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
 

Pyramid Head:

Helmholtz Watson:
Snip

...did you not see that little detail about "Proper edge...?"

Oh fuck it. If you're paying so little attention that i had to shout my answer to your little knife control debate five times before it penetrated, i shouldn't be surprised that you missed that.

The swords were sharp.

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:
*looks around at my small apartment* Yep. I'm in big trouble if a burglar comes in with a knife or a gun.

Unless the burglar is out to kill you, you are not in big trouble. Now, I know, your property is being violated, which is still a crime, yes, but hold that thought for a second.

What I'm saying is that even if someone breaks into your place at night, they're likely not there to kill you. They are there to take your junk. Your property is threatened, but you aren't as long as you go along with it quietly. Pull something (even just your fists) on the intruder? Well, yeah, now you have extended the threat to yourself as well and put yourself at risk.

"But why should I let criminals take my stuff?"

Never said you should. I'm just saying that if you put up resistance, you've upped the risk to yourself, that's all and it's a matter of how much you value your stuff versus your personal well-being. Because if two people are pointing weapons at each other, there's no guarantee that it's the intruder who'll go down first.

...ok. Regardless, do to the small space of my apartment, a knife would be as dangerous as a gun.

Donuthole:

It should have been patently obvious what I was referring too. There's a whole thread here of comments YOU made that you should at least be passingly familiar with.

Not really, since I just posted a Kat Williams video.

Donuthole:

That wasn't the point I was disputing. The point I was disputing was that if someone wanted to say, shoot up a theater, and couldn't get a gun, they could just use a knife and get the same result. Which is patently absurd; I called you on it, and you ran from it for three pages.

I wasn't going three pages on the theater example, I was going on how both a knife and gun are deadly.

Donuthole:

Equal trouble? Do you understand the concept of "range"?

Do you understand the term "studio apartment"?

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:
*looks around at my small apartment* Yep. I'm in big trouble if a burglar comes in with a knife or a gun.

Unless the burglar is out to kill you, you are not in big trouble. Now, I know, your property is being violated, which is still a crime, yes, but hold that thought for a second.

What I'm saying is that even if someone breaks into your place at night, they're likely not there to kill you. They are there to take your junk. Your property is threatened, but you aren't as long as you go along with it quietly. Pull something (even just your fists) on the intruder? Well, yeah, now you have extended the threat to yourself as well and put yourself at risk.

"But why should I let criminals take my stuff?"

Never said you should. I'm just saying that if you put up resistance, you've upped the risk to yourself, that's all and it's a matter of how much you value your stuff versus your personal well-being. Because if two people are pointing weapons at each other, there's no guarantee that it's the intruder who'll go down first.

if a burglar is breaking in to my house only to steal my shit, why does he need a gun or knife to do so? that argument seems silly.

keiskay:

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:
*looks around at my small apartment* Yep. I'm in big trouble if a burglar comes in with a knife or a gun.

Unless the burglar is out to kill you, you are not in big trouble. Now, I know, your property is being violated, which is still a crime, yes, but hold that thought for a second.

What I'm saying is that even if someone breaks into your place at night, they're likely not there to kill you. They are there to take your junk. Your property is threatened, but you aren't as long as you go along with it quietly. Pull something (even just your fists) on the intruder? Well, yeah, now you have extended the threat to yourself as well and put yourself at risk.

"But why should I let criminals take my stuff?"

Never said you should. I'm just saying that if you put up resistance, you've upped the risk to yourself, that's all and it's a matter of how much you value your stuff versus your personal well-being. Because if two people are pointing weapons at each other, there's no guarantee that it's the intruder who'll go down first.

if a burglar is breaking in to my house only to steal my shit, why does he need a gun or knife to do so? that argument seems silly.

In fairness, they are likely breaking into your place armed to defend themselves from you.

That being said I don't see the problem with violently responding to someone invading your home because assuming they are only there for some theft is a bad assumption to make. They may be unhinged, tripping on drugs, or worse.

You need to defend yourself.

You don't need a fucking MP5 to do it, though.

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:

Vegosiux:

Unless the burglar is out to kill you, you are not in big trouble. Now, I know, your property is being violated, which is still a crime, yes, but hold that thought for a second.

