268 replies to this topic

[Puck]

The topic of gun control would only have been pertinent to the recent tragedies if the guns were actually owned by the shooter. They were not, they belonged to a law abiding, SANE citizen and were STOLEN without her permission.

 

I know, let's outlaw car's because a drunk driver stole one and ran over somebody with it  . We can all ride bicycles and walk to work now, for fear of someone carjacking us and running over everyone.

 

Any non-criminal citizen with a clean bill of mental health has their right to own a firearm for whatever reason they choose - sport, protection, or just because they damn well feel like it. I'm not saying they should be allowed to wave them in the air and carry them 24/7 like cowboys, but to say they can't own them in their own homes is preposterous.

[SpeedCrazy]

Every time one of these topics comes up, I am amazed that people draw a parallel to cars/driving.

I dont see it.

 

A cars primary function is to get you from A to B. Not to kill. 

Much like the purpose of a saw is to cut material. Not to kill.

A gun is designed to kill. Its function is for killing. Be that people/animals whatever. Its primary purpose is to kill things. Sure you may use it for sport or shooting at the range but this is NOT what it was designed for. It was designed to end life.

 

So, with that laid out, why do people compare owning a gun to owning a Car? 

Yes a car can kill, but so can many many many other things in life whose primary function is not killing.

A guns primary function is killing. 

 

Your exactly right.And i own guns to kill.

My rifle is owned primarily to kill deer and varmits.

My shotgun is owned primarily to kill birds and varmits, in this case varmits includes the two legged variety as inside my home i would rather not be shooting through multiple walls for fear of hitting my family.

My handguns are owned to kill anyone who attempts to do me or mine bodily harm and cannot be dissuaded with words and or leaves no alternatives to retaliating with force.

You are quite correct, guns are designed to kill and that is what i use them for. Your objection was?

[xPETEZx]

 

Every time one of these topics comes up, I am amazed that people draw a parallel to cars/driving.

I dont see it.

 

A cars primary function is to get you from A to B. Not to kill. 

Much like the purpose of a saw is to cut material. Not to kill.

A gun is designed to kill. Its function is for killing. Be that people/animals whatever. Its primary purpose is to kill things. Sure you may use it for sport or shooting at the range but this is NOT what it was designed for. It was designed to end life.

 

So, with that laid out, why do people compare owning a gun to owning a Car? 

Yes a car can kill, but so can many many many other things in life whose primary function is not killing.

A guns primary function is killing. 

 

Your exactly right.And i own guns to kill.

My rifle is owned primarily to kill deer and varmits.

My shotgun is owned primarily to kill birds and varmits, in this case varmits includes the two legged variety as inside my home i would rather not be shooting through multiple walls for fear of hitting my family.

My handguns are owned to kill anyone who attempts to do me or mine bodily harm and cannot be dissuaded with words and or leaves no alternatives to retaliating with force.

You are quite correct, guns are designed to kill and that is what i use them for. Your objection was?

 

My objection was to why people compare gun ownership to car ownership.

 

Saying we should ban cars because of drink drivers is not a suitable comparison to guns should be banned because they are used to massacre people.

 

The gun is being used for what it was designed for. The car is not.

 

My point being any kind of control should focus on the primary function of the item. The un-wanted use can be controlled another way. (Like drink driving being an offence)

[SpeedCrazy]

 

 

Every time one of these topics comes up, I am amazed that people draw a parallel to cars/driving.

I dont see it.

 

A cars primary function is to get you from A to B. Not to kill. 

Much like the purpose of a saw is to cut material. Not to kill.

A gun is designed to kill. Its function is for killing. Be that people/animals whatever. Its primary purpose is to kill things. Sure you may use it for sport or shooting at the range but this is NOT what it was designed for. It was designed to end life.

 

So, with that laid out, why do people compare owning a gun to owning a Car? 

Yes a car can kill, but so can many many many other things in life whose primary function is not killing.

A guns primary function is killing. 

 

Your exactly right.And i own guns to kill.

My rifle is owned primarily to kill deer and varmits.

My shotgun is owned primarily to kill birds and varmits, in this case varmits includes the two legged variety as inside my home i would rather not be shooting through multiple walls for fear of hitting my family.

My handguns are owned to kill anyone who attempts to do me or mine bodily harm and cannot be dissuaded with words and or leaves no alternatives to retaliating with force.

You are quite correct, guns are designed to kill and that is what i use them for. Your objection was?

 

My objection was to why people compare gun ownership to car ownership.

 

Saying we should ban cars because of drink drivers is not a suitable comparison to guns should be banned because they are used to massacre people.

 

The gun is being used for what it was designed for. The car is not.

 

My point being any kind of control should focus on the primary function of the item. The un-wanted use can be controlled another way. (Like drink driving being an offence)

 

But that's where you are wrong. The gun is not designed to massacre people, in the truest sense of the word a gun is designed to propel a projectile at high speed in the direction you point it. How we use that projectile is what causes the problem. The gun is doing what it is designed for whether i'm killing a deer or some psychopath is killing children. Now it is true the point of that projectile is to kill things, but there are hundreds of legitimate killings, animals or people, probably thousands, for every instance like this.

The problem is people, not guns.

Maybe your not aware of this but China is suffering a spate of knife killings in schools. They have some serious gun control over there so people are using knives instead.... the point is if a human is set on destruction he will find a way to perpetrate said destruction.

[kyfire]

Many years ago, when I was working in the security industry, I was going through firearms training to be able to carry a sidearm. I asked the following question of the firearms instructor.... "At what point in time did the carring of a firearm by all able bodied men stop?" His answer was... "When we became civilized."

Strange, it seems to me that back in the days of all able bodied men openly carrying a gun and every store having a gun and every home having a gun, things were much more civilized than they are now

[vandreadstriker]

Every time one of these topics comes up, I am amazed that people draw a parallel to cars/driving. I dont see it. 

A cars primary function is to get you from A to B. Not to kill. 

Much like the purpose of a saw is to cut material. Not to kill.

A gun is designed to kill. Its function is for killing. Be that people/animals whatever. Its primary purpose is to kill things. Sure you may use it for sport or shooting at the range but this is NOT what it was designed for. It was designed to end life.  

 

So, with that laid out, why do people compare owning a gun to owning a Car? 

Yes a car can kill, but so can many many many other things in life whose primary function is not killing.

A guns primary function is killing. 

 

 

Your exactly right.And i own guns to kill.

My rifle is owned primarily to kill deer and varmits.

My shotgun is owned primarily to kill birds and varmits, in this case varmits includes the two legged variety as inside my home i would rather not be shooting through multiple walls for fear of hitting my family.

My handguns are owned to kill anyone who attempts to do me or mine bodily harm and cannot be dissuaded with words and or leaves no alternatives to retaliating with force.

You are quite correct, guns are designed to kill and that is what i use them for. Your objection was?

 

I've got no objection, but based on your statement there, am I wrong to draw out that these "Unintentional" massacres would never end?

As long as you justify the need for somethings, the consequences of using those things are justified as well..

 

To use the analogy of cars (which I don't agree for the same reason xPETEZx stated, and a few others), we keep on justifying the use of cars as a method of transport.

Thus the pollution given out, which is one of the consequences, is justified.

Want to put an end to pollution by cars?

Ban the use of cars.

 

Similarly, justifying the use of guns for other activities (that may or may not be necessary for our lives/existence) follows the same line.

The consequences, in this case, some lunatic/psychopath utilising them for massacres is also justified.

The media and many are raving on how to end this.

The solution?

Ban the use of firearms.

 

Sure some may say that pollution have been reduced with the use of E-Cars.

I can counter this by saying that they should hunt with arrows instead which is "less" lethal than guns.

 

I don't mean (or intended) to attack any of you personally, but some people (not you, who's reading this, necessarily) should understand that unless these issues are sorted out, these tragic events won't ever stop.

Unless, you want to ban the existence of humanity (which, let's face it, impossible unless you're a deity)

Edited by vandreadstriker, 20 December 2012 - 08:29 AM.

[xPETEZx]

 

 

 

Every time one of these topics comes up, I am amazed that people draw a parallel to cars/driving.

I dont see it.

 

A cars primary function is to get you from A to B. Not to kill. 

Much like the purpose of a saw is to cut material. Not to kill.

A gun is designed to kill. Its function is for killing. Be that people/animals whatever. Its primary purpose is to kill things. Sure you may use it for sport or shooting at the range but this is NOT what it was designed for. It was designed to end life.

 

So, with that laid out, why do people compare owning a gun to owning a Car? 

Yes a car can kill, but so can many many many other things in life whose primary function is not killing.

A guns primary function is killing. 

 

Your exactly right.And i own guns to kill.

My rifle is owned primarily to kill deer and varmits.

My shotgun is owned primarily to kill birds and varmits, in this case varmits includes the two legged variety as inside my home i would rather not be shooting through multiple walls for fear of hitting my family.

My handguns are owned to kill anyone who attempts to do me or mine bodily harm and cannot be dissuaded with words and or leaves no alternatives to retaliating with force.

You are quite correct, guns are designed to kill and that is what i use them for. Your objection was?

 

My objection was to why people compare gun ownership to car ownership.

 

Saying we should ban cars because of drink drivers is not a suitable comparison to guns should be banned because they are used to massacre people.

 

The gun is being used for what it was designed for. The car is not.

 

My point being any kind of control should focus on the primary function of the item. The un-wanted use can be controlled another way. (Like drink driving being an offence)

 

But that's where you are wrong. The gun is not designed to massacre people, in the truest sense of the word a gun is designed to propel a projectile at high speed in the direction you point it. How we use that projectile is what causes the problem. The gun is doing what it is designed for whether i'm killing a deer or some psychopath is killing children. Now it is true the point of that projectile is to kill things, but there are hundreds of legitimate killings, animals or people, probably thousands, for every instance like this.

The problem is people, not guns.

Maybe your not aware of this but China is suffering a spate of knife killings in schools. They have some serious gun control over there so people are using knives instead.... the point is if a human is set on destruction he will find a way to perpetrate said destruction.

 

Are you serious?

To go to this level is the same as saying the point of a car is to turn the wheels. 

The net effect is the gun is there to kill. 

 

I am aware of the China killings. I was listening to a debate radio program a few days ago where Pro-gun people phoned in and mentioned this.

The Radio station checked and actual found nobody was killed. 22 people (inc. children) where injured (some badly)

 

Either way, dont even draw a knife vs. gun comparison.

 

This latest killing lasted little over 5 minutes (so I read), there is no way anybody could kill that many people with a knife. 

From a man carrying a knife you can run, he can be over powered and the victims have a much greater chance of survival.

[Puck]

 

 

Every time one of these topics comes up, I am amazed that people draw a parallel to cars/driving.

I dont see it.

 

A cars primary function is to get you from A to B. Not to kill. 

Much like the purpose of a saw is to cut material. Not to kill.

A gun is designed to kill. Its function is for killing. Be that people/animals whatever. Its primary purpose is to kill things. Sure you may use it for sport or shooting at the range but this is NOT what it was designed for. It was designed to end life.

 

So, with that laid out, why do people compare owning a gun to owning a Car? 

Yes a car can kill, but so can many many many other things in life whose primary function is not killing.

A guns primary function is killing. 

 

Your exactly right.And i own guns to kill.

My rifle is owned primarily to kill deer and varmits.

My shotgun is owned primarily to kill birds and varmits, in this case varmits includes the two legged variety as inside my home i would rather not be shooting through multiple walls for fear of hitting my family.

My handguns are owned to kill anyone who attempts to do me or mine bodily harm and cannot be dissuaded with words and or leaves no alternatives to retaliating with force.

You are quite correct, guns are designed to kill and that is what i use them for. Your objection was?

 

My objection was to why people compare gun ownership to car ownership.

 

Saying we should ban cars because of drink drivers is not a suitable comparison to guns should be banned because they are used to massacre people.

 

The gun is being used for what it was designed for. The car is not.

 

My point being any kind of control should focus on the primary function of the item. The un-wanted use can be controlled another way. (Like drink driving being an offence)

 

What if we aren't talking about mini vans and pickup trucks...what about sports cars? Speeding is illegal, yet they make cars that can do ludicrous speeds straight off the showroom floor. Should we ban every Mustang, Camaro, and Charger because they are designed to go much faster then is legal?

 

How about motorcycles? Feasibly there is NO REASON for anyone to have a sportsbike...they are race machines with mirrors. Should they be controlled by the government too? My Kawi has 200hp and is capable of 200mph with just a computer flash...it was not deigned with its primary function to transport people or cargo, it was made to go from point A to point B very, very fast. Yet I have never harmed anyone or gotten as much as a single speeding ticket on any of my bikes in nearly a decade of combined ownership. Do we need to pull them off the road too?

 

We can't ban everything that's primary function could be harmful.

[ComputerEd]

When you take into account the number of firearm owners in the US and the number of gun crimes that are done by legal firearm owners the percentage is amazingly low. The issue of gun violence is not in the owning of the firearms, it is in a society that wants to lay blame for actions at the feet of everything and everyone except the person that did it.

 

Why did he go in a school and shoot up those kids? Lets get real he did not do it because of guns, or video games or any other reason thing you want to lay blame on. He did it because he chose to. If he is mentally ill and the actions were not truly under his control then he did it because the medical system failed to treat him properly but again it was not because of guns that this happened.

 

Now should we have laws that stop mental patients from getting guns, of course we should, oh wait we do. Should we have laws that stop convicted criminals from getting guns, sounds good, oh wait we do. We have laws in place that are designed to weed out anyone but law abiding citizens to buy firearms. Does this stop criminals from getting guns, of course not.

 

The issue is not laws, we have strict laws against killing people yet it happens. We need other steps. I mean lets go the total gun free route and make private owner ship of guns a crime. Would it reduce gun crime, probably, but not nearly as much as you would probably think. Remember most gun crime is NOT committed by legal gun owners. So if they got guns illegally before it is a safe bet they would do it even with a total ban on private gun ownership.

 

Also consider that it would just move the nature of violent crimes. If someone wants to kill people they can find ways. That same kid could have come into the school with an axe, a sledge hammer, a knife or any other tool and killed people. he could have done it with his bear hands. How about a home made bomb, easy enough to do thanks to the internet. Are we really so naïve as to believe that a stricter set of laws on guns that really in the end only hurt the people that are right now being legal will somehow stop bad people?

 

Also as a parent I am disgusted by what I am hearing in all the political talk. I hear Politian's refer to this tragedy as an "opportunity".  Really? All these kids are dead and all they see is an "opportunity" to move a political agenda. The kids were not even buried yet and the political hacks of the world were at work trying to push their agenda. Well not all of them, notice the NRA actually showed some class and did not come out of the gate talking politics, they went silent, giving families time to mourn. Personally I am not an NRA fan but they handle this well in my opinion.

 

Finally let me point out that if we want to change something in our society lets change the real issue, the lack of a person being responsible for their own actions. When someone does something bad lets not blame someone else, society or something but make THEM be responsible for the action they performed! Of course that will never happen because after all it is only what is right, not what will get political points.

[SpeedCrazy]

 

Your exactly right.And i own guns to kill.
My rifle is owned primarily to kill deer and varmits.
My shotgun is owned primarily to kill birds and varmits, in this case varmits includes the two legged variety as inside my home i would rather not be shooting through multiple walls for fear of hitting my family.
My handguns are owned to kill anyone who attempts to do me or mine bodily harm and cannot be dissuaded with words and or leaves no alternatives to retaliating with force.
You are quite correct, guns are designed to kill and that is what i use them for. Your objection was?

 

I've got no objection, but based on your statement there, am I wrong to draw out that these "Un-intentional" massacres would never end.
As long as you justify the need for somethings, the consequences of using those things are justified as well..

To use the analogy of cars (which I don't agree for the same reason xPETEZx stated and a few others), we keep on justifying the use of cars as a method of transport. Thus the polution given out are the consequences that are justified. Want to put an end to pollution by cars? Ban the use of cars.

Similarly, justifying the use of guns for other activities (that may or may not be necessary for our lives). The consequences, in this case, some lunatic/psychopath utilising them for massacres are also justified. The media and many are raving on how to end this. The solution? Ban the use of firearms.

Sure some may say that pollution have been reduced with the use of E-Cars.
I can counter this by saying that they should hunt with arrows instead which is "less" lethal than guns.

I don't mean to attack any of you personally, but unless these issues are sorted out,

 

Apologize, i was not questioning your argument here. I answered your questions in another post.

To use the cars and pollution argument, if you ban cars we will have to find something to take their place, and it will have its own problems.

 

Okay, so im justifying the use of guns for activities such as hunting and self defense, but i don't recall justifying massacres. The problem with your argument is that you are blaming the gun for the massacre. Re-read the post you replied to. The Chinese don't have guns so they use knives to achieve the same ends. And i don't know if you have ever been in or seen a knife fight, but i would far rather be shot than knifed. It all boils down to people, place the blame where it belongs, that bushmaster ar did not get up and walk into that school and shoot those kids. Adam whatever-his-name-is did. He could have done exactly the same thing with a knife, a bow, even a baseball bat. They might not have been as effective but he could have achieved the same result.

 

Oh and btw, bows are not 'less lethal' than guns. A .45 makes a hole about the size of your tthumb, a broad head(arrow tip) has 3+ razor blades that depending on the broad head expand to a radius of up to 4 inches, and my bow can shoot at 320 fps. Thats one heck of a lethal weapon. To top it off the bullet exits out the back but the arrow leaves those razors in there, and even if you get the arrow shaft out the razors are staying put. Again i pick the bullet.

[Puck]

When you take into account the number of firearm owners in the US and the number of gun crimes that are done by legal firearm owners the percentage is amazingly low. The issue of gun violence is not in the owning of the firearms, it is in a society that wants to lay blame for actions at the feet of everything and everyone except the person that did it.

 

Why did he go in a school and shoot up those kids? Lets get real he did not do it because of guns, or video games or any other reason thing you want to lay blame on. He did it because he chose to. If he is mentally ill and the actions were not truly under his control then he did it because the medical system failed to treat him properly but again it was not because of guns that this happened.

 

Now should we have laws that stop mental patients from getting guns, of course we should, oh wait we do. Should we have laws that stop convicted criminals from getting guns, sounds good, oh wait we do. We have laws in place that are designed to weed out anyone but law abiding citizens to buy firearms. Does this stop criminals from getting guns, of course not.

 

The issue is not laws, we have strict laws against killing people yet it happens. We need other steps. I mean lets go the total gun free route and make private owner ship of guns a crime. Would it reduce gun crime, probably, but not nearly as much as you would probably think. Remember most gun crime is NOT committed by legal gun owners. So if they got guns illegally before it is a safe bet they would do it even with a total ban on private gun ownership.

 

Also consider that it would just move the nature of violent crimes. If someone wants to kill people they can find ways. That same kid could have come into the school with an axe, a sledge hammer, a knife or any other tool and killed people. he could have done it with his bear hands. How about a home made bomb, easy enough to do thanks to the internet. Are we really so naïve as to believe that a stricter set of laws on guns that really in the end only hurt the people that are right now being legal will somehow stop bad people?

 

Also as a parent I am disgusted by what I am hearing in all the political talk. I hear Politian's refer to this tragedy as an "opportunity".  Really? All these kids are dead and all they see is an "opportunity" to move a political agenda. The kids were not even buried yet and the political hacks of the world were at work trying to push their agenda. Well not all of them, notice the NRA actually showed some class and did not come out of the gate talking politics, they went silent, giving families time to mourn. Personally I am not an NRA fan but they handle this well in my opinion.

 

Finally let me point out that if we want to change something in our society lets change the real issue, the lack of a person being responsible for their own actions. When someone does something bad lets not blame someone else, society or something but make THEM be responsible for the action they performed! Of course that will never happen because after all it is only what is right, not what will get political points.

 

Exactly. Where is the Rep button on this forum???

 

The root problem(s) need to be addressed, not moving the blame to inanimate objects and pushing personal agendas. 

[SpeedCrazy]

 

But that's where you are wrong. The gun is not designed to massacre people, in the truest sense of the word a gun is designed to propel a projectile at high speed in the direction you point it. How we use that projectile is what causes the problem. The gun is doing what it is designed for whether i'm killing a deer or some psychopath is killing children. Now it is true the point of that projectile is to kill things, but there are hundreds of legitimate killings, animals or people, probably thousands, for every instance like this.
The problem is people, not guns.
Maybe your not aware of this but China is suffering a spate of knife killings in schools. They have some serious gun control over there so people are using knives instead.... the point is if a human is set on destruction he will find a way to perpetrate said destruction.
 

Are you serious?
To go to this level is the same as saying the point of a car is to turn the wheels. 
The net effect is the gun is there to kill. 
 
I am aware of the China killings. I was listening to a debate radio program a few days ago where Pro-gun people phoned in and mentioned this.
The Radio station checked and actual found nobody was killed. 22 people (inc. children) where injured (some badly)
 
Either way, dont even draw a knife vs. gun comparison.
 
This latest killing lasted little over 5 minutes (so I read), there is no way anybody could kill that many people with a knife. 
From a man carrying a knife you can run, he can be over powered and the victims have a much greater chance of survival.
 
 
 

 

 
You are asking me if im serious,? Please at least be serious yourself and read my whole answer. I said that the point of the gun was to kill.
 

Now it is true the point of that projectile is to kill things, but there are hundreds of legitimate killings, animals or people, probably thousands, for every instance like this.

Nobody was killed, but 22 were injured, sounds like running worked real well. And don't tell me they didn't try, no one is going to sit and what a madman with a knife stab people and not try to avoid being stabbed themselves.

And again on the reading point. I was not drawing a gun knife comparison, i was stating that in the absence of guns people will find other ways to hurt eachother.