically the deployment of lethal force. If you are using lethal force for non-lethal means then you are MISUSING it. Legs and arms are hard to hit - particularly if they're moving; further striking someone in an artery will cause them to bleed out and thus acheive the same result as a chest wound.

To sum: given the difficulty of the shot, the unpredicability of the result, and the weapon that's being used to that end; using a firearm with the express purpose to incapacitate is reckless, dangerous, and very VERY illegal.

If you can't hit a leg or arm at close range with a gun you don't deserve to have one and are by default a public danger with one in your hands.

Helmholtz Watson:
Cutting a major artery is just as deadly as shooting a major artery.

Maybe you need to re-read.

generals3:

senordesol:

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?

But that's the point isn't it. You claimed that whenever you need to use your firearm you need to kill. That is not correct. While in certain situations it is unavoidable in many it can be. Let's say there is an armed robber in your house and you are behind him and he didn't see you. Do you really need to execute him? Wouldn't a bullet in the arm with which he's holding his gun suffice? Assuming you don't use guns with only one round you can still keep aiming at him to see if he's still acting in a dangerous way and than add a bullet in one of his legs.

Meanwhile not using your gun in this scenario can be dangerous because he might hear you if you take a step and accidentally step on something or he might be stronger than you if you try to take him on with your bare hands. But even if using a gun seems like the only safe solution killing is NOT needed.

If he's got a gun out it means he intends to kill somebody, so yeah: better I kill him first.

Maybe, MAYBE he get's a 'Drop it, motherfucker!' but a weapon out is a lethal threat to me and my loved ones; one that must be dealt with in kind.

If he wasn't out for blood, he shouldn't have brought a weapon into my home in the dead of night. It's a simple system.

generals3:

senordesol:

recruit00:

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

That's called a good way to miss and get thrown in jail for reckless use of a firearm.

The deployment of a firearm is both legally and practically the deployment of lethal force. If you are using lethal force for non-lethal means then you are MISUSING it. Legs and arms are hard to hit - particularly if they're moving; further striking someone in an artery will cause them to bleed out and thus acheive the same result as a chest wound.

To sum: given the difficulty of the shot, the unpredicability of the result, and the weapon that's being used to that end; using a firearm with the express purpose to incapacitate is reckless, dangerous, and very VERY illegal.

If you can't hit a leg or arm at close range with a gun you don't deserve to have one and are by default a public danger with one in your hands.

You've never fired a weapon have you? That's the only explanation for the silliness of that statement. This ain't no fucking marksmanship contest, son. This is life or death. You fire for the sure thing, or you don't fire at all.

generals3:
If you can't hit a leg or arm at close range with a gun you don't deserve to have one and are by default a public danger with one in your hands.

Better get rid of the police and military then, they are trained to aim centre of mass because it's easier to hit. The majority of bullets fired at close range still miss, because having somebody trying to kill you is a bit distracting.

(Admittedly, sometimes military or police will fire at the legs instead of the chest, such as when the target is wearing body armour. In the North Hollywood Shootoot, the regular police kept firing centre of mass at the suspects, even though they knew they had armour, because that's what they do. The specially trained LAPD SWAT officers killed one of the suspects by shooting him in the leg.)

generals3:

If you can't hit a leg or arm at close range with a gun you don't deserve to have one and are by default a public danger with one in your hands.

Forgive me, but guns aren't anything near what media portrays them to be.

The stupidity of that statement is so great that I cannot even begin to explain why your wrong. So I'll sum it up thus: There's a reason that self-defense training tells you to aim for center mass.

Having people who don't know a darn thing about guns dictate policy about them makes as much sense as making me the commissioner of Baseball.

I believe that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns.

...just my 2 cents.

thaluikhain:

generals3:
If you can't hit a leg or arm at close range with a gun you don't deserve to have one and are by default a public danger with one in your hands.

Better get rid of the police and military then, they are trained to aim centre of mass because it's easier to hit. The majority of bullets fired at close range still miss, because having somebody trying to kill you is a bit distracting.

(Admittedly, sometimes military or police will fire at the legs instead of the chest, such as when the target is wearing body armour. In the North Hollywood Shootoot, the regular police kept firing centre of mass at the suspects, even though they knew they had armour, because that's what they do. The specially trained LAPD SWAT officers killed one of the suspects by shooting him in the leg.)