What I'm saying is that even if someone breaks into your place at night, they're likely not there to kill you. They are there to take your junk. Your property is threatened, but you aren't as long as you go along with it quietly. Pull something (even just your fists) on the intruder? Well, yeah, now you have extended the threat to yourself as well and put yourself at risk.

"But why should I let criminals take my stuff?"

Never said you should. I'm just saying that if you put up resistance, you've upped the risk to yourself, that's all and it's a matter of how much you value your stuff versus your personal well-being. Because if two people are pointing weapons at each other, there's no guarantee that it's the intruder who'll go down first.

if a burglar is breaking in to my house only to steal my shit, why does he need a gun or knife to do so? that argument seems silly.

In fairness, they are likely breaking into your place armed to defend themselves from you.

That being said I don't see the problem with violently responding to someone invading your home because assuming they are only there for some theft is a bad assumption to make. They may be unhinged, tripping on drugs, or worse.

You need to defend yourself.

You don't need a fucking MP5 to do it, though.

actually no, if someone is paranoid as to bring a gun to rob me and they have a gun or knife, its entirely silly to think that way. most people who break into houses don't bring guns or knives, unless you know they also plan to kill people who get in their way.

yes well chances are my mp5 is semi automatic like my pistol, unless i bough my MP5 before '85 then it can be full auto. so using an mp5 or my much more powerful M1911 isnt gonna me much more different. (1911 uses a 45 acp round, very large and powerful round, while an mp5 in general uses 9mm)

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:
if a burglar is breaking in to my house only to steal my shit, why does he need a gun or knife to do so? that argument seems silly.

In fairness, they are likely breaking into your place armed to defend themselves from you.

That being said I don't see the problem with violently responding to someone invading your home because assuming they are only there for some theft is a bad assumption to make. They may be unhinged, tripping on drugs, or worse.

You need to defend yourself.

You don't need a fucking MP5 to do it, though.

actually no, if someone is paranoid as to bring a gun to rob me and they have a gun or knife, its entirely silly to think that way. most people who break into houses don't bring guns or knives, unless you know they also plan to kill people who get in their way.

yes well chances are my mp5 is semi automatic like my pistol, unless i bough my MP5 before '85 then it can be full auto. so using an mp5 or my much more powerful M1911 isnt gonna me much more different. (1911 uses a 45 acp round, very large and powerful round, while an mp5 in general uses 9mm)

I have a hard time thinking someone breaking into a house armed with a gun is doing so in the mindset of "I'm taking this TV and I'm killing anyone that gets in my way." Even the dumbest petty criminal knows that robbery gets you a LOT less jail time than murder. If you're concerned with getting caught, it's far easier to beat the rap if all you did was nick a toaster oven than if you murdered someone in cold blood.

It's far more likely they're going in armed because there's a chance that the homeowner is armed and they're looking to defend themselves. It's not noble but it's the most practical application.

As for the MP5, blah blah blah I don't care. Nobody needs assault rifles to defend their home because we're not secret agents with a nemesis sending jumpsuited goons to assassinate us. A regular 9mm handgun will do the job. If you own automatic weapons, its because they make you feel badass and cool to own them, which to me is a poor excuse, considering the danger they pose.

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

In fairness, they are likely breaking into your place armed to defend themselves from you.

That being said I don't see the problem with violently responding to someone invading your home because assuming they are only there for some theft is a bad assumption to make. They may be unhinged, tripping on drugs, or worse.

You need to defend yourself.

You don't need a fucking MP5 to do it, though.

actually no, if someone is paranoid as to bring a gun to rob me and they have a gun or knife, its entirely silly to think that way. most people who break into houses don't bring guns or knives, unless you know they also plan to kill people who get in their way.

yes well chances are my mp5 is semi automatic like my pistol, unless i bough my MP5 before '85 then it can be full auto. so using an mp5 or my much more powerful M1911 isnt gonna me much more different. (1911 uses a 45 acp round, very large and powerful round, while an mp5 in general uses 9mm)

I have a hard time thinking someone breaking into a house armed with a gun is doing so in the mindset of "I'm taking this TV and I'm killing anyone that gets in my way." Even the dumbest petty criminal knows that robbery gets you a LOT less jail time than murder. If you're concerned with getting caught, it's far easier to beat the rap if all you did was nick a toaster oven than if you murdered someone in cold blood.

