268 replies to this topic

[vandreadstriker]

 

 

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.

 

 

Well I won't go into the technical details (since I'm not qualified by any means :tongue:) but I think you understand where I'm going here.

 

I'm not saying that you are justifying massacres, but these are the possible consequences that is somewhat indirectly justified by using guns (I'm not sure that justified is the right word, but my vocabularies are limited at this time of night so apologies for any misunderstandings). As long as we use them, those consequences will always be there, however big or small the chances are.

 

Consequences are always present.

We use a knife to chop foods. Slicing our fingers is one of the many consequences that comes with using a knife.

We use fire to cook foods. Burning our house is one of the many consequences that comes with using fires.

We use cars for transportation. Crashing onto something is one of the consequences that comes with using cars.

Everything we do are always shadowed by consequences.

The problem? Like you, and many others have said, lies withing the Humans.

We go careless, we slice our fingers, set fires, crash, etc because we were careless (or other reasons)

We go crazy, we rape some children, rob people of their things, shoot peoples' children.

 

 

Now, you (not you personally SpeedCrazy, but everyone in general) say that the root problem has to be addressed. I agree, and I think we can all agree on the root problem: Humans are not Perfect.

The need for the use of guns to protect ourselves (due to some with 'evil' intentions) and make a living, the need of transportation, the loss of mentality, the loss of responsibility, the defects on human minds.

All these are Human imperfections.

 

So my question: How Do We Solve Human Imperfections?

 

The world isn't perfect. Humans aren't perfect. Anything and Everything aren't perfect (except for God, which I believe in). As long as imperfections remains, Problems will always arise. You solve these problems, other problems would rise. It's an endless, vicious cycle. So, how do we stop it?

 

 

It's late here, so I'm signing off, leaving those I've written for tomorrow. Night guys.

Edited by vandreadstriker, 20 December 2012 - 08:56 AM.

[El_Capitan]

I'm sorry, but using a knife to kill multiple people is not easier than loading up a magazine and shooting people with a gun. If you're faced with an out-of-shape lunatic with a knife, and an out-of-shape lunatic with a gun, who do you think's going to be more dangerous?

I'll take the guy with the knife any day of the week.

 

Here's an article title that I like (just the quote, but linked to the article in case anyone wants to read it), "If Gun Control Doesn't Work, Why Does Congress Need Metal Detectors?".

 

At any rate, my own thoughts:

 

Gun Control was more of an effort to staunch the ability for criminals to get access to guns legally. However, if you're a criminal, you're probably going to be able to get a gun illegally than legally, anyway. If you don't have a criminal background and want to get a gun to commit a crime, you'll still be able to get a gun. So, in that sense, it doesn't work that well.

 

Has anyone seen Skyfall? Where Q gives Bond a gun where it will only fire with his handprint? That would actually help a lot to stem a lot of gun-related violence. It would probably be easy to implement where you could put in a code to allow other people's handprints to operate the gun, whether for when you let people borrow it to shoot, or when you sell it.

 

At any rate, gun control legislation without the help of technology isn't going to curb gun-related violence at this point, I'll agree with that. We also never thought killing sprees would be such a big deal or end up being a somewhat common occurrence.

 

What do I like? That we're debating about the issue and having a conversation. I hate it when a gun-related violence occurs, and people say it's not the time to talk about gun control. I also hate it when a gun-related violence occurs and people on the opposite end say that it could have been prevented with stricter gun control laws. We know now that any gun control measures would not have prevented the Sandy Hook incident. He could have gotten guns on his own and not from his mother. Hell, he could have gotten better guns had he wanted (I know if I'm shopping for guns, I'd have picked a better selection).

 

The point is, how are we going to stop this type of act without infringing the rights of lawful citizens of owning guns? That's what we should be focusing on. Ideas like the gun from Skyfall, and none of this finger pointing.

[SpeedCrazy]

Well I won't go into the technical details (since I'm not qualified by any means :tongue:) but I think you understand where I'm going here.

 

I'm not saying that you are justifying massacres, but these are the possible consequences that is somewhat indirectly justified by using guns (I'm not sure that justified is the right word, but my vocabularies are limited at this time of night so apologies for any misunderstandings). As long as we use them, those consequences will always be there, however big or small the chances are.

 

 

Now, you (not you personally SpeedCrazy, but everyone in general) say that the root problem has to be addressed. I think we can all agree on the root problem: Humans are not Perfect.

The need for the use of guns to protect ourselves (due to some with 'evil' intentions) and make a living, the need of transportation, the loss of mentality, the loss of responsibility, the defects on human minds.

All these are Human imperfections.

 

So my question: How Do We Solve Human Imperfections?

 

The world isn't perfect. Humans aren't perfect. Anything and Everything aren't perfect (except for God, which I believe in). As long as imperfections remains, Problems will always arise. You solve these problems, other problems would rise. It's an endless, vicious cycle. So, how do we stop it?

 

 

It's late here, so I'm signing off, leaving those I've written for tomorrow. Night guys.

 

 

You hit the nail on the head. If everyone could get to this understanding we would not need this debate. The problem is not guns, its people. I feel like a parrot the way i keep repeating that.

 

If we ban things based on possible consequences we would have one big ol' ban hammer and nothing much left to hit. Every single item on my desk, in my pocket, on my person etc. can be used to hurt someone, that hurt is a possible consequence. So therefore those consequences are justified? No. They are possible but not justified.

justified - Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason

Guns are justified, they have lots of legit uses. Massacres are not justified by any definition of the word. And guns don't justify them, they merely make them easier to perpetrate.

A wreck is a possible consequence of having a car, but that doesn't justify a wreck. A pen allows for an inkblot, but that doesn't mean there is a good reason to have an inkblot. Overclocking has the possible consequence of destroying hardware, but that doesn't mean that i should destroy my hardware.

 

As to your question, there is no earthly answer.

[DanTheGamer11]

What were guns made for?

[SpeedCrazy]

What were guns made for?

 

Read the thread, this has already been discussed. They are designed to kill.

[kyfire]

Bottom line is this......No matter what laws are passed, no matter how much we study these incidents. It makes no difference, nothing will change. How will knowing this perp's reason going to prevent another one from happening? Did knowing everything behind the shootings at Columbine prevent the shootings a Va Tech, or Paducah Ky, or Sandy Hook?

And for those the feel the need to point fingers and blame guns.....why not point your finger at the Japaneese? They're the ones that invented gunpowder, which without there'd be no guns.

[El_Capitan]

 If everyone could get to this understanding we would not need this debate.

 

I disagree, we always need a debate. A lot of us here video games, particularly those with guns and other weapons. If we were to plan a massacre, it would be easier with say, an automatic assault rifle with an extended magazine clip, some grenades, claymores, and poison gas while also wearing a gas mask. Still, that's meaningless if you don't plan it right. If you went to a shopping mall, once you start shooting, people disperse, and fast. Initially they're confused, and an automatic wouldn't necessarily kill people as easily as well timed single shots from a semi-automatic rifle. If you want to maximize the use of an automatic rifle, you'd go to a building and get the fire alarm to go off, then kill people while they're funneling out of the building. I mean, thank God there aren't any geniuses committing massacres, because I can see a lot more people getting killed if these crazies were smart.

[vandreadstriker]

Well I won't go into the technical details (since I'm not qualified by any means :tongue:) but I think you understand where I'm going here.
 
I'm not saying that you are justifying massacres, but these are the possible consequences that is somewhat indirectly justified by using guns (I'm not sure that justified is the right word, but my vocabularies are limited at this time of night so apologies for any misunderstandings). As long as we use them, those consequences will always be there, however big or small the chances are.
 
 
Now, you (not you personally SpeedCrazy, but everyone in general) say that the root problem has to be addressed. I think we can all agree on the root problem: Humans are not Perfect.
The need for the use of guns to protect ourselves (due to some with 'evil' intentions) and make a living, the need of transportation, the loss of mentality, the loss of responsibility, the defects on human minds.
All these are Human imperfections.
 
So my question: How Do We Solve Human Imperfections?
 
The world isn't perfect. Humans aren't perfect. Anything and Everything aren't perfect (except for God, which I believe in). As long as imperfections remains, Problems will always arise. You solve these problems, other problems would rise. It's an endless, vicious cycle. So, how do we stop it?
 
 
It's late here, so I'm signing off, leaving those I've written for tomorrow. Night guys.
 

 
You hit the nail on the head. If everyone could get to this understanding we would not need this debate. The problem is not guns, its people. I feel like a parrot the way i keep repeating that.
 
If we ban things based on possible consequences we would have one big ol' ban hammer and nothing much left to hit. Every single item on my desk, in my pocket, on my person etc. can be used to hurt someone, that hurt is a possible consequence. So therefore those consequences are justified? No. They are possible but not justified.
justified - Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason
Guns are justified, they have lots of legit uses. Massacres are not justified by any definition of the word. And guns don't justify them, they merely make them easier to perpetrate.
A wreck is a possible consequence of having a car, but that doesn't justify a wreck. A pen allows for an inkblot, but that doesn't mean there is a good reason to have an inkblot. Overclocking has the possible consequence of destroying hardware, but that doesn't mean that i should destroy my hardware.
 
As to your question, there is no earthly answer.

I agree, we can't just ban everything for obvious reasons. (and my vocab are limited, so I apologise)
But, as you said, there isn't an answer on how to solve the root problem.
Thus why I lean towards banning guns. We can't change humans. We're not perfect.
What we can change is the tools we use, at least, it's one of the things that we can actually change.
Banning guns. It'd definitely lower the chance of such tragedies from happening again IMHO. It's certainly not the best solution, it's certainly not the most favourable solution. But it's one of the alternatives to end this mess since we have no way in solving the root problem..

I stress, this is my opinion. I'm imperfect as well, thus this solution I propose will never be perfect.
But we don't live in a perfect world. A perfect world doesn't exist, or rather, perfection doesn't exist in our world.
If the world is perfect, we won't even have events that triggers this discussion in the first place.

As long as imperfections exist problems and issues will always exist. Both co-exist with each other. It's ying and yang...
Okay, I'm starting to write non-sense here.

Point is, the world is not perfect. But this imperfections are also what makes our wolrd unique and one-of-a-kind.

Now. Me. Sleep.

[SpeedCrazy]

 

You hit the nail on the head. If everyone could get to this understanding we would not need this debate. The problem is not guns, its people. I feel like a parrot the way i keep repeating that.
 
If we ban things based on possible consequences we would have one big ol' ban hammer and nothing much left to hit. Every single item on my desk, in my pocket, on my person etc. can be used to hurt someone, that hurt is a possible consequence. So therefore those consequences are justified? No. They are possible but not justified.
justified - Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason
Guns are justified, they have lots of legit uses. Massacres are not justified by any definition of the word. And guns don't justify them, they merely make them easier to perpetrate.
A wreck is a possible consequence of having a car, but that doesn't justify a wreck. A pen allows for an inkblot, but that doesn't mean there is a good reason to have an inkblot. Overclocking has the possible consequence of destroying hardware, but that doesn't mean that i should destroy my hardware.
 
As to your question, there is no earthly answer.
 
 

I agree, we can't just ban everything for obvious reasons. (and my vocab are limited, so I apologise)
But, as you said, there isn't an answer on how to solve the root problem.
Thus why I lean towards banning guns. We can't change humans. We're not perfect.
What we can change is the tools we use, at least, it's one of the things that we can actually change.
Banning guns. It'd definitely lower the chance of such tragedies from happening again IMHO. It's certainly not the best solution, it's certainly not the most favorable solution. But it's one of the alternatives to end this mess since we have no way in solving the root problem..

I stress, this is my opinion. I'm imperfect as well, thus this solution I propose will never be perfect.
But we don't live in a perfect world. A perfect world doesn't exist, or rather, perfection doesn't exist in our world.
If the world is perfect, we won't even have events that triggers this discussion in the first place.
As long as imperfections exist problems and issues will always exist. Both co-exist with each other. It's ying and yang...
Okay, I'm starting to write non-sense here.
Point is, the world is not perfect. But this imperfections are also what makes our world unique and one-of-a-kind.
Now. Me. Sleep.

 

I understand where you are coming from. And if we could universally across the board remove all guns it might work. But again i'll say this "out law guns and only outlaws will have guns", if the bad guy is going to have a gun i want to have one too, at least even my chances up. And i'd argue that just making guns illegal, assuming that an across the board gun removal while nice in theory is impossible in practice, would increase the amount of shootings because criminals would no longer have to worry about their victims fighting back.

We hear all about the shootings and killings but how many possibly fatal situations are diffused by the presence of a gun? Those aren't reported because nothing happened, the gun was shown drawn or whatever and the criminal left. No bang no story.

[kyfire]

Food for thought.....

 

In March 1982 the town of Kennesaw GA unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun.

In 2007 at the time of the VA Tech shootings, Kennesaw marked 25 years since passing the ordinance, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

On the flip side.....

 

Morton Grove IL passed an ordinance baning of gun ownership by anyone not a police officer. The crime rate increased by 15.7%

 

 

[wevsspot]

"Gun Control" is about as effective as our War on Drugs has been.  We're attempting to treat the symptoms without treating the underlying cause.

 

If a US citizen chooses to legally own a firearm it's because we can - it's a right bestowed upon us by the amazingly wise authors of our constitution.

 

Looking beyond the tragedy of this massacre here, think about the larger mass scale atrocities committed in countries where private firearm ownership is prohibited.  If you live in a civilized country where private firearm ownership is prohibited and you also happen to enjoy low crime rates and low murder rates, then I'm really really happy that you live in that Nirvana.  But much of the rest of the world doesn't live in that Nirvana and probably never will.

 

Wonder how many private citizens in Bosnia wished they had owned at least one firearm when the Serbs were busy raping their wives and daughters during the Bosnian war?  The point is, you don't plan (or even conceive) things going south in such a short period of time.  And I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where those atrocities aren't quite even fathomable.  I believe as a citizen of the US my family is protected from something like that.  I trust our armed forces, federal, state and local law enforcement folks and truly believe they would do their best to protect my property and my loved ones.  But I'll never give up my right or ability to take that task upon myself if the circumstances called for it.  Knowing full well that the results will be minimal at best - but if I can slow them down or take one or more aggressors with me, then I would consider that a victory.

[Phil]

So what if the primary purpose of a gun is killing?  Most people use them for target shooting or other purposes with no thought about killing whatsoever.  Were'nt bows and arrows designed for killing?

 

Cars are compared to guns because it's what happens that counts.  Both cars and guns kill people every year.  The only reason nobody cracks down on cars for what humans do is because everyone has one.  Reforming guns is the work of people who don't have the guns in question and will feel no change to their lifestyle from their crusade.  Reforming "someone else" is low hanging fruit.