Ah-Teen said:
What about those video games? I heard teenagers who play them kill people!
Gun control thread yay
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
What about those video games? I heard teenagers who play them kill people!
Gun's are a a tool as suicide says, Yes a possible function for a gun is to kill another human but there are many reasons to own a gun than that, one such as putting food on the table.
SuAside is a perfectly sain individual an just because he owns a gun is no reason to classify him as dangerous.
SuAside is a perfectly sain individual an just because he owns a gun is no reason to classify him as dangerous.
Muff said:
The only function of guns is to kill. People or animals. There is no other function.
Madbringer said:
WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT! I"LL FUCKING KILL THEM!
Seriously now, alcohol impairs judgment. You don't see soldiers who are taught to kill as a reflex, kill people at the slightest provocation. Alcohol impairs the ability to judge right from wrong.
Example:
excuse me mr Kharn, but i was talking about the threat towards society most of all.Brother None said:
cars are tools made to move people around or to be used in sport. people can be killed in carcrashes, oh noez.
knives are tools made to cut things. people can be cut, oh noez.
pistols are tools used to kill things or to use in competition sport. guns can kill people, oh noez.
all of the above are also part of people's recreation and hobbies.
pistols are of the above the least likely to inflict death upon another human being in our modern society. which should be regulated or banned first?
punish the people doing the abuse, not the tool.
maybe we should've banned airplanes after 9/11? or box cutters for that matter (knives, lulz)...
SuAside said:
Dude, please...
You can do a competition sport with a paintball gun or firing rubber pellets. Guns with bullets are made to kill, period. Competition sport is marginal at best, their primary purpose is to kill. Neither knives, cars nor planes have the primary purpose to kill. Is that really hard to get your head around?
Your statistical comparison is ridiculous because all these tools serve a purpose and then have a consequence that's unrelated to their primary purpose.
Guns are banned because they don't serve any purpose to society, unlike knives, cars or planes. When cars or planes victimize, it's by accident, when knives do it usually isn't, but hey, you don't actually have the right to carry a knife with you in the Netherlands, so they are indeed banned (for carrying).
You are comparing a tool which has the primary and de facto sole purpose to kill with tools that fulfil not just useful but actually vital purposes for society. That's not just stupid, that really is retarded. Please don't disappoint me by continuing to insist on this typical ridiculous neo-con "argument", SuA.
yeah, lets ban olympic games like marksmanship and javelin throwing. yay.
neo-con arguments, that's a new one. i'm a liberal, smartass.
either way, there's no need for a gunban at all. there's no grounds for it. (and you've given no compelling arguments either, mr Kharn)
neo-con arguments, that's a new one. i'm a liberal, smartass.
either way, there's no need for a gunban at all. there's no grounds for it. (and you've given no compelling arguments either, mr Kharn)
SuAside said:
Am I talking quantum physics here? What is it you're not grasping here, I can explain it nice and slow for you again.
Should I go back and highlight all the times I said "primary purpose" and "function to society"?
SuAside said:
I wouldn't care if you were a commie, your argument is a household standard for the gun-toting neocons. It's one of those classics like "global warming, but it's really cold today!" The kind of arguments that show a rather limited grasp of reality, but work really well for, y'know, "them".
SuAside said:
Did you read my first post? I'm not getting involved in another asstarded gun control argument and am not arguing pro or contra gun control. I was just specifically replying to your point, because it was like a retarded puppy with a broken leg and I needed to put it down. With a gun.
[PCE]el_Prez
Vault Fossil
Brother None said:
Thats a pretty damn good tool to have IMO.
[PCE said:
You're a tool IMO
OH, BURN!
Oh, so this is where my post went. For a second I thought I was going crazy or was the victim of some freak computer error.
Anyway, while I still ride the fence on the issue, I'd have to agree that with BN that your points are pretty inane, SuAside.
Saying that guns should be legal because they can be used for fun... I'm not sure how anyone feels that's a reasonable argument. It'd probably be fun to launch a few nuclear missiles and watch them blow up, too.
Yeah, obviously guns aren't as useful in melee combat as a melee weapon. That's not the point I was making. Generally (not always, but generally) a person with a gun is not foolish enough to enter melee range before discharging their weapon. At anything other than melee range (which encompasses a whole lot of ranges), gun > melee weapon. And even in a close-quarters mugging, I wouldn't wager money on your average joe with a knife vs. your average mugger with a gun.
