Guns Debate

@Teckno, that's a bit over board.

@Jack But here's the point, I can KILL with these tools, like I can KILL with a gun. Either way, if the purpose of the tool was to kill or not, the choice of killing or not still falls on the PERSON using the tool.

yonny616 wrote:

@Teckno, that's a bit over board.

@Jack But here's the point, I can KILL with these tools, like I can KILL with a gun. Either way, if the purpose of the tool was to kill or not, the choice of killing or not still falls on the PERSON using the tool.

But the differentiation you made with a gun and nuke is severity, was it not?

So how can you not apply the same logic of a gun in comparison to an arm or leg?

>nukes

fuck off teckno

>Except that none of the things you mentioned were designed explicitly for the purpose of killing. Another shitty argument.

thats like saying we shouldnt have nuclear energy because it was invented to kill.

most things are originally designed to kill/ for military.

knives, made for killing. cars, militaries were the first to adopt them. planes etc. even our hands are genetically designed to kill.


but before we go any further, i want both of you to tell me waht you would do to stop murders.

Nuclear energy has a ton of other purposes. Can't think of many other purposes for guns besides killing, unless you're just going to a gun range, in which case, the guns can be rented there and used solely for that purpose.

I'm not taking any sides, shigdig. I'm just pointing out which arguments are dumb.

Stoney wrote:

Dam_Noir wrote:

Oscar Pistorius has shot his model girlfriend because he 'mistook her for an intruder', what a bellend.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21457008

Saw this earlier, it was all over the news and I was like, why is murder getting so much coverage on Irish news, then fact dawned on me that it was "blade runner", couldn't believe, reports suggest he was quiet an aggressive person. And the way he was lead out of his house when arrested reeked of a guilty man. Hoodie up, head down.

What a scumbag.

I don't have on opinion on this incident, but I would just like to point out that cops commonly put up the hoods of people if they have one to make them looks like thugs.

But Oscar Pistorius is like the Kobe Bryant of South Africa. He's the face of their sporting world.

TheCinemaJack wrote:

Nuclear energy has a ton of other purposes. Can't think of many other purposes for guns besides killing, unless you're just going to a gun range, in which case, the guns can be rented there and used solely for that purpose.

I'm not taking any sides, shigdig. I'm just pointing out which arguments are dumb.

>Can't think of many other purposes for guns besides killing

hunting
sport
collecting
self defense
pest control
fun

>unless you're just going to a gun range, in which case, the guns can be rented there and used solely for that purpose.

what if i dont want to rent guns?

shigdig wrote:

TheCinemaJack wrote:

Nuclear energy has a ton of other purposes. Can't think of many other purposes for guns besides killing, unless you're just going to a gun range, in which case, the guns can be rented there and used solely for that purpose.

I'm not taking any sides, shigdig. I'm just pointing out which arguments are dumb.

>Can't think of many other purposes for guns besides killing

hunting
sport
collecting
self defense
pest control
fun

>unless you're just going to a gun range, in which case, the guns can be rented there and used solely for that purpose.

what if i dont want to rent guns?

You're right. Hunting, self-defense, and pest control don't involve killing or at least maiming. As far as collecting goes, you can always get a decommissioned gun that doesn't fire. Or just find a new hobby, lol. And like I said, any kind of sport that involves you shooting at an inanimate object like a plate or a target, it can be arranged so that you can only use a gun in that place of business.

>You're right. Hunting, self-defense, and pest control don't involve killing or at least maiming


well self defense doesnt always. sometimes pulling the gun is enough to stop the conflict & then calling police. & killing animals is necessary


>As far as collecting goes, you can always get a decommissioned gun that doesn't fire. Or just find a new hobby, lol. And like I said, any kind of sport that involves you shooting at an inanimate object like a plate or a target, it can be arranged so that you can only use a gun in that place of business.


& what if i dont want to?

I wasn't aware we hunted our food anymore, I pretty sure it falls under sport.

Shig the person who is a proclaimed and proud member of the NRA (apparently)

The President of said organisation had this to say ''There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people''

He then goes on saying games such as Bullet Storm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat are pretty much the cause & I quote ''Mortal Kombat and Natural Born Killers–specifically–that causes mass shootings, not military-style assault weapons that we can buy online.''

Not only that this mofo went on to bash violent movies ''I mean we have blood-soaked films out there, like “American Psycho,” “Natural Born Killers.”

Now shig, as a gaming forum and you being a member of this organisation that is clearly anti-violence in media and wants to end our days of killing each other online or perhaps murdering a prostitute or two, I ask this WHY DO U WANT 2 TAKE OUR GEAMS !

