[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;44563369]the best pro gun argument I had on facepunch was when a few posters tried to convince me that what a guy did in a school shooting could have been done with a bow and arrows
laughed for fucking hours thinking about it
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
the three firearms that basically transitioned into the shotgun were all created with the express purpose of killing people
I honestly do not understand this distortion some people have. Nobody is disputing firearms can be used for purposes other than violence, but their primary usage and design purpose was killing people
the very first firearms created were designed with killing people as their purpose.
if you do not understand this you are simply delusional and that is it[/QUOTE]
no I understand full well that the original purpose of firearms was to kill people, but like many things that started off as practice for combat, shooting has largely transitioned into a sport so I dont think the whole "originally designed to kill" argument (while true) is particularly relevant for anything other than demonizing gun owners
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44563273]You keep saying that the gun's purpose is to kill, but you're not providing any evidence to support this.
The specific design of a gun is to contain a force which in turn pushes a projectile out of the gun. It's lethality is dependent on to many variables including target.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?
The chinese in the 13th century weren't using crude hand cannons to hunt quail, they were using them to kill. The entire origin of firearms is about use for the express purpose of killing people.
In fact, prior to the 18th century, guns weren't even useful for hunting, as the old wheellock mechanism and mechanisms prior would simply scare the prey off. Guns weren't just made as a sort of multi-purpose tool, they were made to kill, and kill people on battlefields specifically. Just look at what the whole design purpose was behind popular rounds like 9mm, 5.56mm, and 7.62x39mm. They do have a wide range of legitimate uses by civilians, but they were ultimately made and adopted so that killing, specifically the killing of humans in warfare, would be much easier.
The "evidence to support" it is right there in the history of guns themselves, do the appropriate research work or watch a documentary on firearms or something and then come back.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44563273]You keep saying that the gun's purpose is to kill, but you're not providing any evidence to support this.
The specific design of a gun is to contain a force which in turn pushes a projectile out of the gun. It's lethality is dependent on to many variables including target.[/QUOTE]
How about this then, a gun pushes a projectile out of the gun and that projectile AKA the bullet can kill a person, so with that a gun is used to kill. How do I need evidence that it kills anyway? Like, how far are you willing to defend something that is a fact?
Best way to get to the bottom of this:
Can well maintained guns operate on their own without outside manipulation? y/n
[QUOTE=UziXxX;44563619]Best way to get to the bottom of this:
Can well maintained guns operate on their own without outside manipulation? y/n[/QUOTE]
Awful way to get to the bottom of this.
Just because it requires a user does not stop it being a weapon and a massive risk. No doubt you'd be arguing "cars kill people, ban those too!" if we hadn't gone down this route. Guns make it infinitely easier for the everyman to kill, this is not a good thing. It might defend you, sure, but that gives criminals a reason to carry themselves, and gives them even more power. They're still probably going to mug you or take your shit, it'd be reckless to try and draw on a mugger who has you already, and break ins aren't always noisy hell-events (after all, how do you think a lot of the once legal firearms criminal use are gathered?).
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44561802]I'll never understand America's or this forum obsession with guns tbh and I just thank my luck that I was born in a country where this shit is not tolerated
Not trying to start a shit riot but honestly I don't get it, I don't understand the need or desire to have or own a deadly weapon that does more harm than good
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
Props to this guy and his group, it's a good step[/QUOTE]
They're fun to shoot for sport? You obviously never spent a day at a range and shot guns because it really is fun as long as you do it safely.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44563648]Awful way to get to the bottom of this.
Just because it requires a user does not stop it being a weapon and a massive risk. No doubt you'd be arguing "cars kill people, ban those too!" if we hadn't gone down this route. Guns make it infinitely easier for the everyman to kill, this is not a good thing. It might defend you, sure, but that gives criminals a reason to carry themselves, and gives them even more power. They're still probably going to mug you or take your shit, it'd be reckless to try and draw on a mugger who has you already, and break ins aren't always noisy hell-events (after all, how do you think a lot of the once legal firearms criminal use are gathered?).[/QUOTE]
You've actually exposed a good point. You've shown that the problem is rather dynamic and (in my opinion) a simple yes or no answer won't suffice. The best way to handle it is on a case by case basis.
As you said, its the easiest way to inflict damage. Criminals will carry guns despite people being armed or not. Simply look cities in America where guns are banned. Criminals have guns.
Guns are tools, but yes- they are tools designed with the intent to cause bodily harm. People call certain guns "assault rifle". But is there a firearm that [I]isn't[/I] meant to assault someone? Not counting starter guns for horse races and swimming, ect. Those don't fire real bullets as to my understanding.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44563648]Awful way to get to the bottom of this.