As for the whole cars and knives thing... yeah. Cars, knives, planes all serve functions that have become essential to society. Guns have zero purpose outside of killing other people or hunting. Hunting is no longer a necessary activity for the majority of people, it's simply sport. If a lot of people died by soccer balls, I'd probably say soccer should be banned, since soccer is just a sport (well, in Europe it could be argued it's more an integral part of society).
Like BN said, paintballing and rubber bullets are fine, if you like to shoot stuff for recreation.
Anyway, while I still ride the fence on the issue, I'd have to agree that with BN that your points are pretty inane, SuAside.
Saying that guns should be legal because they can be used for fun... I'm not sure how anyone feels that's a reasonable argument. It'd probably be fun to launch a few nuclear missiles and watch them blow up, too.
Yeah, obviously guns aren't as useful in melee combat as a melee weapon. That's not the point I was making. Generally (not always, but generally) a person with a gun is not foolish enough to enter melee range before discharging their weapon. At anything other than melee range (which encompasses a whole lot of ranges), gun > melee weapon. And even in a close-quarters mugging, I wouldn't wager money on your average joe with a knife vs. your average mugger with a gun.
As for the whole cars and knives thing... yeah. Cars, knives, planes all serve functions that have become essential to society. Guns have zero purpose outside of killing other people or hunting. Hunting is no longer a necessary activity for the majority of people, it's simply sport. If a lot of people died by soccer balls, I'd probably say soccer should be banned, since soccer is just a sport (well, in Europe it could be argued it's more an integral part of society).
Like BN said, paintballing and rubber bullets are fine, if you like to shoot stuff for recreation.
Brother None said:
I'm fascinated in your belief that guns don't serve any purpose in society. It may simply be the differences in our nations and cultures, but I sincerely believe firearms an essential component of a free and fair society.
Firearms people are very liberal. We believe in our individual liberties and our duty to protect and assert them. A firearm is an equalizer. In my possession, it limits your ability to sway my actions by force, requiring you to appeal to my sense of reason. It is an assertion of my right to continue my existence in peaceable terms with those around me.
To use the old expression, my right to swing my fist about freely ends at your nose. Firearms serve quite well to preserve that line between both of our rights. They have saved both your citizens and mine many times over.
Furthermore, I have firearms because my government trusts my reasonable prudence and care as a sane person, respects my soveriegn rights, and abides in the concept of government by consent of the governed. Does yours trust you?
There are plenty of sporting aspects of firearms far beyond killing. Competitive sports, including IDPA and IPSC are quite large in both this country and all over Europe. To say the same ends could be accomplished with paintball guns is to make a fallacious argument like saying you could replace Ferraris with Priuses on the F1 circuit and still acheive the same results, with better gas mileage.
You make blanket generalizations based on a stereotype perpetrated in most part by mass media. You may not know any better, in which case I forgive you your ignorance. If you were to meet me or any of my friends and associates, the variety and scope of our personal and political beliefs might astound you. We are no more homogenous in belief then any other artificial classification of the human race, such as the community of Fallout fans. Come shoot with us, then make your decisions from a more informed perspective. We are a very welcoming crowd.
Wild_qwerty
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Madbringer said:
Guns dont kill people, people with mostaches do
Anyway, I've got a few guns at home, ranging from a .177 air rifle up to a 7.62mm hunting rifle plus a couple of old black powder muzzles loading flintlocks. I mainly use a .22 lever action for hunting small game. A little while ago I went to a gun show and seen a real nice .44 cal lever action, I think it ws a browning or something, I yes I got all excited over it. The workmanship was incrediable it was a piece of art, not like my .22 chinese knock off. This thing was a piece of beuty to look at. It was sleak, perfected balanced the machining was flawless. Am I a sicko for appreacaiting the skill and craftsman ship that went into making it? I happen to take gun control and safty very seriously. All my firearms are locked in a secure case the ammunition is stored in a seperate locked location, where possible the bolts are removed. I either shoot targets or wild rabbits, haris, goats, possums. Is it cruel to kill them? Well they are noxiuos pests here in New Zealand, and cause a lot of environmental damage. Do i enjoy killing animals? No I actaully do not like killing them, in fact I feel sorry for the animal I just shot. I try to kill them clean and quick. Do I enjoy hunting them? Yes, I enjoy the thrill of the hunt so to speak, I dont use a scope I prefer to be more sporting and reley on my one eyes and iron sites. Is it a waste? No, when ever possible I would keep the rabits for dog or cat tucker.
