If you don't want people to be able to buy guns, then what do you want done about it, and how effective do you think it would be at stopping gun related violence?
Guns don't kill people......
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
Get the morons from the NRA to invade my house so I can shoot them all.
So you concede that removing peoples right to buy a gun (assuming that they don't have a criminal record), is not going to stop or slow gun-related crime.
I don't "concede" anything. Don't put words into my mouth.
I already said that it wouldn't solve gun related crime overnight. No one is that stupid and no one is making that argument. Don't start up the straw man manufacturing plant again.
But at some point there needs to be something done. We've got militia retards shooting kids, nubjobs blowing away doctors in their churches, and kids shooting their siblings by accident in their own homes. It's not going to come in one big sweeping step but to not start somewhere to address the way this country handles firearms is just neanderthal.
Kind of like how alcohol and drugs kill so many people and need to be eliminated. Oh if only we could imprison all the heinous criminals out there getting high we could end those killings. At least we realized how much of a failure prohibition of alcohol was.
"somewhere" starts with proper education and morals. A ban on owning guns is going to be no more effective than a ban on weed.
Last edited:
Aaaaaaannnnnndddd here we go again.
What is it about firearms zealots that makes them defend positions no one even brought up?
You guys must have gotten those pamphlets in the mail.
Did you waste all your energy to focus on looking through long range sights and now you have no more left?
What is it about firearms zealots that makes them defend positions no one even brought up?
You guys must have gotten those pamphlets in the mail.
Did you waste all your energy to focus on looking through long range sights and now you have no more left?
I've shot a gun... maybe 5 times in my whole life. I don't own one. I'm pretty cynical of my friends that think they need them for self-defense. I'm realistic enough to know that banning something doesn't make it non-existant.
Getting high doesn't inherently kill anyone. At worst maybe just the user. But you know what outlawing coke DOES do? It keeps people from busting out lines in public (well VISIBLY in non-club public), and having a very casual approach to its use. Not everyone, but most. So that DOES accomplish at least the awareness that if you're high as shlt, you're doing something illegal and should probably watch yourself. Does it keep anything bad happening from someone high on coke? No. But I guarantee you it would be worse if it were completely legal.
You can teach all the behavioral things you want. And you know who that will affect? Almost solely the people who weren't going to go shoot up crowded spaces anyway. Until it becomes a stigma to be walking around with something that can kill someone in a millisecond (and is designed only to put holes in things), there will be no penalty for easily getting ahold of firearms. There will be no reason to think anything is out of the ordinary when Shelley Shannon, Shawna Ford, Scott Roeder, Jared Lee Loughner, the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or Seung-Hui Cho show off them's collection. But none of those people stood out because they had guns. Because hey, weez in the states, that means freedom! That's a problem. Do you understand that?
You act like wanting to curb gun enthusiasm and easy availability is some revolutionary idea. This WORKS in other countries. It's not a theory.
But FIGHTING for the right to carry pistols into bars, and FIGHTING for the need to bring guns into national parks, and FIGHTING for the right to make any damn thing available that shoots in this country is retarded. THAT's my big gripe with the NRA. You obviously didn't understand my previous post stating that it would be in their best interest to side with more logical controls. Instead they decided to go full bore with all guns, all the time, everywhere. And because of that the first time offender who can legally go buy any damn gun he wants, can still follow the law up until the last second when someone or several people die. Yeah keep fighting for that. It's awesome.
And I never said it did. Quit arguing against things I'm not even saying. All I'm AM saying is that a reduction in incidents is worth achieving.
Last edited:
I've looked at what you need to do to be able to own a gun here in Japan and it's surprisingly straight forward. But you better be able to give a really good reason to own that gun (home defense is not a good reason) and you better make sure you have it stored properly because the cops will check and they do know everyone who has a gun.
Seems a lot of the problem in the US is not people having guns but a lack of oversight about what happens once the gun is obtained. I'm not in favour of banning guns but I am in favour of more people regarding it as a grave responsibility to not only own one but to maintain the security and safety of that weapon.
Seems a lot of the problem in the US is not people having guns but a lack of oversight about what happens once the gun is obtained. I'm not in favour of banning guns but I am in favour of more people regarding it as a grave responsibility to not only own one but to maintain the security and safety of that weapon.
Last edited:
Portugal proves that idea wrong, its not the same as gun ownership. Its a medical issue, not a criminal issue. A war mentality has been a monumental waste of resources:
Portugal Decriminalized Drugs. What Can the U.S. Learn? : The New Yorker
A major part of US gun-owning tradition is it being your own business and not the government's as to who owns what, so that's simply not going to fly over here.
Personally, I think guns should be treated like cars in many ways--what you own is your own damed business if it's kept and used on your own property, or transported between private properties in a non-operable condition. If you take it into public (concealed or otherwise), license and registration required as proof of legal ownership and standards of training/education, in the public safety interest. But the .gov had better show a damned good reason if the plan on denying your license.
Woo, the "carrying guns in bars OMFG!" red herring is tempting, but don't fall for it. The reason people are pushing for it is that so many restaurants which serve alcohol, at the table or at a bar or both, are technically illegal for a concealed permit holder to enter.
If you're gonna carry while drinking I doubt a law is gonna mean much anyhow, and a law prohibiting carry with any/maximum BAC would make more sense anyhow, rather than telling me I can't have lunch at Flinger's while carrying legally. (Like cars again...)
Can't read the article but I agree-although I prefer the term "public health" to "medical" myself when discussing the issue.
Although comparing one country/populace to another is not always going to yield an accurate prediction, mind you.
I will Reconcile those 2 arguments with TWO, count them TWO typed of guns, I'll even get crazy with a 3rd
1) Guns are for defending my family, home and nation- that would be defensive firearms, see glocks and AR15s
2) Guns are not for killing or harming people- Those would be target guns
3) guns are for killing animals- Those are called hunting guns
Kind of like how you wouldn't take your road bike to a DH race, and you wouldn't race road on your DH bike. So yes, you could get in a gun fight with my target gun, but it's heavy, and has aperture sights, and takes a while to reload. So even though I could get into a gunfight with it, I will loose. Just like if you showed up to a free pistol match with a 9MM, sure a 9MM will put holes in the paper at 50 yards away, it wont do it nearly as well as sayyyyy that single shot free pistol that would again loose in a gun fight
Edit, maybe if I got in a gun fight in my shooting jacket and my glove an target sling I might stand a chance! Oh and I need a minute to put the sling on, and another few seconds to get into a nice steady bone supported position. Maybe if I have time check my windage too!!!!!!
Last edited:
1) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury
2) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury
3) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury
Everyone here understands that some guns are much better at killing people than others. But your strenuous argument that the purpose/features/ergonomics of some guns makes them less deadly is completely missing the point. All guns are good at killing even if some are better than others.
Not mass murder, not hunting, just "killing" in the abstract. Go shoot yourself in the face with a single-shot Hammerli and tell me it's not good at killing. Oh, wait, you can't, because you would be dead.
2) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury
3) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury
Everyone here understands that some guns are much better at killing people than others. But your strenuous argument that the purpose/features/ergonomics of some guns makes them less deadly is completely missing the point. All guns are good at killing even if some are better than others.
Not mass murder, not hunting, just "killing" in the abstract. Go shoot yourself in the face with a single-shot Hammerli and tell me it's not good at killing. Oh, wait, you can't, because you would be dead.
Winners don't get into gun fights... or knife fights as this thread title should suggest.
Owning a gun doesn't inherently kill anyone either, but shooting at someone does the same way getting high or drunk and driving a car does. None of these situations are the result of gun ownership or drug use, but the effect of a stupid decision.
Do you think these other countries have less violent crime because they have fewer guns (or less shootings because they're using knives instead), or do you think it's because their people are a bit more humble and respectable.
On the other hand, illegal drug sales DO create a lot of situations where mostly illegal guns are involved. Make them legal and there would be much fewer violent drug related crimes.
Also, I'm not some NRA freak. I don't think that a bar is a smart place to have a gun, and why would you even go to a bar where you thought a gun might come in handy? Gun laws could be more strict, and buying one could involve a testing process much like getting a driver's license, but if you want one (and have a clean record), you should be able to get one.
Last edited:
Ummmmm, Mike, that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the intent of their creation.
Honestly? Boo hoo. Who cares. You go to restaurants to eat or be manly?
That was one of 20 examples of dumb things that they've taken up. I'll pick another if you like.
It's the vocal nature and the pretend indignation that drives me nuts.
Last edited:
Like I've already implied.....probably a combination of both. I don't buy the 'they're using knives instead' bit though. That takes work. Guns are just too easy, that's my gripe. People have killed each other forever. There's no reason to make it easier.
I disagree with MikeD on this but I agree with what you've said, and think you SHOULD have a good case for owning one, not just thissy here is how we do it in amerika. I'm pretty comfortable with my penis size too so I might be the wrong guy to ask to relate to that weird feeling that shooting guns give you. I get it everytime I fire one too but I walk away thinking 'yup, that's how it starts', not 'yup, feel better now that I know I can blow someone away'.
In your mind, yes, we were. But in reality the rest of us were talking about the fact that regardless of why they were made, they are all good for killing.
I feel much the same about heroin. I know which one is more dangerous as well.
Me, too.
Really now????? Cause these are kidwoo's EXACT words. They seem pretty clear to me.
is your reading comprehension really that poor dude????
His exact words were also, in another post, in HUGE letters,
"Guns are Made for Shooting shlt. Regardless of how comfy a shoulder stock they have for shooting at paper, they're still the easiest god damn thing on the planet any idiot can get hold of to KILL someone. "
So I guess I was focused on his words in major-size font. Regardless, it's all a moot semantic point in another stupid goddamned gun thread.
What am I doing with my life??
Hell if I know. I'm waiting for my buddy to get here to go ride. 
Yes it is. Which is why you have repeatedly been told in this thread that you are missing the point. It's not because 9 out of 10 people are wrong. It's because you're arguing with yourself at the kiddie table while the adults discuss something that keeps flying over your head.
If you try to defend your right to bear arms with the argument that guns are not dangerous or intended for killing/hurting, you cease to be able to use the 2nd amendment argument. If the gun isn't useful for killing then it isn't useful for a well-armed militia, therefore you don't have a constitutional right to own it. So let's say I actually agree with the nonsense that a target gun isn't a deadly weapon - if that's so, you don't have a constitutional right to own it.
This isn't semantics. It's logic. You're stuck in the former, when we're all arguing the latter.
I support 2nd amendment rights, but those rights only apply to weapons that are useful for killing someone. I'm sorry but the forefathers didn't waste ink on hobbies, sports, and toys.
Last edited:
You of course don't need it explained that those two statements I made are NOT mutually exclusive. (And yes them bigginz letters was meant to imply attention should be paid to clarify an earlier misunderstanding
)It's the spelling bee champ who's giving college admission boards a bad name everywhere.
Last edited:
Mooshoo, if the intent of the target gun wasn't for inflicting damage, wouldn't they use rubber, plastic or paint?
It's like that famous old curmudgeon Internet bike mechanic arguing that a downhill bike isn't technically a bike because it's not "human-powered." Reality-defying and motivated by a personal agenda.
Sheldon Brown, that was his name.
(Yes, we saw you bike analogy, Mooshoo. But it's part of the cognitive dissonance Ohio is describing.)
Again, just because a gun designer intended the target rifle to put holes in paper doesn't make it less of a deadly weapon. It makes it less of an effective deadly weapon when compared to an AR in most circumstances, but it's still deadly, and in some ways more deadly than the black-powder gun a hunter might be carrying with the intent to actually kill something.
Sheldon Brown, that was his name.
(Yes, we saw you bike analogy, Mooshoo. But it's part of the cognitive dissonance Ohio is describing.)
Again, just because a gun designer intended the target rifle to put holes in paper doesn't make it less of a deadly weapon. It makes it less of an effective deadly weapon when compared to an AR in most circumstances, but it's still deadly, and in some ways more deadly than the black-powder gun a hunter might be carrying with the intent to actually kill something.
Yayzoos creesto. You guys are still at it?
Weapon- : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy. That is from Webster. If you count poking holes in paper as destruction then yes, but otherwise the words can be used seem to be absent. I see the words something used to, meaning if you still technically want to play these little semantic games, my glock 23 isn't a weapon
Paging ObviousMan!
Maybe we can just go back to trying to explain why your brakeless bike doesn't have brakes.
Don't blame me. I put the meusheu on ignore. I can't even decipher some of his posts! If he was my kid I'd take him for a long car ride, drop him off and just make a new one.
Last edited:
I think you just won.
Bumping thread to say that those wardrobes are SICK!!!
I'm down, as long as you continue to be hilariously butthurt