Just because it requires a user does not stop it being a weapon and a massive risk. No doubt you'd be arguing "cars kill people, ban those too!" if we hadn't gone down this route. Guns make it infinitely easier for the everyman to kill, this is not a good thing. It might defend you, sure, but that gives criminals a reason to carry themselves, and gives them even more power. They're still probably going to mug you or take your shit, it'd be reckless to try and draw on a mugger who has you already, and break ins aren't always noisy hell-events (after all, how do you think a lot of the once legal firearms criminal use are gathered?).[/QUOTE]
It really just comes down to a difference in beliefs. I think it is "worth the risk" while you do not.
I think the everyman having that available to him is empowering and in theory it gives power to the people.
The latter part of what you said is just hypothetical what ifs. Personally I'd take the chance having a firearm available than not having one.
[QUOTE=Aman;44563701]It really just comes down to a difference in beliefs. I think it is "worth the risk" while you do not.
I think the everyman having that available to him is empowering and in theory it gives power to the people.
The latter part of what you said is just hypothetical what ifs. Personally I'd take the chance having a firearm available than not having one.[/QUOTE]
I don't think giving every fucker on the planet the ability to take lives away at what is essentially a whim (a trigger pull is nothing compared to the effort of fatally stabbing or fisticuff-ing your way to murder) is a healthy thing for a society.
However the "hypotheticals" aren't all that hypothetical. Countries with greater firearm restriction see less firearms use during crime. Sure the black markets exist, they always will, but their supplies aren't nearly as numerous. As for not drawing on a mugger who already has you, that's just common fucking sense, it's not worth losing your life over your wallet or whatever, the contents of that should be insured, you are not.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44563814]I don't think giving every fucker on the planet the ability to take lives away at what is essentially a whim (a trigger pull is nothing compared to the effort of fatally stabbing or fisticuff-ing your way to murder) is a healthy thing for a society.
[/QUOTE]
Matter of opinion. I think it's a powerful thing but people should have a right to it.
You are basically saying you don't trust society or your neighbors, I put a bit more faith in humanity.
And yes they were hypothetical because they are made up scenarios...
Yes a firearm isn't an absolute problem solver there are times when they aren't necessary or not possible, but I'd prefer the ability to have it than not have it.
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
And really you have to understand these types of measures (let's say banning handguns for example) aren't even feasible in North America. Not feasible at all.
Not feasible in the US because of the 2nd amendment and the huge proliferation of guns across the country and society, and not feasible in Canada because of our proximity to the US and our gargantuan border.
At that point you are hurting law abiding citizens more than you are putting any dents in crime. Trying to enact these laws would be an impossible farce and a huge waste of resources.
It seems at least in North America when it comes to gun rights things are liberalizing. I hope it continues to get better. Things have only been like this since the mid 90's you know, same for the UK. Before the early 90's it wasn't chaotic cowboy anarchy.
[QUOTE=Aide;44561829]Because in 'Merica,
guns = freedom.
I'm awaiting for the gun nuts to come in here and raid this thread. Because you know their are plenty of american fp gun owners.
[sp]But that won't probally happen cause most of them are sane users.[/sp][/QUOTE]
Most gun owners are sane people too. It's only the fuck heads who walk around with AR's and AK's trying to start shit. I mean if its legal in that state to open carry then by all means open carry, but they know its not the social norm and people will be scared and call the cops. Yet they will continue to make an ass out of themselves. Some people hunt, and some people practice marksmanship, trap, or skeet shooting. Some people like to do all of it!
Other people just want to shoot guns for the sake of shooting guns.
Have you ever driven your car with no destination in mind, just to drive your car? I do, i quite enjoy driving my car late at night with some good music, or none, and let my engine be the music. Why? Because driving makes me smile, and so does shooting a gun.
[QUOTE=Aman;44563877]You are basically saying you don't trust society or your neighbors, I put a bit more faith in humanity.[/QUOTE]
It's the fact I trust my neighbours, community, etc. to actually respond in times of distress and shit, and not mug me blind that I don't feel the need to have a gun in the name of defence or anything. I don't trust average people with the ability to end others lives on a whim because humans have these things, emotions I think they're called, they make us do stupid shit that we regret almost instantly occasionally.
People are shot over dumb stuff like cheating, people are more able to commit suicide with access to firearms, and so forth. It's not because I don't trust people, it's because I don't trust people having that much power over each other.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44563972]It's the fact I trust my neighbours, community, etc. to actually respond in times of distress and shit, and not mug me blind that I don't feel the need to have a gun in the name of defence or anything. I don't trust average people with the ability to end others lives on a whim because humans have these things, emotions I think they're called, they make us do stupid shit that we regret almost instantly occasionally.