Get away from my games and violent movies, shigdig.

do you actually think the NRA blames video games? they were just saying that to draw some of the heat off them. if they really were against video games, they would have sunk millions into getting legislation in.

lrn2politics


id respect gun control advocates more if they actually wanted to lower the homicide rate. instead they go after boogie men like "assault rifles" which take up less than 2% of total homicides in the US.

if they were to say they wanted a pistol ban, i can see why. theres statistics that prove that we do have a problem with pistols on the street in this country. & while i wouldnt support that either, i can see that their feelings are sincere.

but they pretty much just want to ban scary looking guns, so politicians can feel good that they have “done something” to stop crime. No lives are saved, & Criminals still have access to guns.

shigdig wrote:

do you actually think the NRA blames video games? they were just saying that to draw some of the heat off them. if they really were against video games, they would have sunk millions into getting legislation in.

Still reflects badly on him to use such a simple scapegoat that only bad parents would use.

Quote :

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

The same kind of logic what most video games uses. It is never that simple in real life.

yonny616 wrote:

TheCinemaJack wrote:

Nobody is arguing that the man himself wasn't responsible. God, that's such a lame argument against gun control.

"The guns don't have souls! They're not making the choice!"

The point is that people want to remove the tools that people can use to kill other people. Whether you agree with gun control or not, you have to recognize that.

Then we should remove anything that can kill. Cars, hands, legs, bats, knifes, ect. Everything in this plant can kill, should we remove water since I can choose t drown someone? How about cut my natural weapons off (arms and legs) since I can beat someone to death. We need to stop living in this overly protective bubble created by the government.

Cars are primarily used for transport.
Hands are primarily used for grasping and picking up objects.
Legs are primairly used for walking.
Bats are primarily used for sport.
Knifes are primarily used in food preparation but I agree they can be designed solely to be an offensive weapon. (That's why in the UK it's illegal to carry a knife in public with a blade longer than 3 inches due to the fact it could be used for that very reason)
Guns are primaily used for killing and maiming. Sporting reasons is nothing more than a mere by-product.

Irregardless of what really happened at the Pistorius household that day. IF what Oscar Pistorius claims is true and he believed an intruder was breaking into his house then his girlfriend wouldn't be dead if he: tried to jump into his car to run her over, tried to punch her to death, tried to kick her to death (granted Pistorius would struggle with this one), approached her with a bat intending to beat her to death and likewise regards a knife. As each of the above would give Pistorius a chance to positively identify the person he is attacking and even give him more time to fully think about his actions.

A gun can kill somebody instantly without the user even having to be anywhere near the target to make a postive ID, in turn this probably makes the user feel far less disconnected to what they are doing compared to any of the other reasons you've mentioned.

But I can still KILL with all those things.

yonny616 wrote:

But I can still KILL with all those things.

Well OBVIOUSLY.

But you can't kill in the numbers, efficiency, and speed that a gun provides.

yonny616 wrote:

But I can still KILL with all those things.

What a cop out response, if you can't differentiate between something that could be used to cause harm and something specifically desgined to cause harm then frankly you are hopeless.

I had all my teeth removed cuz I COULD bite someone to death if I wanted to.

I removed all my nails cause I might scratch someone to death.

the point is. the US has 90 privately owned firearms per 100 people. what are you going to do about it?

That wasn't the point. You made that the point because your logic sucks.

See now you see my point. In all seriousness though, I see you point, Noir. It's just that I'm pointing out you can kill with anything if you want to. I'm not saying what was designed to kill or not and I know guns were made to kill, but still the responsibility of klling or not falls on the person.

yonny616 wrote:

See now you see my point. In all seriousness though, I see you point, Noir. It's just that I'm pointing out you can kill with anything if you want to. I'm not saying what was designed to kill or not and I know guns were made to kill, but still the responsibility of klling or not falls on the person.

Right but there's a distinct difference between banning what CAN kill and banning what's DESIGNED to kill. Nahmsayin' bruh?

TheCinemaJack wrote:

That wasn't the point. You made that the point because your logic sucks.

what point? did i ever say guns were harmless? youre getting me confused with yonny. i recognize a gun makes killing alot easier.

but once again, what are you going to do about it?


& lol. cars weren't designed to kill yet kill more people than firearms. i think thats a positive thing for guns.

shigdig wrote:

TheCinemaJack wrote:

That wasn't the point. You made that the point because your logic sucks.

what point? did i ever say guns were harmless? youre getting me confused with yonny. i recognize a gun makes killing alot easier.

but once again, what are you going to do about it?


& lol. cars weren't designed to kill yet kill more people than firearms. i think thats a positive thing for guns.

In 2001, 70% of Americans drove to work in cars. New York City is the only locality in America in which the number of people driving cars are in the minority. If people used guns as much as they do cars, the numbers would be way different.