The issue is never weather or not an item is bad or evil but rather what people will do with it. I gun might enable someone to kill another, it was once coined as "the great equaliser" because all men have an equal ability to kill, no longer were there great warroirs for a tribe or nation. People will kill with sticks and fists. The evil is not a gun but rather a persons depraved mind.
In regards to gun control, you have to be licensed in NZ to get a gun. To get a license I had to have my wife interviewed to make sure I'm not violent, I also had to had a non-family member interviewed who has known me for at least two years, I had to pass a written safety test and have my 'lock-up' inspected. I also voluntered all of my firearms serial numebers into a national database. Even then I am only permited to have hunting style rifles. If I want a pistol I need to jump throgh more rings to get the extra indorsement, if I want a MSSA (military style semi autmomnatic) I need to go through yet further requirements. If I want a full auto, to bad we can get them here.
Making someone wait for for two weeks as a 'cooling down' period does not constitute gun control.
I like the machinery. I never really got excited about guns until I played counterstrike and watched the AK cycle. The cycling of the action, the repetitive motion of the bolt and knowing that there was so much that went on inside that to make it work. Thats when I fell in love with them. I started designing actions and the guns in my class.Madbringer said:
Yes it's only purpose is to harm. But I don't get excited about that. I really don't like it. But for me. Watching a gun cycle is near porn.
Wild_qwerty said:
Chances are two weeks isn't going to matter if they have taken more than half an hour to get a weapon. Even if they did JUST get the weapon, they would have a hard time using it before the police arrived.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
I'm going to be the only honest one here and say that i like guns cause the feeling of power of the ability to take life and spare it easily is a rush. And I like the technical science cause it's like.... OMG MORE POWER... LESS POWER! Bullet travels this many FPS? the gun fires what? It does what to da target? Holy shit.
I'm not any better than a blood crazed money from 2001 A Space Odyessy with the Femur Club.
I wish it didn't make me feel good... but ohh baby...
The pumping action of a machine-gun is like... sex.... of death....
The orgasm of it all thrusts you into oblivion... the end... death... the ultimate...................
The blood flowin gets my dogs barkin.....
*Rolls eyes back into head and passes out*
I'm not any better than a blood crazed money from 2001 A Space Odyessy with the Femur Club.
I wish it didn't make me feel good... but ohh baby...
The pumping action of a machine-gun is like... sex.... of death....
The orgasm of it all thrusts you into oblivion... the end... death... the ultimate...................
The blood flowin gets my dogs barkin.....
*Rolls eyes back into head and passes out*
I don't understand your stance here. You're saying you and your friends who own guns are reasonable people who don't go around shooting people and have varied political opinions. Okay. How does that affect whether or not gun control is reasonable? Would taking your guns away make you less of a person? Or are you straw-manning by saying that anyone has claimed that owning a gun makes someone a bad person, that all gun owners are right-wing extremist redneck hicks, or that all gun owners shoot people? None of those are the point, nor do I believe they have been presented as arguments.JohnnyEgo said:
The point is, guns serve the sole and exclusive purpose of killing. That's what they are designed for. Your likening of paintballing vs. shooting a real gun to a Prius vs. a Ferrari is probably somewhat accurate (if exaggerated). However, I don't think Ferraris are used quite as often in violent crimes. Plus, I don't think your average joe really needs to own a Ferrari, since a Prius can serve the same purpose more than adequately and you can't legally drive a Ferrari at the speeds its designed for on public roads anyway. Race tracks are an entirely different matter, of course.
I'm not sure why the topic of competition shooting is still even being used as a counter-gun-control argument. It's absurd, really.
As far as being an "equalizer," sure. If you're fighting against other people with guns. Which you generally aren't, and the chances are even lower if there's stringent gun control or a total ban. And who are you keeping from pushing you around with your guns? The government? Sure. A few handguns and semi-auto rifles are gonna do you a lot of good if the government decides to go after you.
And finally, I'm not sure a government should trust its citizens to own and use firearms responsibly. Hell, people can't even be trusted to use their cell phones responsibly, or get a ride home when they're obviously too intoxicated to drive safely, plus the countless other moronic things people do, and they're supposed to be trusted with guns?
Edit:I'd also like to point out, just for emphasis, that I am on the fence on the gun control issue, and that my arguments are not meant to offend anyone. Also, my seeming pro-gun-control stance is as much playing devil's advocate as anything, as well as countering what I perceive to be fallacious arguments. If you have a counter argument, please do present it, just please try not to take anything personally.
JohnnyEgo said:
Yes, it is. But not, as you seem to assume, a difference in the way we view firearms, rather it's a difference in the way society is structured. Dutch and general west-European society tends much more towards social control and trust in the government than the US, this is a simple base sociological reason which makes the ownership of guns irrelevant in western Europe and such a big deal in the US.
I'm not sure if, considering your society's structure, gun control is a good idea in the US, but I've not made a statement to say whether I did or not in this thread. I do know that as it is gun laws as they are work in Europe and they work in the US. If that'll change is an open question.
JohnnyEgo said:
I have not made any generalizing remark on the nature of gun owners at all and am very offended by your implication that I did.
Brother None said:
Fair enough. I would refer to statements such as
as a generalization regarding both firearms and the people who use them.Brother None said:
However, since you seem nice enough, I apologize for offending you.
Some of my very good friends in the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany that are quite active in the competitive firearms community, and would vehemently disagree with you on the level of trust in social control they have in their government. Much like everywhere else, get enough people under one label, and you will have at least someone for every possible point of view. There are plenty of people in my country that believe in tighter government control in firearms and in other aspects of private property ownership. I happen to have a more libertarian view based on my own experiences in life.
JohnnyEgo said:
I just had to quote and reply to this, it's so very, very lol. A gun in your possession means you can instantly kill another living human being, on but a whim. What limits you is your own moral compass and decision making processes, which tells you when or where you will need to apply the threat of using said firearm. I find depending on something as feeble as one's point of view when they have the means to end my life with not really more then a thought behind it, not really encouraging.
Actually, having a gun, and making people around you aware of that fact, is the exact opposite of "appealing to sense" of people - it fills them with fear of you and what you could do. Fear is on the back end of things that make people more rational...
Your point of view is a very egoistical one, to say the least.
Personally, i do not trust people who own a firearm, if they are not actively serving a duty which requires them to have one.
Also -
JohnnyEgo said:
A punch to the nose does not kill people, a bullet between the eyes does. Killing someone because he can give you a black eye and a nosebleed? Firearm do not save lives, dude. Firearms TAKE them.
First off, I have old people eyes, and the white print on the black background of the reply screen wreaks havoc on me. So if I misquote or misedit your points, it is completely unintentional, and can be fixed with an edit.
My stance is a simple rebuttal to the assertions made in this post. Assertions such as:
To his credit, Brother Mike implies in his last response that a lot of the difference between us is in the way our society is structured. I don’t agree with him, but I think it’s a reasonable statement. I’m not 100% sure what you are implying, though.
To answer your specific questions:
1. “Gun Control” is a broad, and highly political term in my country. In essence, those of us who are against gun control do not feel that the state has any duty or obligation to intervene in our right to own, use, and enjoy personal property so long as it is legal and does not represent an undue harm or risk to others. This precludes the earlier comment about “being cool to explode an atom bomb”, or similar though less extreme examples, as they represent an undue risk of public harm and are illegal to own. Many of us who are against “Gun Control” acknowledge the need for regulation. That is why we have mandatory background checks and incredibly strict licensing for the sale of firearms in our country. What we don’t believe is that the government should prevent you from having something just because it might somehow cause someone harm.
2. I suppose that on some level, yes, taking my guns away would make me “less of a person”. In the sense that I have devoted a great deal of time and money to the acquisition and use of them, and the sport provides me with a great deal of enjoyment. So if I took Fallout or the internet away from you because they might possibly harm you, would that make you “less of a person”? I suppose it depends on your perspective.
3. I may have misread your third question, because I am not quite sure of what it is asking. ”Or are you straw-manning by saying that anyone has claimed that owning a gun makes someone a bad person, that all gun owners are right-wing extremist redneck hicks, or that all gun owners shoot people? I don’t think this is really a question. Of course, I don’t think that owning a gun makes someone a bad person, a right-wing extremist redneck, or likely to shoot someone. But I gather the question you meant to ask was if I believe that everyone who supports gun control believes these things about their opponents. In which case, the answer is no, I don’t. It’s a wide, wide world. People believe a lot of things. I have plenty of friends who believe in strong gun control, yet do not feel that every gun owner is the embodiment of evil. I respect their opinions. I just disagree with them. I know plenty of people who felt their way before first hand experience, and a few who felt that way after. I have greater respect for those who disagree with me after first having spent some time on the range. I thought I made that clear in the quoted portion above, but if not, then I apologize.
However, you are absolutely correct in your assertion that the initial intent of the firearm was to use it for killing. The initial intent of the knife, when it was first chipped from obsidian clefts, was to kill. The knife made man more equal to the beast he hunted, and to protect himself against those beasts that hunted him. It also turned out to be pretty useful in a wide utilitarian manner. Plenty of things are designed with the intent to kill, but we find supplemental uses for them nonetheless. There is nothing inherently evil about the knife, nor the firearm.
You do get into the heart of our difference, though. You believe that the average joe doesn’t need a race car. Fine. However, if the average Joe wants a race car, who am I to prevent him from attaining his happiness, provided he conforms to law and limits the risks of undue harm. My country enshrines this concept in our founding documents. As to the other aspects of the racing analogy: Races are run on racetracks. Competition shooting sports are held at ranges.
Kyuu said:
My stance is a simple rebuttal to the assertions made in this post. Assertions such as:
andMadbringer said:
as well as Brother Mike’s assertion that “guns are tools” is a “neo-con argument”.Madbringer said:
To his credit, Brother Mike implies in his last response that a lot of the difference between us is in the way our society is structured. I don’t agree with him, but I think it’s a reasonable statement. I’m not 100% sure what you are implying, though.
To answer your specific questions:
1. “Gun Control” is a broad, and highly political term in my country. In essence, those of us who are against gun control do not feel that the state has any duty or obligation to intervene in our right to own, use, and enjoy personal property so long as it is legal and does not represent an undue harm or risk to others. This precludes the earlier comment about “being cool to explode an atom bomb”, or similar though less extreme examples, as they represent an undue risk of public harm and are illegal to own. Many of us who are against “Gun Control” acknowledge the need for regulation. That is why we have mandatory background checks and incredibly strict licensing for the sale of firearms in our country. What we don’t believe is that the government should prevent you from having something just because it might somehow cause someone harm.
2. I suppose that on some level, yes, taking my guns away would make me “less of a person”. In the sense that I have devoted a great deal of time and money to the acquisition and use of them, and the sport provides me with a great deal of enjoyment. So if I took Fallout or the internet away from you because they might possibly harm you, would that make you “less of a person”? I suppose it depends on your perspective.
3. I may have misread your third question, because I am not quite sure of what it is asking. ”Or are you straw-manning by saying that anyone has claimed that owning a gun makes someone a bad person, that all gun owners are right-wing extremist redneck hicks, or that all gun owners shoot people? I don’t think this is really a question. Of course, I don’t think that owning a gun makes someone a bad person, a right-wing extremist redneck, or likely to shoot someone. But I gather the question you meant to ask was if I believe that everyone who supports gun control believes these things about their opponents. In which case, the answer is no, I don’t. It’s a wide, wide world. People believe a lot of things. I have plenty of friends who believe in strong gun control, yet do not feel that every gun owner is the embodiment of evil. I respect their opinions. I just disagree with them. I know plenty of people who felt their way before first hand experience, and a few who felt that way after. I have greater respect for those who disagree with me after first having spent some time on the range. I thought I made that clear in the quoted portion above, but if not, then I apologize.
Guns serve many purposes and come in many forms. Their function is to launch a projectile at a high rate of speed in a controlled fashion. They are used in applications ranging from the initiation of fission reactions in nuclear power plants to the driving of bolts and nails into concrete in the form of the ramset.Kyuu said:
However, you are absolutely correct in your assertion that the initial intent of the firearm was to use it for killing. The initial intent of the knife, when it was first chipped from obsidian clefts, was to kill. The knife made man more equal to the beast he hunted, and to protect himself against those beasts that hunted him. It also turned out to be pretty useful in a wide utilitarian manner. Plenty of things are designed with the intent to kill, but we find supplemental uses for them nonetheless. There is nothing inherently evil about the knife, nor the firearm.
You do get into the heart of our difference, though. You believe that the average joe doesn’t need a race car. Fine. However, if the average Joe wants a race car, who am I to prevent him from attaining his happiness, provided he conforms to law and limits the risks of undue harm. My country enshrines this concept in our founding documents. As to the other aspects of the racing analogy: Races are run on racetracks. Competition shooting sports are held at ranges.
Kyuu said: