Guns, guns, guns

[.Pixote.]

Yes people kill people, and guns make it 100 times easier - a nuke makes it 1,000,000 times easier. Push one little button and a million people die, nice…or pull a trigger and some sap falls down in a pool of blood…that’s pretty easy. Look into your soul and realize that you’re not a particularly good human being…that’s a lot harder.

 

[Tagaziel]

Oh noo...

This is great. "If you use Internet, you must love governments." Hey dude, this is like when people say "if you support the national health care, you must love communism".

Or "if you support the US government, you support communism, because the USA and the Soviet Union were allies in the WW2."

Or "if you buy electronics, you must love Japan and the other Asian countries. Many Asian countries are communist countries, so you must love communism."

What a bunch of b.s. If you have no point, just don't post in the "Guns, guns, guns" topic, please. If you don't like guns, why would you post in a gun topic anyway?

I like guns. I don't like people who own them and I especially don't like Americans who own guns, with their pretentious, hypocritical nonsense spewing all over the Internet.

And my point was simple: with so much hate for the government, why is he still using a network that was created as a governmental military network? Either he's a hypocrite or he doesn't really understand the issue, both of which make his arguments moot.

I hope when the liberals ban all the guns in the US too, they ban the cars. Those damned cars kill 42,000 people in the US, each year. (Firearm accidents: average 700/year in the US )

Don't forget the knives! http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

Baseball. That's a killer sport. Ban the baseball! http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=baseball+bat+murder&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

You do realize your argument is perfectly fallacious, right? Baseball is a sport, knives are predominantly utility tools, as are cars.

Firearms are designed to maim and kill. No amount of twisting will change the fact that it is a tool engineered for wounding and killing other living beings. Any other purpose is secondary.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

or Windows
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI[/youtube]

It's time we put a stop to defenestration.

 

[Sander]

I like guns. I don't like people who own them and I especially don't like Americans who own guns, with their pretentious, hypocritical nonsense spewing all over the Internet.

No, you don't like the people who do that. There are plenty American gun owners who don't do that.

Also, does this argument really have to go all circular every time someone thinks he has something to say on guns? There's 17 pages in this thread, 14 of which are dedicated to a gun debate. EVeryone should try reading those pages before posting arguments that have been made a dozen times over already.

 

[the_cpl]

You do realize your argument is perfectly fallacious, right? Baseball is a sport, knives are predominantly utility tools, as are cars.

Baseball is a sport, but the targetshooting too.

Firearms are designed to maim and kill.

Just like the knives. Don't you think a knife is the perfect weapon, if you want to stab or cut somebody?

No amount of twisting will change the fact that it is a tool engineered for wounding and killing other living beings. Any other purpose is secondary.

Actually, what about the selfdefense? What if you just want to scare a robber or a rapist? You can shoot in the air. The self defense firearms are for saving lives, not for killing.

I don't think if the design is the issue. A baseball bat, a knife, a car can be dangerous, just like a firearm. (In wrong hands.)

Just because governments ban firearms, it doesn't mean there is no more crime. Do you think London is a safe place, just because the firearms are banned there?

If there are no firearms, the criminals use knives. (And firearms, because they don't care about the law, they buy guns anyway.)

 

[Sander]

Just because governments ban firearms, it doesn't mean there is no more crime.

Hey cool, yet another straw man.
It's not about eliminating crime, and no one is claiming that's what it's about. It's about making society safer, and no there is no conclusive evidence for either side to say that a society is safer with or without guns in the hands of civilians.

But hey, if you'd bothered reading this actual thread, you'd actually know that.

 

[the_cpl]

It's not about eliminating crime, and no one is claiming that's what it's about.

No one? I hear this all the time. The media, the politicians, all the liberals saying it.

It's about making society safer, and no there is no conclusive evidence for either side to say that a society is safer with or without guns in the hands of civilians.

Actually there are evicendes. The police make crime reports everywhere, each year. Much check the before and after gun-ban reports.

When a badguy break into my house, I don't need evidence, I need my rifle then.

But hey, if you'd bothered reading this actual thread, you'd actually know that.

I did read the thread, but it's an old thread. The first post is like 10 months old.

 

[Harold]

I'm so gratified you managed to solve ages of philosophical debate all by yourself.

Common sense, my friend. Although I think it should be called rare sense.

No, it is right.

See what I did there?

Yes. You stated that I was wrong and provided no arguments whatsoever except that the people are stupid and need to be governed. Are we having a discussion here or do you only feel the need to argue?

There are several philosophical and governmental theories on why governments have this right. The most famous one would be Rousseau's social contract. The idea is that the people give the government power to act on their behalf because the people themselves cannot domany of the things a government can do. Instating a monopoly of violence is usually seen as a key element of any government, as the government needs that monopoly to prevent mob rule.

Ever stopped to think that maybe the people should have the power rather than the government (as in athenian democracy)?

Given that their livelihood depends on being re-elected, they should be interested in appeasing their electorate.

Only to the extent that it gets them re-elected.

I'm sorry, this is paranoid, conspiracy theory type thinking. You are wrong.

Maybe you should read up on something else than the pamphlets of whatever party you voted for.

I hope when the liberals ban all the guns in the US too, they ban the cars. Those damned cars kill 42,000 people in the US, each year. (Firearm accidents: average 700/year in the US )

North Korea has already done this. And what a safe, wonderful nation that is...

Firearms are designed to maim and kill. No amount of twisting will change the fact that it is a tool engineered for wounding and killing other living beings. Any other purpose is secondary.

Sometimes it is necessary to maim and kill. When some dude in a mask is climbing in through your living room window in the middle of the night, what would you rather depend on: A shotgun or your cellphone to call 911? Police response time of 5 minutes or the 5 seconds it takes to pick up your rifle?

 

[Tagaziel]

Baseball is a sport, but the targetshooting too.

Except target shooting is a secondary purpose (and what's it purpose? Making you a more accurate shooter with a weapon designed to kill people.), while sport is the primary purpose of a baseball bat.

Just like the knives. Don't you think a knife is the perfect weapon, if you want to stab or cut somebody?

Not really. Most knives out there are designed for utility purposes (like cutting meat in a kitchen or twigs where you don't have a saw). Actual combat knives are few and far in between.

Actually, what about the selfdefense? What if you just want to scare a robber or a rapist? You can shoot in the air. The self defense firearms are for saving lives, not for killing.

And that changes it's primary purpose... how? I can use any item in a way it's not intended for, but that doesn't change its purpose.

Besides, if you're not actuall going to shoot anyone, why not invest in a full metal ASG or a taser? You're not running the risk of killing anyone and are just as safe, if you never planned to shoot the perp in the first place.

I don't think if the design is the issue. A baseball bat, a knife, a car can be dangerous, just like a firearm. (In wrong hands.)

It's a lot harder to kill with a baseball bat, a knife or a car than it is to kill with a gun.

Just because governments ban firearms, it doesn't mean there is no more crime. Do you think London is a safe place, just because the firearms are banned there?

London was never a safe place in the first place.

Poland is a safe place, despite guns not being wildly popular around these parts. In fact, the crime rates have been steadily declining over the years, thanks to an increasing quality of life and dedicated police force, rather than widespread arming of the civilian population.

If there are no firearms, the criminals use knives. (And firearms, because they don't care about the law, they buy guns anyway.)

While law-abiding people still have access to a variety of LTL accessories for self defence.

 

[Harold]

Not really. Most knives out there are designed for utility purposes (like cutting meat in a kitchen or twigs where you don't have a saw). Actual combat knives are few and far in between.

Knives, spears and clubs are the oldest weapons in human history. They were all designed for killing. It is true that most knives today are designed for utility but you still have bayonets and combat knives, for example.

Besides, if you're not actuall going to shoot anyone, why not invest in a full metal ASG or a taser? You're not running the risk of killing anyone and are just as safe, if you never planned to shoot the perp in the first place.

Tasers are ineffective. A "stun gun" (the type that doesn't shoot two bolts) has about an inch of spacing between its electrodes, meaning it can never deliver a shock of more than about 75 kV to a target (despite being advertised as 900 kV). The resistance of a dry human body is about 100'000 Ω. Police tasers (the kind that shoots two electrodes at the target) are more effective but they can fail too and you only get one shot. You can't rely on tasers for self-defense.

 

[Sander]

Yes. You stated that I was wrong and provided no arguments whatsoever except that the people are stupid and need to be governed. Are we having a discussion here or do you only feel the need to argue?

I think you neatly summarized what I was doing. Now please go back and realise that I was merely turning your style debating on yourself.

Ever stopped to think that maybe the people should have the power rather than the government (as in athenian democracy)?

Athenian democracy? As in, only rich males over a certain age, born in Athens and with Athenian citizenship get to vote?

Aside from that - do you honestly think that referenda are a viable means of government? Aside from the fact that people cannot be informed enough on even a minority of issues to make informed decisions, it would render a country ungovernable as the decision-making process is slowed down. Moreover, who exactly would be making these laws then? 'The people'? Because Athenian democracy also had only a few elected officials determining what gets voted on, if I recall correctly.

Only to the extent that it gets them re-elected.

And given that there are constantly other people who want their seats, this should be reasonably significant.

Regardless, the point is the same: their own livelihood is dependent on the people.

Maybe you should read up on something else than the pamphlets of whatever party you voted for.

Maybe you should try arguments instead of insults. Like implying that I only inform myself through political pamphlets of one party.

For someone who is accusing people of just arguing for the sake of arguing there's a distinct lack of substance to your arguments.

Sometimes it is necessary to maim and kill. When some dude in a mask is climbing in through your living room window in the middle of the night, what would you rather depend on: A shotgun or your cellphone to call 911? Police response time of 5 minutes or the 5 seconds it takes to pick up your rifle?

Oh gee more arguments related to people not reading this entire damn thread.
I can already see what the response would be: 'You shouldn't just kill people because they're in your home.'
And then we go onto castle doctrine, yet another quagmire of unresolvable issues.
Or perhaps someone will respond with 'Yeah well this is rare and guns kill a lot of people who shouldn't be killed. Why not have a baseball bat instead?'
And someone will go 'Well guns are a lot more efficient'
And then people will throw some conflicting anecdotes and statistics around that prove nothing as people cannot prove causality but only correlation. Hurray!

Man, these debates are so fascinating.

Actually there are evicendes. The police make crime reports everywhere, each year. Much check the before and after gun-ban reports.

Correlation is not the same as causality.

I did read the thread, but it's an old thread. The first post is like 10 months old.

So in those 10 months, did some new amazing evidence arise that has not been adressed in this thread yet?

 

[WillisPDunlevey]

I dont care if people own guns. I dont care if people kill each other with guns or anything else. I refuse to pretend that I care when someone I dont know and will never meet kills someone else that I dont know and will never meet.

Maybe there are people out there who actually care or feel bad about "abstract" deaths of people they dont even know exist. it doesnt bother me in the least.

I actually feel worse when i see a squirrel dead in the road because it was in the way of a car (which it could never understand)


WPD

 

[Harold]

I think you neatly summarized what I was doing. Now please go back and realise that I was merely turning your style debating on yourself.

At least I provided a logical argument.

Oh gee more arguments related to people not reading this entire damn thread.
I can already see what the response would be: 'You shouldn't just kill people because they're in your home.'
And then we go onto castle doctrine, yet another quagmire of unresolvable issues.
Or perhaps someone will respond with 'Yeah well this is rare and guns kill a lot of people who shouldn't be killed. Why not have a baseball bat instead?'
And someone will go 'Well guns are a lot more efficient'
And then people will throw some conflicting anecdotes and statistics around that prove nothing as people cannot prove causality but only correlation. Hurray!

Man, these debates are so fascinating.

If you would rather not have the opportunity to defend youself, fine. But if I want to be able to defend myself, then who are you - or anyone else - to say that I can't own a gun? What right do you have to make that decision for me?

 

[Sander]

At least I provided a logical argument.

Eh..no, you didn't. That was my point. Your 'logical argument' was based on a premise that you pretend is universally accepted, but actually isn't: that the government is just trying to put the people down, and the people should be allowed to do whatever they want.

If you would rather not have the opportunity to defend youself, fine. But if I want to be able to defend myself, then who are you - or anyone else - to say that I can't own a gun? What right do you have to make that decision for me?

I'm not making that decision for you. The government is. And the government is elected by the people so then by extension, the people are telling you you can't own guns.
Or at least, that's the case in modern democracies where you aren't allowed to own a gun.

And in most of those countries, if you really want to, you can still own a gun.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

At least I provided a logical argument.

fal·la·cy
–noun,plural-cies.
Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

Your argument has many of them but the main one is the bare assertion fallacy. Since you apparently didn't read the article I linked you to I'll post the definition:
The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.

 

[.Pixote.]

I dont care if people own guns. I dont care if people kill each other with guns or anything else. I refuse to pretend that I care when someone I dont know and will never meet kills someone else that I dont know and will never meet. Maybe there are people out there who actually care or feel bad about "abstract" deaths of people they dont even know exist. it doesnt bother me in the least. I actually feel worse when i see a squirrel dead in the road because it was in the way of a car (which it could never understand)

Because you see death in person, it hurts…it’s easy to think of death in an abstract manner, but if someone walked you through a primary school with children shot to pieces…it will hurt - for the rest of your life you will be haunted (unless you are a psychopath). That’s why a lot of soldiers grieve terribly after experiencing war; it’s difficult to cope with reality and death…we are all capable of terrible things, but we shouldn’t glorify weapons and killing.

I went to a shooting range once in my life…and the whole time I was there I felt a sense of fear…because I could with the squeeze of the trigger kill a half a dozen people, likewise they could do the same. Weapons are designed to empower people who feel powerless, it helps them overcome their personal insecurities – the same way ageing woman will Botox their faces…why not just try to empower yourself by becoming a better person. As a piece of mechanical engineering guns are marvels to look at, but let’s not worship them, or what they’re capable of doing…

 

[Blakut]

I think it is naive to think that guns will protect you from the government or stop it from controlling you if it wants to. Governments don't need guns to control people and a gun won't do you any good to escape government control.

I refuse to pretend that I care when someone I dont know and will never meet kills someone else that I dont know and will never meet.

I care in the sense that i don't want it to happen to me.

I say, each country should have a vote: what kind of gun control do you want. And that about solves it. If people want more rifles, they should have them. If they want less, they shouldn't have them.

 

[the_cpl]

Except target shooting is a secondary purpose (and what's it purpose? Making you a more accurate shooter with a weapon designed to kill people.), while sport is the primary purpose of a baseball bat.

Few thousand years ago the people killed each others with sticks. If somebody wants to beat the crap out of another person, he uses baseball bat, because that is probably the perfect weapon.

Not really. Most knives out there are designed for utility purposes (like cutting meat in a kitchen or twigs where you don't have a saw). Actual combat knives are few and far in between.

Really? So people sharpened knives like 2000 years ago to cut meat in their kithen?

Besides, if you're not actuall going to shoot anyone, why not invest in a full metal ASG or a taser?

1. Tasers are banned in my state.
2. How do you do target shooting sport with a taser?
3. I watch the COPS show sometimes. If a guy is on drugs, the taser doesn't work.
4. Why would I buy a taser, if I can buy a rifle?
5. I don't hunt, but what If I will in the future? Can I hunt with taser? No.

It's a lot harder to kill with a baseball bat, a knife or a car than it is to kill with a gun.

Oh, really? Newsvine - Girl aged 17 knifes 30 men to death
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

London was never a safe place in the first place.

So why the guns were banned? To make the people unarmed, when the criminals attack them? If a place is dangerous, you take away the people's right to self defense? I don't see the point.

Poland is a safe place, despite guns not being wildly popular around these parts. In fact, the crime rates have been steadily declining over the years, thanks to an increasing quality of life and dedicated police force, rather than widespread arming of the civilian population.

I don't think Poland is crime free. But even if Poland has less crime, that's not because the firearm ban. England is dangerous, Poland is not, but both countries has gun bans. So what is your point, again?

If there are no firearms, the criminals use knives. (And firearms, because they don't care about the law, they buy guns anyway.)

While law-abiding people still have access to a variety of LTL accessories for self defence.

So a criminal has a Glock with 17 rounds, he is standing 10 meters from you. You have only a crappy taser. Good luck with it.

 

[the_cpl]

I went to a shooting range once in my life…and the whole time I was there I felt a sense of fear…because I could with the squeeze of the trigger kill a half a dozen people, likewise they could do the same.

I bet you feel the same, when you eat meat with knife, with your friends. You could kill them with the knife, just like they could do the same.

 

[Sander]

Few thousand years ago the people killed each others with sticks. If somebody wants to beat the crap out of another person, he uses baseball bat, because that is probably the perfect weapon.

And if they want to kill people, they'll use a gun.

Why are you trying to prove that a gun is not a good killing utility or that other weapons are equally good at killing? That's clearly nonsense, and by indulging that you're basically admitting that the purpose with which a gun is made is relevant to the issue at hand.

So why the guns were banned? To make the people unarmed, when the criminals attack them? If a place is dangerous, you take away the people's right to self defense? I don't see the point.

By making guns illegal you also make it harder and more expensive for criminals to own guns (increased risk = increased price). Moreover, by making it illegal to own guns you can arrest criminals on a wider range of charges and you prevent mob justice to some extent(essentially in any state of law).

I don't think Poland is crime free. But even if Poland has less crime, that's not because the firearm ban. England is dangerous, Poland is not, but both countries has gun bans. So what is your point, again?

The UK isn't all that dangerous. Compare its per capita violent crime and murders to, say, the US.

But regardless, none of that proves anything because the situation of each country is vastly different. You cannot pin the difference in crime level on gun laws as there are so many other factors in play.

Also, don't double post.