It's far more likely they're going in armed because there's a chance that the homeowner is armed and they're looking to defend themselves. It's not noble but it's the most practical application.

As for the MP5, blah blah blah I don't care. Nobody needs assault rifles to defend their home because we're not secret agents with a nemesis sending jumpsuited goons to assassinate us. A regular 9mm handgun will do the job. If you own automatic weapons, its because they make you feel badass and cool to own them, which to me is a poor excuse, considering the danger they pose.

no one uses assault rifles to defend there home unless its a far range, like say if you lived on a farm. simply because assault rifles are shitty in indoor, close quarters situations. no one i met who owned full automatic weapons did so because they fel they were bad ass or cool, simply because they wanted one. its like saying people who own Ferrari must have small dicks and are compensating with a nice car. i own one fully automatic gun and its a thompson, or tommy gun in lay terms. i have it for historical and collection purposes, i never fire it simply because its worth about 15000$ and is well old as shit.

keiskay:
if a burglar is breaking in to my house only to steal my shit, why does he need a gun or knife to do so? that argument seems silly.

One, to defend themselves if they get caught in the act. Two, intimidation for such a case.

Funny how it works in some heads. "I" only use guns for self-defense. "Others" might be carrying because they have murder on their minds.

Vegosiux:

keiskay:
if a burglar is breaking in to my house only to steal my shit, why does he need a gun or knife to do so? that argument seems silly.

One, to defend themselves if they get caught in the act. Two, intimidation for such a case.

Funny how it works in some heads. "I" only use guns for self-defense. "Others" might be carrying because they have murder on their minds.

breaking into a persons with a gun and then trying to claim self defense if they kill the owner would never work its silly.

also no its not that way if someone breaks into my house wielding a weapon, especially a firearm i should consider them to have ill intent. now if im walking down the street and someone is open carrying i probably wont think much of it. there is a big difference in, i am in my house with a gun, and i am breaking into someone house with a gun. in the latter i already committed a crime in fact two crimes, since breaking into a house with a gun could be easily counted as an attempt of murder.

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:
actually no, if someone is paranoid as to bring a gun to rob me and they have a gun or knife, its entirely silly to think that way. most people who break into houses don't bring guns or knives, unless you know they also plan to kill people who get in their way.

yes well chances are my mp5 is semi automatic like my pistol, unless i bough my MP5 before '85 then it can be full auto. so using an mp5 or my much more powerful M1911 isnt gonna me much more different. (1911 uses a 45 acp round, very large and powerful round, while an mp5 in general uses 9mm)

I have a hard time thinking someone breaking into a house armed with a gun is doing so in the mindset of "I'm taking this TV and I'm killing anyone that gets in my way." Even the dumbest petty criminal knows that robbery gets you a LOT less jail time than murder. If you're concerned with getting caught, it's far easier to beat the rap if all you did was nick a toaster oven than if you murdered someone in cold blood.

It's far more likely they're going in armed because there's a chance that the homeowner is armed and they're looking to defend themselves. It's not noble but it's the most practical application.

As for the MP5, blah blah blah I don't care. Nobody needs assault rifles to defend their home because we're not secret agents with a nemesis sending jumpsuited goons to assassinate us. A regular 9mm handgun will do the job. If you own automatic weapons, its because they make you feel badass and cool to own them, which to me is a poor excuse, considering the danger they pose.

no one uses assault rifles to defend there home unless its a far range, like say if you lived on a farm. simply because assault rifles are shitty in indoor, close quarters situations. no one i met who owned full automatic weapons did so because they fel they were bad ass or cool, simply because they wanted one. its like saying people who own Ferrari must have small dicks and are compensating with a nice car. i own one fully automatic gun and its a thompson, or tommy gun in lay terms. i have it for historical and collection purposes, i never fire it simply because its worth about 15000$ and is well old as shit.