The military is not supposed to stop criminals. And they often fight at mid range. In your house you'll most likely be at 5 meter tops from the target. And as a soldier it is all about defeating your enemy and doing it the easiest way so it is not even comparable in a war you rarely care about the lives of the enemy.

And i'd love to see a cop shoot a running suspect in the centre of mass without trying to incapacitate him first. Here it would get people riled up.

Shooting for killing is only when you have literally no other choice. Which isn't always the case. of course if you're being shot at every millisecond counts but i doubt everyone who ever used a gun for self defense did so while being suppressed by enemy fire.

CM156:

generals3:

If you can't hit a leg or arm at close range with a gun you don't deserve to have one and are by default a public danger with one in your hands.

Forgive me, but guns aren't anything near what media portrays them to be.

I agree. And i know it because i've had gun training in the army and that with the FNC and GP.

generals3:
And i'd love to see a cop shoot a running suspect in the centre of mass without trying to incapacitate him first. Here it would get people riled up.

I would sort of hope that a police shooting of a running suspect would get people riled up no matter where the suspect was shot. The police have no excuse for shooting at people for running away.

generals3:
Shooting for killing is only when you have literally no other choice. Which isn't always the case. of course if you're being shot at every millisecond counts but i doubt everyone who ever used a gun for self defense did so while being suppressed by enemy fire.

Yes, it's used as a last resort, when you are in fear of your own (or somebody else's) life. You don't fire the weapon otherwise.

thaluikhain:

generals3:
Shooting for killing is only when you have literally no other choice. Which isn't always the case. of course if you're being shot at every millisecond counts but i doubt everyone who ever used a gun for self defense did so while being suppressed by enemy fire.

Yes, it's used as a last resort, when you are in fear of your own (or somebody else's) life. You don't fire the weapon otherwise.

Yes however you can fear your own life will be taken away in situation where the threat isn't immediate. I'd be pretty scared if i merely spotted an armed robber in my house even if he didn't spot me yet.

generals3:

thaluikhain:

generals3:
Shooting for killing is only when you have literally no other choice. Which isn't always the case. of course if you're being shot at every millisecond counts but i doubt everyone who ever used a gun for self defense did so while being suppressed by enemy fire.

Yes, it's used as a last resort, when you are in fear of your own (or somebody else's) life. You don't fire the weapon otherwise.

Yes however you can fear your own life will be taken away in situation where the threat isn't immediate. I'd be pretty scared if i merely spotted an armed robber in my house even if he didn't spot me yet.

And thus you command him to drop his weapon.

You don't use lethal force for non-lethal means

senordesol:

generals3:

thaluikhain:

Yes, it's used as a last resort, when you are in fear of your own (or somebody else's) life. You don't fire the weapon otherwise.

Yes however you can fear your own life will be taken away in situation where the threat isn't immediate. I'd be pretty scared if i merely spotted an armed robber in my house even if he didn't spot me yet.

And thus you command him to drop his weapon.

You don't use lethal force for non-lethal means

Correct and while doing so i'd point his arm holding the gun and if he'd make a sudden move it would take less than a nano second to redirect on the center of mass.

But there is an other problems with guns, which hasn't been addressed yet (i think), the fact it makes people do dangerous things. Studies have shown that teenagers carrying knives are more prone to be violent and much more confident. And while you may say "those aren't guns" it's actually the fact that they hold weapons which gives them more "power" that makes them more "bold". An unarmed civilian who gets robbed will try to hide and call the cops and in no way think about getting close to the robber. An armed one whoever will bring his own life and the one of the robber in danger by confronting him with his weapon. This is also something that needs to be taken into account. The needless loss of lives that could have been replaced with loss of property (which is replaceable) due to the balls weapons give to the wielder.

generals3:

senordesol:

generals3:

Yes however you can fear your own life will be taken away in situation where the threat isn't immediate. I'd be pretty scared if i merely spotted an armed robber in my house even if he didn't spot me yet.

And thus you command him to drop his weapon.

You don't use lethal force for non-lethal means

Correct and while doing so i'd point his arm holding the gun and if he'd make a sudden move it would take less than a nano second to redirect on the center of mass.

But why would you redirect your aim if he makes a sudden move?

Promethax:
I believe that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns.
...just my 2 cents.

Easy to refute, and refuted a hundred times before: Illegal guns come from legal guns. No legal guns, no illegal guns.

This is further proven by the situation in countries with gun bans, where armed criminals are rare, and armed criminals using their weapons are even more rare.

Kind of an extreme poll, and I've grown tired of extreme thinking.

People kill people with or without guns. I wouldn't go out of my way to punish people for having guns, but I wouldn't make them readily available either. Tight, aware regulation (permits, limits etc) seems sensible enough, though I would rather live in a society where no one has guns rather than a society where everyone has guns.

LetalisK:

generals3:

senordesol:

And thus you command him to drop his weapon.

You don't use lethal force for non-lethal means

Correct and while doing so i'd point his arm holding the gun and if he'd make a sudden move it would take less than a nano second to redirect on the center of mass.

But why would you redirect your aim if he makes a sudden move?

For safety. Following a fast sudden move isn't as easy as chuck norris may let you think.

generals3:

LetalisK:

generals3:

Correct and while doing so i'd point his arm holding the gun and if he'd make a sudden move it would take less than a nano second to redirect on the center of mass.

But why would you redirect your aim if he makes a sudden move?

For safety. Following a fast sudden move isn't as easy as chuck norris may let you think.

So what's the point of aiming at the arm in the first place? In case he makes a slow movement?

LetalisK:

generals3:

LetalisK:
But why would you redirect your aim if he makes a sudden move?

For safety. Following a fast sudden move isn't as easy as chuck norris may let you think.

So what's the point of aiming at the arm in the first place? In case he makes a slow movement?

In case he ain't complying but not doing sudden moves yes. Could be waiting for a buddy or thinking of something. There are so many things that can happen. Whenever you think you know all the scenarios you'll find yourself confronted by an unexpected situation.

Okay, this is a bullshit poll. Do guns actively plot and murder? No. Do they make things too easy? Yes. Do some people act on homicidal ideas because they have access to a weapon that makes it so much more easy? Yes. Should they be more strictly regulated? Absolutely, it is way to easy to get your hands on them, especially since the databases and systems meant to keep people who are unwell from getting them are a fucking joke.

generals3:

LetalisK:

generals3:

For safety. Following a fast sudden move isn't as easy as chuck norris may let you think.

So what's the point of aiming at the arm in the first place? In case he makes a slow movement?

In case he ain't complying but not doing sudden moves yes. Could be waiting for a buddy or thinking of something. There are so many things that can happen. Whenever you think you know all the scenarios you'll find yourself confronted by an unexpected situation.

So rather than having to shift aim when he's not complying, you'd rather shift aim when he makes a sudden movement?

Helmholtz Watson:

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.

Stop being thick. Knives do a hell of a lot less collateral damage than guns, and it's a lot easier to kill large amounts of people with guns, and you KNOW that. Are you going to try to make the claim that, say, the Aurora Dark Knight shooter could have killed just as many innocent people with a knife?

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?

It doesn't. It's much easier to defend yourself from a knife-wielding attacker than it is from a gun-wielding attacker, and you have a much better chance of surviving a stab wound than a gunshot wound. A knife does NOT work just as well as a gun if you're trying to kill someone with it.

So you can repeat it all you want; it doesn't make it not complete bullshit.

LetalisK:

generals3:

LetalisK:
So what's the point of aiming at the arm in the first place? In case he makes a slow movement?

In case he ain't complying but not doing sudden moves yes. Could be waiting for a buddy or thinking of something. There are so many things that can happen. Whenever you think you know all the scenarios you'll find yourself confronted by an unexpected situation.

So rather than having to shift aim when he's not complying, you'd rather shift aim when he makes a sudden movement?

Exactly. And you know why? Because of the mindset. If your first thought is to kill if he does something wrong odds are you'll always go for the kill even if not necessary. The mindset should be "ready to incapacitate and only kill if you can't get around it". And not "Kill and maaaaaaybe incapacitate if i don't feel like being a murderer today". We're talking about a civilian encountering a potentially dangerous situation not a navy seal facing the North Korean army.

Your purpose is to survive by causing the least damage possible not to "defeat" the criminal.

I think the first poll option needs to be fixed.

I don't think Guns cause murders, they make it much easier to commit them however.

Captcha: blah blah blah

Well screw you too Captcha!

generals3:

Exactly. And you know why? Because of the mindset. If your first thought is to kill if he does something wrong odds are you'll always go for the kill even if not necessary. The mindset should be "ready to incapacitate and only kill if you can't get around it". And not "Kill and maaaaaaybe incapacitate if i don't feel like being a murderer today". We're talking about a civilian encountering a potentially dangerous situation not a navy seal facing the North Korean army.

Your purpose is to survive by causing the least damage possible not to "defeat" the criminal.

And I think thats where we disagree completely. My purpose IS VERY MUCH NOT 'survive by causing the least possible damage'. No. Absolutely not.

My purpose is: End the threat. That's it. Very clear. Very uncomplicated and much safer (for me).

Donuthole:

Stop being thick. Knives do a hell of a lot less collateral damage than guns, and it's a lot easier to kill large amounts of people with guns, and you KNOW that. Are you going to try to make the claim that, say, the Aurora Dark Knight shooter could have killed just as many innocent people with a knife?

Nope, I'm saying that for the people who want stricter gun control, they should be in favor of stricter regulation for knives as well because are also quite deadly.

Helmholtz Watson:

It doesn't. It's much easier to defend yourself from a knife-wielding attacker than it is from a gun-wielding attacker, and you have a much better chance of surviving a stab wound than a gunshot wound. A knife does NOT work just as well as a gun if you're trying to kill someone with it.

So you can repeat it all you want; it doesn't make it not complete bullshit.

As I said before, a shredded major artery is a shredded major artery. It doesn't matter if a bullet or knife shredded the artery, it bleeds all the same.

Shock and Awe:
Guns make killing a hell of a lot easier, anyone denying that should talk to anyone who's brought a knife to a gunfight. Though I will say that if people didn't have guns they'd try to stab each other or use shit like axes and swords. Crime would go medieval and it'd be awesome. Wait...no...NOT AWESOME.

Well, yes, you shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight. However...

image

A time and a place and all that.

Helmholtz Watson:

Donuthole:

Stop being thick. Knives do a hell of a lot less collateral damage than guns, and it's a lot easier to kill large amounts of people with guns, and you KNOW that. Are you going to try to make the claim that, say, the Aurora Dark Knight shooter could have killed just as many innocent people with a knife?

Nope, I'm saying that for the people who want stricter gun control, they should be in favor of stricter regulation for knives as well because are also quite deadly.

Helmholtz Watson:

It doesn't. It's much easier to defend yourself from a knife-wielding attacker than it is from a gun-wielding attacker, and you have a much better chance of surviving a stab wound than a gunshot wound. A knife does NOT work just as well as a gun if you're trying to kill someone with it.

So you can repeat it all you want; it doesn't make it not complete bullshit.

As I said before, a shredded major artery is a shredded major artery. It doesn't matter if a bullet or knife shredded the artery, it bleeds all the same.

Addressing point one...
Total bullshit. A gun can take down multiple people from a distance at which they can't retaliate, a knife is only as good as the technique of the lunatic holding it. Of course for that matter a lot of countries do have regulations against certain types of knives, though in my mind they're kind of silly.

Addressing point two, it does make a difference if it was a knife wound or a bullet wound. Did the bullet become lodged? Is it stationary or is it moving in the body? Did it break apart? Is their shrapnel in the bloodstream? Did it completely penetrate? How wide is the wound channel?

You get the idea. Guns really do provide a bigger edge (No pun intended) than you give them credit for.

Helmholtz Watson:

Donuthole:

Stop being thick. Knives do a hell of a lot less collateral damage than guns, and it's a lot easier to kill large amounts of people with guns, and you KNOW that. Are you going to try to make the claim that, say, the Aurora Dark Knight shooter could have killed just as many innocent people with a knife?

Nope, I'm saying that for the people who want stricter gun control, they should be in favor of stricter regulation for knives as well because are also quite deadly.

Helmholtz Watson:

It doesn't. It's much easier to defend yourself from a knife-wielding attacker than it is from a gun-wielding attacker, and you have a much better chance of surviving a stab wound than a gunshot wound. A knife does NOT work just as well as a gun if you're trying to kill someone with it.

So you can repeat it all you want; it doesn't make it not complete bullshit.

As I said before, a shredded major artery is a shredded major artery. It doesn't matter if a bullet or knife shredded the artery, it bleeds all the same.

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really think that a guy with a knife has just as good of a shot at killing one person or many people than a guy with a gun. It's like you are unwilling to see that patently fucking obvious differences.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked