Gun Control

zegh8578 said:
first you should edit rather than double-post, the latter is typically frowned upon

secondly, you probably should take a hit and back track your notion that rocks and gunfire are *equally* harmful. With a handgun one can place a bullet in someones heart, there, leaking for the next two and half minutes, and you're gone. With a rock, that's a lot more effort, a lot of bashing, some people can resist quite a bit of abuse. You can beat someone's skull soft, and they will still linger.

You can also replace the rock with a rolled up newspaper, and make it last longer. Some weapons *are more dangerous* in the sense that danger is a threat to someone's immediate well-being. This isn't about "pro or against guns" - I like guns, and part of what I like about them is their absolute efficiency, compared to for example rolled up newspapers.
Click to expand...
Apologies. I don’t mean that they are equally effective at harming, I’m referring to the fact that it doesn’t matter what weapon you choose, the fact is you are against aggression, NOT firearms. Also, there are people who control whether or not you can join the military, I cannot join.
 
Hello Doggy said:
Apologies. I don’t mean that they are equally effective at harming, I’m referring to the fact that it doesn’t matter what weapon you choose, the fact is you are against aggression, NOT firearms. Also, there are people who control whether or not you can join the military, I cannot join.
Click to expand...

(As a non-American I've kind of taken to distancing myself a bit from this particular debate, plus I also see it as a bit futile a debate, guns in the US are there to stay, unless gigantic pyres of guns are gathered, UN-in-Africa style (and even those are mostly for show, but I digress))

That said, the argument is usually refering to the efficiency of guns - which is undisputable. When someone argues "remove guns, and there will be more stabbings", my thought is always - okay, fine... stabbings are marginally preferable. I'd rather be stabbed in the head, than shot in the head (to be absolutely clear, I'd most rather not be stabbed OR shot in the head)

The anti-gun arguments focus on the guns because of the very efficient delivery of bodily harm, across a distance, and at the speed of sound(!)
Try stabbing someone fast enough to cause a sonic boom. People who are struck by bullets typically had absolutely no physical oportunity to move aside, even if they knew it was coming. With a knife there's a lot more scuffling around, you might lose the fight - many do, many succumb to stabbing - but it's much more survivable then having someone point a rifle at you, at 3 metres distance, and then simply decide to pull the trigger, there and then.

I get your more philosophical argument though, I do, and like I said, I don't *really* have a dog in the American-guns-race.
 
You’re a good dude, it seems. As I am a nihilist, the only philosophical debate that matters is whether or not to live. In all logical conclusions life is utterly pointless, therefore all debates are overshadowed by that one question: Does my life matter?
 
Last edited:
zegh8578 said:
(As a non-American I've kind of taken to distancing myself a bit from this particular debate, plus I also see it as a bit futile a debate, guns in the US are there to stay, unless gigantic pyres of guns are gathered, UN-in-Africa style (and even those are mostly for show, but I digress))

That said, the argument is usually refering to the efficiency of guns - which is undisputable. When someone argues "remove guns, and there will be more stabbings", my thought is always - okay, fine... stabbings are marginally preferable. I'd rather be stabbed in the head, than shot in the head (to be absolutely clear, I'd most rather not be stabbed OR shot in the head)

The anti-gun arguments focus on the guns because of the very efficient delivery of bodily harm, across a distance, and at the speed of sound(!)
Try stabbing someone fast enough to cause a sonic boom. People who are struck by bullets typically had absolutely no physical oportunity to move aside, even if they knew it was coming. With a knife there's a lot more scuffling around, you might lose the fight - many do, many succumb to stabbing - but it's much more survivable then having someone point a rifle at you, at 3 metres distance, and then simply decide to pull the trigger, there and then.

I get your more philosophical argument though, I do, and like I said, I don't *really* have a dog in the American-guns-race.
Click to expand...

Hahaha the fallacy of your argument is that at 3 meters I would completely rather have a person with a gun pointed at me than a knife. I can easily close that 3 meters before the trigger can be pulled, and then I am in knife fighting distance. In 3 meters I do not have the reaction time before they stab me. There have been police studies on distance and timing and at 3 meters you are way better off facing a gun than a knife.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Hahaha the fallacy of your argument is that at 3 meters I would completely rather have a person with a gun pointed at me than a knife. I can easily close that 3 meters before the trigger can be pulled, and then I am in knife fighting distance. In 3 meters I do not have the reaction time before they stab me. There have been police studies on distance and timing and at 3 meters you are way better off facing a gun than a knife.
Click to expand...

Easily? Then how come so many people die at those distances, when pointed at with guns? Why DO all these people die, that's the question. They must all be just itching to piss everybody off, like - diving into death as some sort of anti-gun statement?
Just today I watched footage of a dude storming two cops with guns trained on him, they dropped him at roughly 2 metre mark. He did not sonic-boom past their bullets, he dropped like sack of shit.

Also, that's one weird argument to latch on with "hahaha" and "fallacy"

I add 50 centimetres to my argument. There. 3,5 metres.
 
zegh8578 said:
Easily? Then how come so many people die at those distances, when pointed at with guns? Why DO all these people die, that's the question. They must all be just itching to piss everybody off, like - diving into death as some sort of anti-gun statement?

Also, that's one weird argument to latch on with "hahaha" and "fallacy"

I add 50 centimetres to my argument. There. 3,5 metres.
Click to expand...

Because they freeze and do nothing may explain why they die. When you consider that a person can cover 3 or even 3.5 meters (because 0.5 meters are for you ignorant Americans and your freedom units a foot and a half) in 1 second, aim has to be adjusted and a triggered pulled, a person can easily get within the distance. This is why police are telling people to stop and not come closer from something like 8 meters or 24 feet as they have time to react and pull the trigger in that distance. Physics and science. Now that being said something like 70% of people will just freeze or run in that situation, they are not mental adjusted to be able to attack and defend themselves. This is the same reason why a person with a gun shoots 50 people and only had to deal with 1 or 2 even try to defend themselves. Far less would die if the group just rushes the shooter but that will never happen as people are just not wired that way.

Here is some of what I am talking about

 
The fact that most people are succeptible to harm *is part* of what makes a weapon dangerous. A knife loses ALL efficiency if we only count krav-maga experts, for example. Swing at them, and they snap your wrist and cave your throat in.
(interestingly, at 3,5 metres, the krav-maga expert can only try to rush you before you shoot them twice in the chest)

Woulda-shoulda-coulda isn't gonna change the fact that most people are not fighters, they're not very agile or very fast or very strong OR very brave, for that matter. In wars, most people directly affected become refugees - this include healthy men who in theory could have fought, they just don't got the "stuff" for it, they aren't in the armed forces. In hostile and dangerous situations, most people will react from their fear.

Guns are undeniably better than knives. Way, way, wayyyyy better. That's why all law enforcement, all security contractors and all armed forces prefer them. Even the most pacifist gun-restricted countries in the world - like Norway - will do the gun-dance when shit hits the fan, because knives simply won't do. In my military service, I shot guns, because that's what we had. We also had a bayonet and a knife, and not once did we recieve lessons on how to wield these. Rifle drills on the other hand, we did those quite often, and I wasn't even in the proper infantry, but logistics, basically we brought stuff from A to B in trucks :V
 
zegh8578 said:
The fact that most people are succeptible to harm *is part* of what makes a weapon dangerous. A knife loses ALL efficiency if we only count krav-maga experts, for example. Swing at them, and they snap your wrist and cave your throat in.
(interestingly, at 3,5 metres, the krav-maga expert can only try to rush you before you shoot them twice in the chest)

Woulda-shoulda-coulda isn't gonna change the fact that most people are not fighters, they're not very agile or very fast or very strong OR very brave, for that matter. In wars, most people directly affected become refugees - this include healthy men who in theory could have fought, they just don't got the "stuff" for it, they aren't in the armed forces. In hostile and dangerous situations, most people will react from their fear.

Guns are undeniably better than knives. Way, way, wayyyyy better. That's why all law enforcement, all security contractors and all armed forces prefer them. Even the most pacifist gun-restricted countries in the world - like Norway - will do the gun-dance when shit hits the fan, because knives simply won't do. In my military service, I shot guns, because that's what we had. We also had a bayonet and a knife, and not once did we recieve lessons on how to wield these. Rifle drills on the other hand, we did those quite often, and I wasn't even in the proper infantry, but logistics, basically we brought stuff from A to B in trucks :V
Click to expand...

I am not arguing the effectiveness of guns, nor am I bringing any martial arts training into this. All I am arguing here is the right tool for the right job (well right tool for the wrong job...) but at the short distance you described a knife is more effective. Yes militaries around the world use guns and not knives not, but the also expect to be fighting in the area of 50 - 400 yards for rifle infantry, not 3 meters. In fact the best weapons for trench fighting, tunnel fighting, and the close combat are things like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_knife
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenching_tool
 
If guns are basically useless in close-range fights that kinda undermines the "I need guns for self-defense" line of thinking, no?
 
I think you should be more worried about misrepresenting violence. Movies, television, the internet, these all prey on peoples natural ability to “run with it” in order to trick them into believing something that may not be true. Eventually, you become numb to it, which allows them to directly influence your way of thinking. “I see guns everywhere, so guns must be the problem,” even though you condone government having firearms.
 
Hello Doggy said:
I think you should be more worried about misrepresenting violence. Movies, television, the internet, these all prey on peoples natural ability to “run with it” in order to trick them into believing something that may not be true. Eventually, you become numb to it, which allows them to directly influence your way of thinking. “I see guns everywhere, so guns must be the problem,” even though you condone government having firearms.
Click to expand...
So this is basically the reverse "violent media causes violent behaviour" argument? Violent media brainwashes people into believing guns are bad? That's just... weird.
 
Buxbaum666 said:
If guns are basically useless in close-range fights that kinda undermines the "I need guns for self-defense" line of thinking, no?
Click to expand...

Well that just depends a knife is pretty useless at anything longer than 2 car lengths against a gun. The right tool for the right job mean for self-defense carrying a good trench knife, a handgun for those 25 to 50 yard instances, a semi-auto MSR would work good for the whole 50-600 yards, and if for some reason you need something longer a good bolt-gun with excellent optics. See 4 things to cover anything besides aliens with their blasted ray shields.

Buxbaum666 said:
So this is basically the reverse "violent media causes violent behaviour" argument? Violent media brainwashes people into believing guns are bad? That's just... weird.
Click to expand...

It may be weird, but not all together false. People are far more afraid nowadays of things like violent crime, child abductions and such now then they were 20-30 years ago, but nowadays you have far less of a chance to have those same things happen to you. But 20-30 years ago the internet was not there force feeding you information constantly and you just never heard about all those same crimes back then so you lived in ignorant bliss. It not that the media is purposely brain washing people, people are brain washing themselves and the media is just there to force feed them the data.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Well that just depends a knife is pretty useless at anything longer than 2 car lengths against a gun. The right tool for the right job mean for self-defense carrying a good trench knife, a handgun for those 25 to 50 yard instances, a semi-auto MSR would work good for the whole 50-600 yards, and if for some reason you need something longer a good bolt-gun with excellent optics. See 4 things to cover anything besides aliens with their blasted ray shields.



It may be weird, but not all together false. People are far more afraid nowadays of things like violent crime, child abductions and such now then they were 20-30 years ago, but nowadays you have far less of a chance to have those same things happen to you. But 20-30 years ago the internet was not there force feeding you information constantly and you just never heard about all those same crimes back then so you lived in ignorant bliss. It not that the media is purposely brain washing people, people are brain washing themselves and the media is just there to force feed them the data.
Click to expand...
You said what I think.
 
A person who is legally anti-gun is a coward. Morally and intellectually.


Anti-gun is synonymous with being anti-semetic, anti-free speech, and anti-democratic.
 
The Dopamine Cleric said:
A person who is legally anti-gun is a coward. Morally and intellectually.


Anti-gun is synonymous with being anti-semetic, anti-free speech, and anti-democratic.
Click to expand...
Wat8.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top