you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheCardsharkAardvark 2 ポイント3 ポイント

'Guns aren't bad' is really a matter of opinion.

[–]totes_meta_bot 0 ポイント1 ポイント

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.

[–]TheGInsider2[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

A Gun is not bad, as it cannot do bad, as it is ananimate. It requires a person and motive, be that motive bad or good, try looking at it like this. If a dog pee's on the Carpet, You do not systematically remove all the carpets in your home so that he won't pee on the carpet, What do you do? Treat the Underlying issue. Do you know why Nunchakus are banned in many places? Because they are considerd a weapon under the pretense of them being a "Strangulation device." What do you need to make Nunchakus? Rope. So why have they not made rope illegal in some places? Because it is convient, just like how it is convient to be able to defend my life from a 6-6, 250 pound Heavily muscled thug. No Opinion can ever change that a gun is an inanimate object, and requires the person to do harm. Even if you were Amazing at Unarmed Self Defense, There will always be one person better, or one to many people to defend yourself from. If someone does not trust themself with a gun, i applaud that, because they are being responsible in that they do not believe themselves to be smart with a gun. So, its not that Guns are bad, its that People are Bad. Guns Didn't Cause Cartles, Guns Didn't cause the latest Mass Shooting, Guns didn't cause Adam Lanza to go on a rampage, These people did it by their own accourd, for reasons we may never learn, and even though i have stated it many times within this reply, the Gun is nothing more then an object not capable of doing anything without a human. Until the sin of man is removed, Good Men and Women need to protect themselves from the Bad Men and Women who wish to do them harm.

[–]Gobtholemew 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Bollocks.

It doesn't require a motive at all. Accidents happen. For example when toddlers or children find the gun and accidentally shoot someone. This has happened in numerous occasions.

Sure - treat the underlying problem! Keep guns unloaded, locked away, separately from ammunition. Yet this is something every gun owner should be doing anyway and there are STILL reports of accidents happening.

So what do you do now?

Why not treat the REAL underlying problem... having something that was invented to and designed to KILL stuff readily available to people (and among those "people" there always will be idiots and criminals and accidents).

There is absolutely no need to have such weapons available to the general public. Where do you draw the line? Guided missiles? Rocket propelled grenades? Chemical weapons?

And don't come back with another stupid analogy that is completely different to the situation we're discussing. Pee doesn't kill people, nor is it designed to. Rope has a vast number of normal uses and only kills people when deliberately abused. Also it takes considerably more effort to kill someone, accidentally or not, with a rope than it does a gun.

What you need to understand is the difference between something (guns) that, when used as intended, kill people, and something that only kills people when ABused (rope). You also need to understand the need for these items. Guns are simply NOT needed for human convenience or survival. Rope is.

[–]TheGInsider2[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

"having something that was invented to and designed to KILL stuff readily available to people (and among those "people" there always will be idiots and criminals and accidents)." Oh, So because accidents have happened, we shouldn't have anything? Then Why do we have planes when those idiots hijacked those planes? I mean, they certainly took many people out, so it was probably designed that way right? "There is absolutely no need to have such weapons available to the general public." Right, So that way i cannot protect myself when the criminal has it, because he is a fucking criminal. "What you need to understand is the difference between something (guns) that, when used as intended, kill people, and something that only kills people when ABused (rope). You also need to understand the need for these items. Guns are simply NOT needed for human convenience or survival. Rope is." Lets see what you need to survive.....ah, Food, Shelter, Water, and Heat. Didn't find rope on that list. "when used as intended" So if i intend to go to the range with it, then it kills people? Wait.....I think i see a very tiny flaw in that. Once again, Inanimate Object. "Guns are simply NOT needed for human convenience or survival." So its not convient for me to be able to hunt? Its not convient for me to be able to protect my life from the 6-6 250 pound thug who has no issue with killing me? That helps me survive, and it pretty fucking convienient. never ran out of food and had to live off rope, so explain how rope is required, but a gun isn't. "Rope has a vast number of normal uses and only kills people when deliberately abused." So Hunting, Recreational shooting and competitions, Saving your life, Saving our Military Mens lives, etc. So, lets see, no normal used, and only kills people when deliberatly abused....wait. Oh yeah, i already had to mention an error in your logic, now i have to again. "Also it takes considerably more effort to kill someone, accidentally or not, with a rope than it does a gun." Not Really, There was a cop that had to shoot someone who was trying to kill him 8 times from a .45 Also, You ever heard of a Garrotte? Its made of simple rope or wire, and only takes 1 or 2 seconds to kill. Yeah, Follow the 4 Rules, and no accidents happen. Simple. And yes, Pee does kill people, albiet rare, Holding in your urine can rupture your bladder. So another thing you claim as truth is plauged with another error. "There is absolutely no need to have such weapons available to the general public. Where do you draw the line? Guided missiles? Rocket propelled grenades? Chemical weapons?" How the fuck did we go from Allowing people to own guns, to Chemical Weapons? Im on the side of the law with this one, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Reason Japan did not invade us was because the General said it would be a suicide mission, as "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." This is coming from the Government that Supported Kamakazi's, Who commited suicide to further their mission. You saying a few idiots abusing something using it as a justification for it to be removed, just lets me know how Commiserable you are. You'd rather everyone Disarmed and ready for slaughter, then protected and free, in other words, You think you should trade freedom for security, but you will get and deserve neither.

[–]Gobtholemew 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Your analogies are completely wrong.

Passenger planes are NOT designed to kill people. The opposite is true. In fact, if you examine the death rates per passenger plane and compare then to the death rate per gun, I'm sure you'll find a HUGE difference.

Your analogy would be better had you suggested giving fully loaded fighter jets to the general public. Do you think that's a good idea?

Yes accidents happen, but that in itself is not the only factor. Accidents with passenger planes are extremely rare because they're so controlled and all but unavailable to the general public. Guns are way more available, and as such much more difficult to control.

You example about protecting yourself from criminals is not accurate either. It's a catch 22 situation. If the criminal didn't have access to weapons in the first place then you would have far less need for a gun yourself. In the event of a fight, you're both far more likely to get killed if there's a gun shooting at you then if you use your fists or even a baseball bat. Bear in mind that you already have an advantage against criminals in your home, because you have an entire arsenal of things that can be used as a weapon in an emergency (e.g. hammers, kitchen knives, etc).

There are also non-lethal options such as insanely bright security torches that are shown to be more effective than a gun at avoiding injury (people tend to miss and run out of bullets when scared).

I didn't say rope was specifically needed for survival. I said "convenience or survival". Rope is convenient. In a survival situation a rope is FAR more convenient than a gun. Do you ever see Bear Grylls take a gun with him? No. But he takes paracord all the time.

You're only factoring in one variable when you say a gun is an inanimate object. Sure, it's an inanimate object. But it's an inanimate object that was invented and designed to kill people and is very good at doing exactly that. It's also easy to obtain and commonly used for that very purpose. The other objects you cite (planes, ropes, etc) are not.

Hunting... what the actual fuck? The vast majority of people around the world have never hunted in their lives, and it certainly isn't necessary in the modern western world. So balance this... are all these innocent lives being lost worth it just so that you and a few other people can go unnecessarily go hunting once a year? Of course not.

Do you live in an area where 6-6 250 pound thugs are likely to kill you? I imagine this scenario is extremely rare. But say it does happen to you... what happens if you hear a noise in your house and shoot an intruder? You turn the light on and it's your fucking wife? Or you perhaps it was an intruder, but you missed and hit your child. Or perhaps it wasn't an intruder but your neighbor just accidentally stumbling into your house drunk at night due to an innocent mistake.

And, as I said above, there are far more effective non-lethal alternatives. Guns are crappy for home defence. They are hard to aim in the dark, run out of bullets, and are a no better deterrent than a blank firing gun.

You "never ran out of food". So why the need to go hunting?

You asked to say how a rope is better for survival, but you're using a very extreme example. So I'll explain... the chances of you needing a gun to survive is extremely slim. It pretty much boils down to the example you gave, or maybe being attacked by a bear or some such. A rope, on the other hand, as a multitude of survival uses. You can use it to build shelter, catch food (snares), carrying stuff, mobility (crossing terrain, etc), repairs, safety (entering water, climbing), fluffing the end up for tinder (fire), first aid (tourniquet), etc.

Furthermore, you missed the obvious point that it's pretty easy to kill or seriously injure someone with a gun than it is with a length of rope. If I leave a loaded gun lying around and my child gets hold of it, I would imagine someone or something would get shot. That would be very bad. If I leave a couple of feet of rope lying around I can be pretty certain nothing bad will happen.

I also never said the military shouldn't have guns. They do need them and they're trained to use them. War is a completely different scenario though. You're not in a warzone at home. However, if you were trained to use guns and were required to do so in your theatre then, yes, you should have a gun.

Your example of a garotte is wrong too. It's not rope - they're typically made of thin wire or fishing line and, like guns, are designed to kill people. People who go to a store to buy some rope don't come out with a meter length of fishing line or piano wire, they come out with a bundle of rope. Yes, you can strangle someone with them, but you're still wrong... you're using a specialised example again. It's still easier to kill someone, IN GENERAL, with a gun than a rope. A gun is designed to kill someone very quickly and at range. It can do that very effectively with little effort. To use a rope to kill someone you would have to get very close to them, putting yourself at huge risk, or make a trap or gallows (not quick).

Yes - again there are extreme examples of when pee can kill someone. I guess you could drown someone if you had enough of it too. But, again, if your argument is so good then you would be able to use pee for home defense against your 6-6 250lb guy in your house. Yet... obviously you can't, and that is exactly the difference between a gun and pee. A gun is FAR more effective at killing people because that's what it's designed to do.

Laws... OK... well I'm from the UK so our laws are very different. People are NOT allowed to own guns here, in general.

Your example of Japan is great, but outdated. If Japan attacked the US now it would be from the comfort of their leaders arm chair, and it wouldn't be people at home in the US with guns protecting it, it would be the US and UN military. The general public at home have very little use in modern warfare.

Finally, it's not just a few idiots abusing something that's justification here. It's lots of idiots and lots of sensibly people too, good standing people and criminals, abusing and using, accidentally or deliberately... but whatever the end they are all avoidable deaths, sometimes deserved, but usually tragic.

Disarmed public does not mean "ready for slaughter". You're confusing the 1940s with the 21st century. The US has a very capable military for such things. On a smaller scale (criminals attacking you) there are better non-lethal alternatives.

[–]TheGInsider2[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

"if a criminal doesn't have access" They Will, The law abiding citizen will not. The Disarmed are Ready For slaughter, That is why they are disarmed. The Military is not here to Protect us, nor are the police. There are 780,000 Police and 1.4 Million for 307 Million Americans. You think they can protect you? Good luck. Even Congress said they aren't here to protect you. And Yes, You did say that rope IS needed for surivival. "I also never said the military shouldn't have guns" Oh, So there's a purpose to guns? I Thought there was no purpose. "It's lots of idiots" Yeah, and alot of idiots drive unsafe, so why haven't you campaigned for banning cars that go over 20 MPH? (Im just following your backasswards logic) 95% of all crimes are commited by those who are criminals let go through plea bargening. This isn't many many random idiots, its a pretty concentrated group of idiots that are let out early, because "We feel bad for them" "maybe they had a bad childhood" My example of Japan is Outdated? "The general public at home have very little use in modern warfare." If we are firing at 300-400 Meters, We are trained to be accurate, not to spray and pray. Therefor we would be firing in Semi Automatic. What is the Average gun in America? Semi-Automatic. How many times do you know to read the definition of something before you learn what it is? Here is the DICTIONARY Definition of a Gun: an object incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise. So, you are wrong on the "Definition" of it, Your Crime rate is about 4-5X Higher then ours. The UK had More Violent Crimes then the USA in 2011, But the USA has 4-5X more people. (67 Million to 307 Million) (1.9 (UK) Million Violent Crimes to 1.3 Million Violent Crimes (USA) "If I leave a loaded gun lying around" Why the fuck would you do that? Next to nobody does that. Also, A Young Child can choke on rope. Congratulations, There are things called "Choking hazerds." I Think you fail to realize why the Jewish were disarmed in Nazi Germany. Or Why the Cambodians were disarmed under Pol Pot. Or Why the Soviets Were Disarmed under Stalin. Or Why....I Think you know where im going with this? No Genocide or Democide has ever started without Removing Defense. Also "Maybe your possible to run into a bear in a cave" I Hunt Bear. Thats not that impossible of a scenario. "what happens if you hear a noise in your house and shoot an intruder? You turn the light on and it's your fucking wife? Or you perhaps it was an intruder, but you missed and hit your child. Or perhaps it wasn't an intruder but your neighbor just accidentally stumbling into your house drunk at night due to an innocent mistake." Yeah We don't shoot the second we hear something. We don't say to ourselves "Oh noise, Better Shoot." If there is an uncharichteristic noise we investigate, rather then wildy shooting like you seem to think it is. "They have no use in defense" or "When do these Scenarios happen" About 800,000-1.5 Million Times Per year in the United States. Watch This Also, This Video. Pretty realistic circumstances, Seeing at it is security camera footage. "but whatever the end they are all avoidable deaths, sometimes deserved, but usually tragic." You Cannot advoid Death. This world comes with a Death Sentance. Tragic? yes, But everyone deserves and shall recieve death, as we are all sinners, and have all done lethal wrong.

[–]Gobtholemew 2 ポイント3 ポイント

But again you're only thinking on small scales and the way it is now.

Right now, in the US, I'm sure any criminal can walk into an store and buy an assault rifle and a a truck load of armor peircing rounds (yes, I'm exaggerating). So you may think that a criminal can easily get hold of a firearm, because right now they can. But if firearms were restricted like they are here in the UK, then there are only a very small number (relatively speaking) of illegally owned firearms. They're VERY hard to get hold of, and as such the vast majority of criminals that might want a firearm never get their hands on one. It doesn't matter if they follow the rules or obey the law or not. The fact of the matter is there just aren't enough of them to satisfy even a tiny percentage of the criminal demand.

You've misunderstood what I was saying about the military protecting you. Your example was about Japan attacking the US, which is the example I'm responding to. If they attacked the US today it would not be a fight between Japanese invaders walking into your neighbourhood and the general public shooting them with their home firearms. It would be a fight fought with missiles, jets, aircraft carriers, submarines, etc. So you being able to own a firearm makes absolutely no difference.

And, sorry, no I didn't say rope was needed for survival. I said:

Guns are simply NOT needed for human convenience or survival. Rope is.

Learn the difference between and and or. I said "or". I'm sorry that it was ambiguous as to whether I meant both, one, or the other. But I clarified later what I meant to make it unambiguous.

And you continue to deliberately misquote me to help your argument - I never said anywhere that there are no need for guns. In fact I specifically said the military do need them. The general public do not in this day and age. I stand by this.

Anyway, I'm getting bored of this :) Your arguments are stuck in the previous century and you have no vision of a safer future.

Let me put it another way and hopefully we can agree to compromise...

The vast majority of people here in the UK do not own a gun. The vast majority feel no need to own a gun. The vast majority have never been a victim of gun crime or know of any victims personally of gun crime. The vast majority of people, criminal or not, have no access to guns. Sure, you hear about maybe two or three people a year on the news being shot, but it really is that rare. We all function perfectly fine without needing to go hunting with guns, without feeling scared in our homes because we don't have a gun under our pillow, and without any fear of someone breaking into our house armed with a gun. Tragic accidents involving guns in the UK are close to 0.

The US is different as it is already flooded with guns, so I doubt they could ever achieve what we have here. So I agree that criminals in the US would still be able to get hold of guns which would put the general public at a disadvantage. Plus the US love the whole "right to bear arms" stuff so banning guns is never going to happen in the near future.

So in reality, banning guns absolutely will not work in the US.

But your original statement that guns aren't that bad is categorically wrong. Seeing them as a simple inanimate object is extremely narrow minded and short sighted. Just like Class A drugs, like Heroin, seeing it as a just an inanimate white powder is stupid - in the past it has had its medicinal uses (and still does for things like pain relief during childbirth), but aren't actually needed in the modern western world by the general public (i.e. outside of a hospital setting) because there are safer and better alternatives, and it causes more harm than good due to its harmful effects.

[–]TheGInsider2[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

"Right now, in the US, I'm sure any criminal can walk into an store and buy an assault rifle and a a truck load of armor peircing rounds (yes, I'm exaggerating)." So you think they can, but yet you are exaggerating.... Your Nation has not removed illegally owned firearms at all, because the illegal firearms were never able to have been removed, due to them being illegally owned already. It only removed them from the alw abiding citizens, Which is why the UK has a higher Crime rate then the US, And More Violent Crimes then the US, dispite a population only 21% the size of the US. 2 or 3? "Tragic Accidents involving guns n the UK are close to 0" So....The 70-80+ Aren't Tradgeties? Got it. (Also, The UK's Murder rate has Risen 5% since last year, So appearantly, people in the UK would, not to mention that the UK has more Violent Crime then the US with just 21% of the people. I Doubt gun control would be fully achieved in america, because we wont lie down and take it from some fucker who wants to kill us. We Won't lie down if another nation invades us tonight, We are Somewhat Free, Although Not as free as we should be. I Wish you had the Freedom of being able to defend your life, but sadly, not only is that not allowed, Your fine with that being not allowed.