Nobody 'just wants to own' something without a reason. Face it: people own AR15s and MP5s and so forth because they're badass and cool and we've all seen them be badass and cool in movies and on TV and such, even though a simple 9mm semi automatic has plenty of killing power on its own. The Virginia Tech killer used handguns and he murdered scores of people with no problem.

I never said they had small dicks. You said that. I said their reasons for owning them are narcissistic and I'd rather not trade my safety for their jollies.

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

I have a hard time thinking someone breaking into a house armed with a gun is doing so in the mindset of "I'm taking this TV and I'm killing anyone that gets in my way." Even the dumbest petty criminal knows that robbery gets you a LOT less jail time than murder. If you're concerned with getting caught, it's far easier to beat the rap if all you did was nick a toaster oven than if you murdered someone in cold blood.

It's far more likely they're going in armed because there's a chance that the homeowner is armed and they're looking to defend themselves. It's not noble but it's the most practical application.

As for the MP5, blah blah blah I don't care. Nobody needs assault rifles to defend their home because we're not secret agents with a nemesis sending jumpsuited goons to assassinate us. A regular 9mm handgun will do the job. If you own automatic weapons, its because they make you feel badass and cool to own them, which to me is a poor excuse, considering the danger they pose.

no one uses assault rifles to defend there home unless its a far range, like say if you lived on a farm. simply because assault rifles are shitty in indoor, close quarters situations. no one i met who owned full automatic weapons did so because they fel they were bad ass or cool, simply because they wanted one. its like saying people who own Ferrari must have small dicks and are compensating with a nice car. i own one fully automatic gun and its a thompson, or tommy gun in lay terms. i have it for historical and collection purposes, i never fire it simply because its worth about 15000$ and is well old as shit.

Nobody 'just wants to own' something without a reason. Face it: people own AR15s and MP5s and so forth because they're badass and cool and we've all seen them be badass and cool in movies and on TV and such, even though a simple 9mm semi automatic has plenty of killing power on its own. The Virginia Tech killer used handguns and he murdered scores of people with no problem.

I never said they had small dicks. You said that. I said their reasons for owning them are narcissistic and I'd rather not trade my safety for their jollies.

the AR 15 is hardly in movies, you think of the M16 and the M4. yeah the mp5 shows up in movies, but it usually looks like a toy and is wielded by the bad guys. the most popular guns are the ak47 and any twelve gauge shotgun, both have heavy mythical properties due to Hollywood around them. i have not met someone who owned an MP5 or AR15 because it was cool, but thats probably your bias speaking. yeah your argument works great for banning handguns, not assault rifles considering that ho does still maintain the most kills in a school shooting shooting. considering columbine, which had 2 shooters only killed 21 people and they were armed with SMG's an assault rifle and 2 shot guns. so they had twice the guns as cho and arguably more powerful ones. so it seems pistols should be banned and not assault rifles.

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:
no one uses assault rifles to defend there home unless its a far range, like say if you lived on a farm. simply because assault rifles are shitty in indoor, close quarters situations. no one i met who owned full automatic weapons did so because they fel they were bad ass or cool, simply because they wanted one. its like saying people who own Ferrari must have small dicks and are compensating with a nice car. i own one fully automatic gun and its a thompson, or tommy gun in lay terms. i have it for historical and collection purposes, i never fire it simply because its worth about 15000$ and is well old as shit.

Nobody 'just wants to own' something without a reason. Face it: people own AR15s and MP5s and so forth because they're badass and cool and we've all seen them be badass and cool in movies and on TV and such, even though a simple 9mm semi automatic has plenty of killing power on its own. The Virginia Tech killer used handguns and he murdered scores of people with no problem.

I never said they had small dicks. You said that. I said their reasons for owning them are narcissistic and I'd rather not trade my safety for their jollies.

the AR 15 is hardly in movies, you think of the M16 and the M4. yeah the mp5 shows up in movies, but it usually looks like a toy and is wielded by the bad guys. the most popular guns are the ak47 and any twelve gauge shotgun, both have heavy mythical properties due to Hollywood around them. i have not met someone who owned an MP5 or AR15 because it was cool, but thats probably your bias speaking. yeah your argument works great for banning handguns, not assault rifles considering that ho does still maintain the most kills in a school shooting shooting. considering columbine, which had 2 shooters only killed 21 people and they were armed with SMG's an assault rifle and 2 shot guns. so they had twice the guns as cho and arguably more powerful ones. so it seems pistols should be banned and not assault rifles.

I don't think you see the point you just made.

Using handguns, a maniac murdered countless people. Assault rifles have a greater potential than even that. So... I'm sorry, what point are you making? That all guns should be banned?

I mean... okay, if that's what you want. I think handguns should be legal but if you wanna ban everything, go for it. I won't miss them.

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

Nobody 'just wants to own' something without a reason. Face it: people own AR15s and MP5s and so forth because they're badass and cool and we've all seen them be badass and cool in movies and on TV and such, even though a simple 9mm semi automatic has plenty of killing power on its own. The Virginia Tech killer used handguns and he murdered scores of people with no problem.

I never said they had small dicks. You said that. I said their reasons for owning them are narcissistic and I'd rather not trade my safety for their jollies.

the AR 15 is hardly in movies, you think of the M16 and the M4. yeah the mp5 shows up in movies, but it usually looks like a toy and is wielded by the bad guys. the most popular guns are the ak47 and any twelve gauge shotgun, both have heavy mythical properties due to Hollywood around them. i have not met someone who owned an MP5 or AR15 because it was cool, but thats probably your bias speaking. yeah your argument works great for banning handguns, not assault rifles considering that ho does still maintain the most kills in a school shooting shooting. considering columbine, which had 2 shooters only killed 21 people and they were armed with SMG's an assault rifle and 2 shot guns. so they had twice the guns as cho and arguably more powerful ones. so it seems pistols should be banned and not assault rifles.

I don't think you see the point you just made.

Using handguns, a maniac murdered countless people. Assault rifles have a greater potential than even that. So... I'm sorry, what point are you making? That all guns should be banned?

I mean... okay, if that's what you want. I think handguns should be legal but if you wanna ban everything, go for it. I won't miss them.

no you missed my point, the columbine massacre (using your definition of assualt rifle) had 2 assault rifles and 2 shooters and only had 21 deaths, while cho a single man using 2 pistols had over 30. so it seems we should ban handguns and not assault rifles using your style of argument. because according to what i posted above 1 man with an assault rifle killed 10.5 people while one man with 2 pistols killed 30.

keiskay:

Vegosiux:

keiskay:
if a burglar is breaking in to my house only to steal my shit, why does he need a gun or knife to do so? that argument seems silly.

One, to defend themselves if they get caught in the act. Two, intimidation for such a case.

Funny how it works in some heads. "I" only use guns for self-defense. "Others" might be carrying because they have murder on their minds.

breaking into a persons with a gun and then trying to claim self defense if they kill the owner would never work its silly.

It wouldn't stand up in the court, but a burglar is a human being too. To a burglar, punching up, stabbing or shooting the other guy is also preferable to getting punched up, stabbed or shot by the other guy. That kind of "self defense", even if they're an aggressor.

Just because they're violating the law doesn't mean they aren't going to have a fall-back contingency.

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:
the AR 15 is hardly in movies, you think of the M16 and the M4. yeah the mp5 shows up in movies, but it usually looks like a toy and is wielded by the bad guys. the most popular guns are the ak47 and any twelve gauge shotgun, both have heavy mythical properties due to Hollywood around them. i have not met someone who owned an MP5 or AR15 because it was cool, but thats probably your bias speaking. yeah your argument works great for banning handguns, not assault rifles considering that ho does still maintain the most kills in a school shooting shooting. considering columbine, which had 2 shooters only killed 21 people and they were armed with SMG's an assault rifle and 2 shot guns. so they had twice the guns as cho and arguably more powerful ones. so it seems pistols should be banned and not assault rifles.

I don't think you see the point you just made.

Using handguns, a maniac murdered countless people. Assault rifles have a greater potential than even that. So... I'm sorry, what point are you making? That all guns should be banned?

I mean... okay, if that's what you want. I think handguns should be legal but if you wanna ban everything, go for it. I won't miss them.

no you missed my point, the columbine massacre (using your definition of assualt rifle) had 2 assault rifles and 2 shooters and only had 21 deaths, while cho a single man using 2 pistols had over 30. so it seems we should ban handguns and not assault rifles using your style of argument. because according to what i posted above 1 man with an assault rifle killed 10.5 people while one man with 2 pistols killed 30.

Except your point doesn't make any sense. Are you arguing that assault rifles don't represent a greater threat than handguns? I know of a few militaries that might disagree with you.

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

I don't think you see the point you just made.

Using handguns, a maniac murdered countless people. Assault rifles have a greater potential than even that. So... I'm sorry, what point are you making? That all guns should be banned?

I mean... okay, if that's what you want. I think handguns should be legal but if you wanna ban everything, go for it. I won't miss them.

no you missed my point, the columbine massacre (using your definition of assualt rifle) had 2 assault rifles and 2 shooters and only had 21 deaths, while cho a single man using 2 pistols had over 30. so it seems we should ban handguns and not assault rifles using your style of argument. because according to what i posted above 1 man with an assault rifle killed 10.5 people while one man with 2 pistols killed 30.

Except your point doesn't make any sense. Are you arguing that assault rifles don't represent a greater threat than handguns? I know of a few militaries that might disagree with you.

apples and oranges, a well trained professional soldier=/ a civilian enthusiast, or untrained spree shooter.

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:
no you missed my point, the columbine massacre (using your definition of assualt rifle) had 2 assault rifles and 2 shooters and only had 21 deaths, while cho a single man using 2 pistols had over 30. so it seems we should ban handguns and not assault rifles using your style of argument. because according to what i posted above 1 man with an assault rifle killed 10.5 people while one man with 2 pistols killed 30.

Except your point doesn't make any sense. Are you arguing that assault rifles don't represent a greater threat than handguns? I know of a few militaries that might disagree with you.

apples and oranges, a well trained professional soldier=/ a civilian enthusiast, or untrained spree shooter.

I don't understand what you mean. Arguably the untrained spree shooter could do even more damage than a soldier because the soldier is trained to lessen unnecessary casualties. Anyone on earth can learn to aim.

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

Except your point doesn't make any sense. Are you arguing that assault rifles don't represent a greater threat than handguns? I know of a few militaries that might disagree with you.

apples and oranges, a well trained professional soldier=/ a civilian enthusiast, or untrained spree shooter.

I don't understand what you mean. Arguably the untrained spree shooter could do even more damage than a soldier because the soldier is trained to lessen unnecessary casualties. Anyone on earth can learn to aim.

im not so sure about that, a soldier is trained to shoot living moving target, aiming at a target that can move is way different then blasting targets at a range, and no soldiers are trained to kill the enemy, while they do try to limit civilian casualties they still happen. they do not limit enemy casualties however and are incredibly good at increasing the casualties of enemy combatants.

keiskay:

itsthesheppy:

keiskay:
apples and oranges, a well trained professional soldier=/ a civilian enthusiast, or untrained spree shooter.

I don't understand what you mean. Arguably the untrained spree shooter could do even more damage than a soldier because the soldier is trained to lessen unnecessary casualties. Anyone on earth can learn to aim.

im not so sure about that, a soldier is trained to shoot living moving target, aiming at a target that can move is way different then blasting targets at a range, and no soldiers are trained to kill the enemy, while they do try to limit civilian casualties they still happen. they do not limit enemy casualties however and are incredibly good at increasing the casualties of enemy combatants.

You have at this point completely lost me. We've gone so far down the road of semantics I cannot even glean what it is you're trying to say.

I fall back, instead, on my original point. Assault rifles are vanity possessions and I don't see the reason why I should have my safety put in jeopardy so someone else can own something 'cool'. I won't argue against the owning of handguns for personal and home defense but there is no purpose to an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.

OP is wrong about something:

Gay marriage is legal here. Prop 8 got the boot a while ago.

I recommend replacing the picture with this one:

image

Vegosiux:

generals3:

senordesol:

Coolio I guess. Still, I simply don't understand the deep concern for the lives of criminals who bring weapons into the homes of citizens. Simply baffles me to no end.

Well i believe in second chances. There are for instance many people who do stupid things when younger who manage to get on the right path later on in their lives. They may be worthless scum at one point but they may become good citizens later on. That is also why we don't give the capital punishment to robbers anywhere in the civilized world.

The fact is that most criminals who use weapons to steal don't have the intention to kill and unfortunately challenging them with guns change a situation where property is at stake to situations where lives are at stake.

I think the main thing here is simply the rationalization "criminal = not human, so I don't have to feel morally conflicted about killing one". In this case, the word "criminal" is a generic blanket term some people would use in order to avoid their own personal responsibility for someone ending up dead.

It would be akin to me comparing said some people to, oh, I don't know, rabid dogs. Luckily such comparisons are beneath me.

Wrong. I fully acknowledge that he's human. It simply makes no difference. I am human as well and so's my wife. So if one human is threatening me, a fellow human, then what concern should I have with the safety of the first man?

senordesol:

Wrong. I fully acknowledge that he's human. It simply makes no difference. I am human as well and so's my wife. So if one human is threatening me, a fellow human, then what concern should I have with the safety of the first man?

*points at the posts about why people break into houses*

You know, that bit is relevant too. Being on the wrong side of the law doesn't make people stupid.

Vegosiux:

senordesol:

Wrong. I fully acknowledge that he's human. It simply makes no difference. I am human as well and so's my wife. So if one human is threatening me, a fellow human, then what concern should I have with the safety of the first man?

*points at the posts about why people break into houses*

You know, that bit is relevant too. Being on the wrong side of the law doesn't make people stupid.

When did I say anything about they being stupid?

If someone breaks into my house I have no guarantees about why they're there or what they want and if they happen to be armed (and I'm not) I will be completely at their mercy. If their plan is to just rob me, yay everyone gets to live - but if they're hopped up on whatever substance the local dealer sold them in some back alley and see me as some two headed horror; that might cause me some problems. And it only gets worse from there.

Regardless, if they've broken into my home with a weapon then the only reasonable conclusion is that they are not concerned for my safety and thus I need not have any concern for theirs.

senordesol:

Regardless, if they've broken into my home with a weapon then the only reasonable conclusion is that they are not concerned for my safety and thus I need not have any concern for theirs.

You do see the difference between "If necessary" and "Just to be sure" though, don't you?

Vegosiux:

senordesol:

Regardless, if they've broken into my home with a weapon then the only reasonable conclusion is that they are not concerned for my safety and thus I need not have any concern for theirs.

You do see the difference between "If necessary" and "Just to be sure" though, don't you?

Have I not implied that already?

Let me be clear: You do not fire unless your intention is to kill and you do not kill unless you're damn sure your life is in danger.

People have killed each other since... ever.

Rock-throwing technology increased the range and efficiency with which we could do so.

Bows and crossbows increased that range and efficiency even more.

Guns are totally different because they have minds of their own and can load, aim, and fire themselves.

Helmholtz Watson:
Because they are both deadly weapons.

You're making the mistake of looking only at the result, whilst ignoring the process and other factors.

The fact is that the process of killing someone with a knife is significantly more difficult and labour intensive than killing someone with a gun.

There is an obvious case to be made for increasing control of guns.

There is not an obvious case to be made for increasing control of knives, because the level of control we currently have (at least over here) is as good as we can get without entering the realms of massive impracticality, because knives have other necessary uses.

Elect G-Max:
People have killed each other since... ever.

Rock-throwing technology increased the range and efficiency with which we could do so.

Bows and crossbows increased that range and efficiency even more.

Guns are totally different because they have minds of their own and can load, aim, and fire themselves.

Guns are totally different because.

1) They are easy to use.
2) Their effectiveness is nearly total. Only random factors or misuse make them non- lethal.
3) They are cheap and (currently, in the USA) commonly available.

I don't think the same four things can be said of any other dedicated weapon in history.

It's not because we think that they 'have minds of their own and can load, aim, and fire themselves.' Don't be so arrogant as to assume everyone who disagrees with you is stupid because they disagree with you.

It's probably already been said, but this poll needs an option for 'People will always kill, but guns don't help' or something of the kind.

Danny Ocean:

Helmholtz Watson:
Because they are both deadly weapons.

You're making the mistake of looking only at the result, whilst ignoring the process and other factors.

