Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42792989]then why do soldiers and policemen spend so long shooting at targets[/QUOTE] because we don't exactly have the facilities to accurately practice every possible gunfight-related situation for a cop in a way that doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars?

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42792999]silly putty started out as a rubber cement prototype, i don't see why guns can't move past murdering people and be used primarily as a hobby if you ban a 'tool of killing' people will just find a different tool[/QUOTE] I mean it could but that would require years of cultural shift. Even so, it would be a dangerous hobby. Like Lawn Darts mixed with Dynamite Fishing.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793034]because we don't exactly have the facilities to accurately practice every possible gunfight-related situation for a cop in a way that doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars?[/QUOTE] so its a redundant exercise that doesn't help them whatsoever?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793027]Because guns haven't moved passed murdering people and no they don't find different tools because no tool can compare to a firearm.[/QUOTE] i dunno commercial planes flying into three different buildings proved pretty efficient back in 2001 or maybe the gas attack in japan or maybe bombs those are pretty efficient

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42792960]Yeah but you still get a feel for how powerful the gun is, and it makes you more confident with it. On top of that, this guy just shot this girl as she was running away, not really a firefight.[/QUOTE] yea that's the extent that target shooting makes you better with a gun in any general sense that isn't specific to target shooting. i'm pretty sure military training isn't even heavy with target shooting anymore because it trains you to get killed. [QUOTE=Rufia;42792973]I'm sorry, I don't remember writing "Guns take over the mind of the host resulting in the murder of their family." My point was the only use for a functioning gun is either: A. To go to a shooting range so that you can become better at using a gun. B. To kill something. (not necessarily a person)[/QUOTE] not really even that. there are cultural reasons for gun ownership as well. there is also the idea that an armed populace is harder to control through application of force so it serves a political purpose as well.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42793043]I mean it could but that would require years of cultural shift. Even so, it would be a dangerous hobby. Like Lawn Darts mixed with Dynamite Fishing.[/QUOTE] guns are perfectly safe if you're properly trained. same reason you don't let untrained pilots fly planes, people should go through a safety course and certification process to be able to use a gun for any purpose [QUOTE=NoDachi;42793049]so its a redundant exercise that doesn't help them whatsoever?[/QUOTE] it builds confidence with a weapon and sharpens targeting but it doesn't prepare someone as to what it's like to get shot at or what it's like to kill someone

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793068]i dunno commercial planes flying into three different buildings proved pretty efficient back in 2001 or maybe the gas attack in japan or maybe bombs those are pretty efficient[/QUOTE] all of which are kept out of civilians hands lmao Yeah the skies over our cities are literally raining commercial planes from airline proliferation. So something not stupid please you're killing me

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793107]all of which are kept out of civilians hands lmao[/QUOTE] you forget the unibomber was a civilian and the perpetrators of the sarin gas attacks in japan were civilians and the people who perpetrated 9/11 were technically civilians lmao

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42792989]then why do soldiers and policemen spend so long shooting at targets[/QUOTE] They don't really. Once you're out of basic training you're only required to qualify at a range a few times a year depending on what your job is. Sometimes that number is zero or one. Think it's the same deal with cops once they're out of the academy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793081]not really even that. there are cultural reasons for gun ownership as well. there is also the idea that an armed populace is harder to control through application of force so it serves a political purpose as well.[/QUOTE] If you have no intention of shooting a gun, it can be decommissioned. If you are using a gun to fight/overthrow a government then the intention is still to kill.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793121]you forget the unibomber was a civilian and the perpetrators of the sarin gas attacks in japan were civilians and the people who perpetrated 9/11 were technically civilians lmao[/QUOTE] The unibomber was one guy and the sarin gas was woefully delivered considering the quantities they had.

[QUOTE=Rufia;42792973]I'm sorry, I don't remember writing "Guns take over the mind of the host resulting in the murder of their family." My point was the only use for a functioning gun is either: A. To go to a shooting range so that you can become better at using a gun. B. To kill something. (not necessarily a person)[/QUOTE] What is wrong with B if it is legal and not a person? Hunting is a huge part of American culture even if people (myself included) do not have an desire to do it.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793103]guns are perfectly safe if you're properly trained.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23691146[/url] You can't people proof firearms regardless how much you train

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793049]so its a redundant exercise that doesn't help them whatsoever?[/QUOTE] "shooting" is not just one skill, if it was then i could shoot an ar-15 at a range and then be fully capable of shooting a sniper rifle at a target half a mile away. shooting a target is practice for shooting targets. this is great if you want to go compete in your local target shooting events, but it's not very useful to train you to kill people.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793138]The unibomber was one guy and the sarin gas was woefully delivered considering the quantities they had.[/QUOTE] your point being? it's actually really easy to create bombs and poisonous gases. and apparently very easy to take control of three planes and crash them into some buildings using only box cutters and yelling.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793103]guns are perfectly safe if you're properly trained. same reason you don't let untrained pilots fly planes, people should go through a safety course and certification process to be able to use a gun for any purpose[/QUOTE] Yes than we are on the same page

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793181]your point being? it's actually really easy to create bombs and poisonous gases. and apparently very easy to take control of three planes and crash them into some buildings using only box cutters and yelling.[/QUOTE] no it isn't

[QUOTE=matt000024;42793142]What is wrong with B if it is legal and not a person? Hunting is a huge part of American culture even if people (myself included) do not have an desire to do it.[/QUOTE] My point is the gun is a weapon and, until further notice, that is all it will ever be. To pretend that it is comparable to a knife or a car is to delude yourself. How embedded this weapon is in your culture is another issue entirely.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793160][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23691146[/url] You can't people proof firearms regardless how much you train[/QUOTE] By that logic we should ban cars because you can't stop properly trained people from getting into crashes.

[QUOTE=Rufia;42793137]If you have no intention of shooting a gun, it can be decommissioned. If you are using a gun to fight/overthrow a government then the intention is still to kill.[/QUOTE] no it's not. the intent is to make it harder for a police state to grow or function through threat of force. it isn't really an intent to kill because even the people who arm themselves for political purposes probably wouldn't attempt to actually shoot law enforcement or military. and i never said using a gun to fight/overthrow government. that's sedition and that IS a crime.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793190]no it isn't[/QUOTE] [url]http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-make-thermite.html[/url] [url]http://www.ask.com/question/how-do-you-make-a-fertilizer-bomb[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_cooker_bomb[/url] [url]http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l204/misfit454/howtomakecrystals.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42793222]By that logic we should ban cars because you can't stop properly trained people from getting into crashes.[/QUOTE] Why would you say something so willfully illogical. Banning cars is not a real argument. Society depends on motorized transport. Your economy would collapse overnight if you banned them. Especially considering how stringently regulated the motor industry is compared to the firearm industry. I'm begging you, don't ever compare firearms to cars again. It hurts.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793190]no it isn't[/QUOTE] the explosives thing is true. it's as easy as a trip to the grocery store to make explosives.

[QUOTE=Rufia;42793206]My point is the gun is a weapon and, until further notice, that is all it will ever be. To pretend that it is comparable to a knife or a car is to delude yourself. How embedded this weapon is in your culture is another issue entirely.[/QUOTE] So you are saying guns should be banned even for hunting?

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793181]your point being? it's actually really easy to create bombs and poisonous gases. and apparently very easy to take control of three planes and crash them into some buildings using only box cutters and yelling.[/QUOTE] I know its really easy to get into this position when you are arguing over several pages in a thread, but take a step back and realise how fucking [I]stupid[/I] the point you're trying to make here is.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793244][url]http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-make-thermite.html[/url] [url]http://www.ask.com/question/how-do-you-make-a-fertilizer-bomb[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_cooker_bomb[/url] [url]http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l204/misfit454/howtomakecrystals.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] lmao this proves nothing I can bring you up a recipe for producing MDMA and I bet your ass you wouldn't/couldn't do it.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793264]lmao this proves nothing I can bring you up a recipe for producing MDMA and I bet your ass you wouldn't/couldn't do it.[/QUOTE] if you actually read the recipes you'd see thermite's just mixing rust and aluminum dust you'd see a fertilizer bomb is just ammonium nitrate and gasoline a pressure cooker bomb's just putting one or both of those in a duct-taped pressure cooker hell, making a shitty version of napalm is just dissolving a shitload of styrofoam in gasoline it's not hard at all and if you actually gave enough of a fuck about your own argument you'd see that it's literally easier than cooking and requires a knowledge of basic high school chemistry

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793264]lmao this proves nothing I can bring you up a recipe for producing MDMA and I bet your ass you wouldn't/couldn't do it.[/QUOTE] it's dangerous depending on the recipe unless you take extensive classes in the field of chemistry... oh wait, an organic chemistry 101 class/lab is all the training you need to do it safely.

Sarin attacks, bombings, and 9/11 have one very important distinction though: planning. The issue isn't premeditated killings. Hardly anyone will argue that gun control will significantly impact premeditated killings. What it will impact is spree killings and accidental / foolish deaths

if you have the will to create an explosive then the knowledge and supplies needed are absolutely negligible unless you wanna create something really complex.