People are shot over dumb stuff like cheating, people are more able to commit suicide with access to firearms, and so forth. It's not because I don't trust people, it's because I don't trust people having that much power over each other.[/QUOTE]
It's not because you don't trust people, it's because you don't trust people...hmmm.
You don't trust people to be rational and overall good citizens. Vast majority of US gun owners disprove your insinuation that giving people guns turns them all into irrational emotional cowboys. Otherwise gun crime would be truly ridiculous not on a constant downwards trend despite many states liberalizing their gun laws even further.
Now you'd say I don't trust people because I think about potential crime. I guess you could spin it that way but crime has and will always exist. It's not even that I'm so paranoid of my surroundings or something I just like the idea of the right to self defense with modern means. I don't like the idea of being powerless. No one should feel neutered or powerless.
Outliers always occur whatever the societal topic but the point is the majority is good.
I don't believe a few outliers are worth taking the rights away from the majority, you seem to think otherwise.
[QUOTE=Aman;44564025]It's not because you don't trust people, it's because you don't trust people...hmmm.[/quote]
Good work missing the point entirely I guess?
[QUOTE=Aman;44564025]I don't believe a few outliers are worth taking the rights away from the majority, you seem to think otherwise.[/QUOTE]
When the "right" is the ability to have something that takes life with ease, and is designed for such a purpose? Yeah, I think that's a pretty okay thing to restrict harshly.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44563972]It's the fact I trust my neighbours, community, etc. to actually respond in times of distress and shit, and not mug me blind that I don't feel the need to have a gun in the name of defence or anything. I don't trust average people with the ability to end others lives on a whim because humans have these things, emotions I think they're called, they make us do stupid shit that we regret almost instantly occasionally.
People are shot over dumb stuff like cheating, people are more able to commit suicide with access to firearms, and so forth. It's not because I don't trust people, it's because I don't trust people having that much power over each other.[/QUOTE]
I trust one neighbor, the rest i never talked to in my life! Two streets over is the ghetto/barrio so i guess that leaves out my community. Living next to a fault line makes me wonder what would happen if a big quake hit and the power would to go out. I bet my ass there will some vandals/looters and ill be damned if i didn't try to defend my property. Of course the last thing i would want to do is kill someone , but if push comes to shove i will enact Castle Doctrine.
if there is a group that lobbies for guns, then there should also be a group that lobbies against them
I love guns. I love shooting guns at ranges, its just fun. But i would not shoot at somebody unless they pose a threat to my life. Why should they try to take away guns? Its a small minority of people who own guns that abuse guns for crime. And the crime is mostly from a bad upbringing, poverty or living in a really shitty community imo
(Let the boxes of dumb fly at my opinion)
[QUOTE=SataniX;44562919]So....I agree with your argument overall but that statement just makes no sense.
If this country had the same population and same crime rate, there would be less crimes?
Surely, same population and same crime per capita = the same overall?[/QUOTE]
Whopps, I meant if you had the same gun crime rate you'd have 20 thousand less gun deaths each year.
It also applies that if Canada had the same population, we would have 20 thousand less, I kind of added the two together
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=AJ10017;44565254]I love guns. I love shooting guns at ranges, its just fun. But i would not shoot at somebody unless they pose a threat to my life. Why should they try to take away guns? Its a small minority of people who own guns that abuse guns for crime. And the crime is mostly from a bad upbringing, poverty or living in a really shitty community imo
(Let the boxes of dumb fly at my opinion)[/QUOTE]
The difference is guns are used in domestic disputes and suicides a lot as well.
It's not just "bad people" who use guns to do bad things, they're just the only ones who make the news. There's this skewed opinion people have where they can't possibly do wrong with a gun, and when something does happen they are somehow just an outlier.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44563393]Derived from a tool designed as a weapon (they themselves are still weapons anyway). [/QUOTE]
That's a pretty useless argument. Knives and clubs were originally fashioned by cavemen to kill prey animals but that doesn't have any bearing on what cooking knives and carpentry hammers are meant for today. Technologies can change and be adapted over time for purposes other than their original intent.
As for who defends their home with birdshot and target rifles, the answer is a lot of people. The things that reliably kill birds and deer also can be effective against humans; that's a product of biology, not intent, just as a knife that effectively cuts food is effective as a weapon against people despite that not being the intent of the design. Shotguns and hunting rifles are designed to kill, yes, but that's not a special ontological category that makes things uniquely bad. We rely on technologies designed expressly to kill pests or food animals every day and think nothing of it. It's devices designed to kill people that deserve extra scrutiny- but applying that label to all firearms is painting with an overly broad brush.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44565437]Whopps, I meant if you had the same gun crime rate you'd have 20 thousand less gun deaths each year.
It also applies that if Canada had the same population, we would have 20 thousand less, I kind of added the two together
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
The difference is guns are used in domestic disputes and suicides a lot as well.
It's not just "bad people" who use guns to do bad things, they're just the only ones who make the news. There's this skewed opinion people have where they can't possibly do wrong with a gun, and when something does happen they are somehow just an outlier.[/QUOTE]
Suicides means little since I wouldn't really consider it a crime to begin with. (even though it legally is I know) I think it was dacommie before when this argument arose took a look at purely Canada's suicide rates with looser gun laws and tighter gun laws and the only different was suicide methods swayed over from firearms to other methods. They didn't really rise or decrease significantly overall other than some statistical noise.
If people want to kill themselves they are gonna kill themselves. Okay a gun is "easier" I still don't buy that as a reason for restricting guns because someone is too weak minded at a point in their life.
But it also takes time for the culture to reform. The united states is obsessed with guns so you have a high gun ownership and gun crime rate. If you banned guns, or at least tried to convince people not to own them, you won't necessarily see a sudden change in gun violence overnight.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44565669]But it also takes time for the culture to reform. The united states is obsessed with guns. If you banned guns you won't necessarily see a sudden change in gun violence overnight.[/QUOTE]
Oh if you banned guns overnight you'd see a change in gun violence, it'd be a rise, and it'd be directed towards the government and authorities :v:.
It's still not feasible to try and fully ban even a type of gun in north america. That is purely from the practical standpoint it doesn't even get into how useless it'd be in the long run with enforcement, compliance, etc.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;44564039]A baseball bat was designed to hit a ball, how you use it does not change the fact that it was designed for a sport. Firearms on the other hand are designed to kill. [/QUOTE]
Let me get this straight. You're saying that this:
[img]http://www.sportsblox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Louisville-Slugger-The-History-of-The-Baseball-Bat.jpg[/img]
is a sporting implement, that just so happens to be a design that can be used as a weapon, but this:
[img]http://www.eberlestock.com/2006%20red%20usa%20logo1.jpg[/img]
is a weapon, designed to kill, that just so happens to be used as a sporting implement?
What makes one a sporting implement and the other a weapon used for sport? Both are designed explicitly for use in an organized sport and both are capable of being used as weapons. Both are fully capable of killing people, neither is designed for the purpose.
This whole 'designed to kill' idea is both inaccurate and meaningless as its core. It gives no special significance in a society reliant on technologies explicitly designed to kill. Nobody bats an eye at rat poison, antibiotics, or captive bolt guns. We care about things designed to kill [i]people[/i], but that label doesn't apply to the majority of firearms on the civilian market. You need a more nuanced and intelligent argument than 'guns are meant to kill people so they're bad'.
Also wanted to say this. Gun violence is a symptom of a illness that is in our country. You don't cure an illness by putting a bandaid on a symptom of a illness. It does not address the real problem.
Want to reduce crime. Look at what your not doing and not addressing and start there. Invest in your people regardless of race‚ creed and social status. Give people health care‚ education‚ and infrastructure. If you set them up too succeeded things can and will get better
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44563525]How about this then, a gun pushes a projectile out of the gun and that projectile AKA the bullet can kill a person, so with that a gun is used to kill. How do I need evidence that it kills anyway? Like, how far are you willing to defend something that is a fact?[/QUOTE]
Not what I'm saying. I know that guns are used to kill people, and are extremely efficient at that task. A particular model of gun may be designed for killing humans, as some are. But not all guns are used, or even designed with killing in mind.
What I'm saying is that you can't make a blanket statement that the purpose of all guns is to kill, because that's just not true. And a gun's function, ultimately is not to kill, but to fire a projectile. Nothing more, nothing less. What it's designed for? Well that's up to the manufacturer, just like what it's used for is up to the user.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;44564039]Do you even understand what they're arguing? A baseball bat was designed to hit a ball, how you use it does not change the fact that it was designed for a sport. Firearms on the other hand are designed to kill. How you use it is up to you, but it does not change the fact that the main purpose of it is to kill things[/QUOTE]
The main purpose of the AR-15 I built is for target shooting. Everything from the floated stainless steel bull barrel to the $400 scope is made to be accurate when shooting targets. Even the projectiles I use, while not very good for killing, are designed to be more accurate with a sacrifice to lethality. Main purpose is a subjective case-by-case basis, and inappropriate to use as a blanket descriptive term.
Top 10 causes of death in the US in 2010.
Heart Disease (597,689 deaths)
Cancer (574,743 deaths)
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease
Stroke
Unintentional Injury
Alzheimer's Disease
Diabetes
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, nephrosis
Influenza and pneumonia
suicide
[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6208a8.htm[/URL]
Firearm related deaths including suicide in 2010.
31,672
Firearm suicides in 2010.
19,392
Only 12,280 firearm deaths not including suicide in 2010.
[URL]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states[/URL]
Of those 12,280 about 70%-80% were gang on gang related homicide. ~8,900 death.
[URL]http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm[/URL]
~3380 killed in a country of 314 million.
Between 2005-2009 an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States.
[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html[/URL]
In the US you have a greater chance of drowning than you do of being fatally shot. You greatly decrease your chances of being fatally shot if you don't hang out in the hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and are not planning on committing a crime.
Really? We're doing this again? Another argument about gun control in the United States?
Look, we're not all packing heat, sorry if that shatters your image of Americans but you had to find out sooner or later. Actually, the majority of Americans aren't gun owners at all! Think of it like that whole 1% thing, a vast portion of firearms in the United States are owned by a rather small portion of the total population, which really has nothing to do with anything, but what counts is actual gun owners. Basically, that's like half the population, I can't remember off the top of my head. Anyway, most of the crime in the United States, and I mean a massive chunk of it, comes from our top ten most dangerous cities. Ignoring them puts our violent crime rate well below other "developed countries" and that's with and without ignoring the top ten violent cities in those countries as well. Basically the United States has a few [i]really, really violent cities[/i] and that's about it, we're not actually that violent of a country. Most of them are heavily into gun control, which seems to have done exactly dick to curb the violence.
The thing is, firearms are just... [i]irrelevant.[/i] They have no correlation to the actual crime rate and as gun ownership fluctuates the crime rate still steadily drops. They do nothing to help or hinder the situation, the numbers do not add up for either argument no matter how much your little liberal/conservative hearts want it to work out like you believe. I did have a bunch of sources for all of this, but since this is essentially a recap of what I've posted [i]in all the other arguments[/i] I'm not going to bother.
What does have an impact on suicides, crime rate, and fatalities normally associated with crime is actually treating the cause of the problems. Community outreach programs, good educational institutions, programs that help keep children out of gangs and provide support for emotional and mental problems, and other forms of assistance to high-crime areas are the solution. Who would have thought? By going off the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people," it's not a surprise that helping [i]people[/i] helps the problem.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44562596]I never get why some non-US Facepunchers find it so hard to understand why US gun culture is the way it is. You don't really need to be an American to get it if you just look at the history of the US. The government itself was founded by a bunch of guys who just shot up their rulers, and were largely in love with small government, maximum rights to citizens, and revolution when necessary (or fun). Then they enshrined the right in a document which is damn near venerated, and considered the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and this behavior has been going on for a few hundred years.
I'm not making any statement about how you should personally feel about private gun ownership, but it's not very difficult to look at it historically and see why guns are so deeply embedded in American life.[/QUOTE]
Australia had some what of a gun culture tho nothing like Americas, our ban on guns caused a lot of controversy but at the end of the day, Australia is peaceful and the crime rate is pretty much the same as the UKs
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44563006]If I use a baseball bat to kill someone, it's also a weapon. Does that mean that baseball bats were designed and built to kill people?
You're trying to blame an inanimate object for the illegal acts that are done with it. It's like saying computers were designed for piracy.[/QUOTE]
You're making yourself look dumb, you know that?
[QUOTE=SHIG;44566067]Top 10 causes of death in the US in 2010.
Heart Disease (597,689 deaths)
Cancer (574,743 deaths)
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease
Stroke
Unintentional Injury
Alzheimer's Disease
Diabetes
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, nephrosis
Influenza and pneumonia
suicide
[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6208a8.htm[/URL]
Firearm related deaths including suicide in 2010.
31,672
Firearm suicides in 2010.
19,392
Only 12,280 firearm deaths not including suicide in 2010.
[URL]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states[/URL]
Of those 12,280 about 70%-80% were gang on gang related homicide. ~8,900 death.
[URL]http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm[/URL]
~3380 killed in a country of 314 million.
Between 2005-2009 an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States.
[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html[/URL]
In the US you have a greater chance of drowning than you do of being fatally shot. You greatly decrease your chances of being fatally shot if you don't hang out in the hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and are not planning on committing a crime.[/QUOTE]
Thread should end with your post and JumpinJackFlash's post.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