The fact is that the process of killing someone with a knife is significantly more difficult and labour intensive than killing someone with a gun.

There is an obvious case to be made for increasing control of guns.

There is not an obvious case to be made for increasing control of knives, because the level of control we currently have (at least over here) is as good as we can get without entering the realms of massive impracticality, because knives have other necessary uses.

First off, stabbing a major artery doesn't need military training.

Second off, my entire conversation has been with a American POV in mind, so please look at my previous post where I mentioned that a person(like my uncle) could buy a crocodile hunting knife when he was visiting a town he had never been to before in the South. There is also the examples I gave about the rip off Chucky Cheese place having swords as a reward for getting about 50,000 tickets or a women at a garage sale selling swords. Its good to know that the UK has a tight control on knives, but the same can't be said for the entire US.

Danny Ocean:

Helmholtz Watson:
Because they are both deadly weapons.

You're making the mistake of looking only at the result, whilst ignoring the process and other factors.

The fact is that the process of killing someone with a knife is significantly more difficult and labour intensive than killing someone with a gun.

There is an obvious case to be made for increasing control of guns.

There is not an obvious case to be made for increasing control of knives, because the level of control we currently have (at least over here) is as good as we can get without entering the realms of massive impracticality, because knives have other necessary uses.

I tried explaining this earlier; it went on for three pages of his nonsensical bullshit. Don't bother.

I still think it's not a good idea to sell really dangerous spoons...

itsthesheppy:
If you own automatic weapons, its because they make you feel badass and cool to own them, which to me is a poor excuse, considering the danger they pose.

Fun Fact: You need both an FFL (Federal Firearm License) and a Class 3 (Automatic Weapons Permit) to own anything that fires more two or more bullets per trigger pull. And since the 1986 ban on Automatic Weapons made after May 1986, the prices of them are HUGE.

The cheapest FA firearm for sale is about $12,000, the most expensive is $300k plus.

So basically, the only people who are allowed to own FA guns are really wealthy individuals that have proven to both the ATF and local authorities that they know how to handle a firearm and are no danger to themselves or others. Basically, they're people you'd want to have guns outside of the US Gov't.

Plus they're fun as fuck.

thaluikhain:
I still think it's not a good idea to sell really dangerous spoons...

YOU DON'T NEED A DANGEROUS ASSAULT SPOON TO EAT YOUR WHEATIES, ANYONE WHO OWNS A HIGH CEREAL CAPACITY BABBY KILLING ARMOR PEIRCING ASSAULT SPOON IS PROBABLY A CRIMINAL AND SHOULD BE LOCKED UP.

STOP KONY, VOTE DEMOCRAT AND BUY A PRIUS.[1]

[1] Caps-lock turned on for humor, please don't get angry at me.

Smagmuck_:

itsthesheppy:
If you own automatic weapons, its because they make you feel badass and cool to own them, which to me is a poor excuse, considering the danger they pose.

Fun Fact: You need both an FFL (Federal Firearm License) and a Class 3 (Automatic Weapons Permit) to own anything that fires more two or more bullets per trigger pull. And since the 1986 ban on Automatic Weapons made after May 1986, the prices of them are HUGE.

As an aside, because of this, double barrelled pistols that fire both barrels at once count as machine guns.

OTOH, you can get a sliding stock that bounces the trigger off your finger a few hundred times a minute, though. And someone tried to make a weapon that didn't have a trigger, you pulled the bolt back and released it and it fired until the magazine was empty, but the ATF changed the laws slightly right away to put a stop to that one.

thaluikhain:
I still think it's not a good idea to sell really dangerous spoons...

You know, I'm pretty sure you could kill someone with a grapefruit spoon without too much effort. Some of them, especially the cheap ones, are rather sharp and pointy. Good for stabbing.

wintercoat:

thaluikhain:
I still think it's not a good idea to sell really dangerous spoons...

You know, I'm pretty sure you could kill someone with a grapefruit spoon without too much effort. Some of them, especially the cheap ones, are rather sharp and pointy. Good for stabbing.

Oh, apparently muzzle loading weapons aren't considered firearms in the US.

So, you could legally get yourself a sturdy pipe, a bag of blackpowder, and a cutlery set, and...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked