also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.
so you think this guy and all the other school shootings guys and all the other mass-shooting guys would have found a way Pandora? please answer this
Oh Dunkman....
I just look dumb.....
you know the answer to your question already
and so I know why you ask it.
I will tell you this...
I am a spiritual person.
I have a strong belief in the path we walk, that we are here to learn,
that many souls choose how they will leave this world before they come here.
That we are all connected.
This has brought me peace that many still seek.
I believe that both tragedies and the good in this world bring opportunity for spiritual growth.
So when we ask ourselves what we can do to prevent this terrible tragedy
the answer is Love.
It starts with each person.
The only true way to keep people safe is to spread love.
To teach people not to judge and hate those different than themselves,
including those with different opinions from different countries.
To be respectful and uncondtional in our love.
It starts with how we treat each other, every day, every meeting, everywhere.
Trust has to be built... it is the key to understanding and mutual respect.
I don't trust you.
Your words are quick and sharp, they bite and hurt
and are unnecessary when sharing feelings and thoughts, when baring one's soul.
This is true of others here.
Granted I am a vulnerable person, and hurt easy, that might not be true of the next person.
The rolling eyes thing to me is total disrespect, and hurtful.
I think a good motto for this forum could be "think twice be nice"
we must be cautious, we hold anothers heart in our hand
and if we all want real change we will work on loving each other.
It is hard for evil to exist in the presence of love, and that, Dunkman, is our only hope....
in my opinion!
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
Guns are a factor, but is Scotland a densely populated region that experiences rampant drug and gang violence?
In regards to Iran and North Korea, I don't believe they should have nuclear arms. They are not responsible.
Its more densely populated and has a worse drug problem than say Colorado...
FACT:
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
Colorado has a pop. of 5.0 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 11.5
thats 20 times the death rate of an entire nation from just one state... and the weapons used was a gun... yet you and many others are arguing that the guns are not a problem... that its the person and that person would do whatever they could to kill and maim anyway?
So if that is indeed the case then why is the death rate by a gun 16 times higher in the the US than the rest of the worlds next 25 richest nations combined?
so we not have mental fuckers living here? is it more likely that we do but that A: they get better medical help and B: they don't have the know-how and/or the balls to attack people using a knife, especially when it is so ridicuously easy to get guns
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.
you gotta be fuckin kidding me
"The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people."
how else do you want to use nukes?
they are designed to kill innocent people
guns are designed to kill, anything the bullet hits
"Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do."
and if this is your argument
why do we construct guns?
for the good of man?
to eat?
c'mon man
Post edited by ed243421 on
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.
But as history has shown, when you put guns, or nukes, in the hands of psychopaths, then innocent people will die.
Placing nuclear weapons in the hands of a psychopath like Richard Nixon is no more, or less, irresponsible than allowing the average nutter on the street to walk into a store and buy a Glock, or 44. Magnum.
Guns are a factor, but is Scotland a densely populated region that experiences rampant drug and gang violence?
In regards to Iran and North Korea, I don't believe they should have nuclear arms. They are not responsible.
Its more densely populated and has a worse drug problem than say Colorado...
FACT:
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
Colorado has a pop. of 5.0 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 11.5
thats 20 times the death rate of an entire nation from just one state... and the weapons used was a gun... yet you and many others are arguing that the guns are not a problem... that its the person and that person would do whatever they could to kill and maim anyway?
So if that is indeed the case then why is the death rate by a gun 16 times higher in the the US than the rest of the worlds next 25 richest nations combined?
so we not have mental fuckers living here? is it more likely that we do but that A: they get better medical help and B: they don't have the know-how and/or the balls to attack people using a knife, especially when it is so ridicuously easy to get guns
If you had to root for the Broncos, you would probably see a spike in violence and depression as well.
For those of you who care, here is some info on crimes in other countires. I love the generalizations from other non US posters who see an isolated incident and think the US is some barbaric country. Please take a look at the link below. All numbers will be per-capita (usually per 100,000), starting from this page, the drop-down will show other results: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...lts-per-capita
Assaults: US 7.6 - UK 7.6 - Aus 7.0
Burglaries: US 7.1 - UK 13.8 - Aus 21.7
Car Thefts: US 3.9 - UK 5.6 - Aus 6.9
Murder: US .043 - UK .014 - Aus .015
Rapes: US .301 - UK .142 - Aus .778
Robberies: US 1.39 - UK 1.57 - Aus 1.16
Total Crimes: US 80.1 - UK 85.6 - Aus {No data}
The illusion that crime is far more rampant in the US is just that. . . An illusion.
Relevant here is the 3 times higher murder rate. Many of the crimes would also depend alot on how stuff is registered, while a murder is a murder anywhere.
And you should frankly also factor in pr capita behind bars, where the US would knowck everyone else out of the park. Since you incarcerate anyone caught with a joint, a lot of bad eggs are behind bars. (along with a good bunch of good and half-decent eggs, mind you)
So the high murder rate, coupled with the not so much lower rates on other stuff (I think the high imprisonment rate has alot more to do with that), should make it relevant to ask why so many guns are needed, and whether they really have much of an effect.
I dont think the US is anymore "criminal" than other countries, but you sure have a lot of murders, you sure have lax gun laws, and you sure have more than your share of nuts people grabbing a gun and blowing away a two-digit number of people as a show of disgruntlement. People kill, true, but more people kill more easily if they have a gun on hand anytime they blow a fuse or get provoked in some way.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
He would have done this whatever the law, with or without a gun.
No he wouldn't.
Nobody except Chuck Norris would be able to kill 6 people in a busy area with a knife. And that Virginia Tech dude wouldn't have managed a head count of 36 with a knife.
Byrnzie you are right in that it takes a Professional to use a knife to kill many people in one setting.
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.
But as history has shown, when you put guns, or nukes, in the hands of psychopaths, then innocent people will die.
Placing nuclear weapons in the hands of a psychopath like Richard Nixon is no more, or less, irresponsible than allowing the average nutter on the street to walk into a store and buy a Glock, or 44. Magnum.
Same could be said for almost any object. You can not use a Nuke without kiling innocent people, Millions of people a day use guns and other objects without killing anybody. Why is nixion a psychopath? When was this medical diagnosis?
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.
Well, nukes are mostly used for "target practice" and for show. Only 2 has ever been used agressively.
So since most detonated nukes has no human casualties, why is it a problem?
The problem you run into is that most thinks that nuts people shouldn't have big and dangerous weapons. which means it must be regulated somehow to avoid that nuts people get them (while perhaps assuring that regular law-abiding folks are allowed to). This is easily transferred to the gun argument, so the question is really relevant principally. If nuclear proliferation should be avoided, why should not gun proliferation also be avoided? It's really about the same.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
SInce you keep asking this i guess i will be the one to answer. I hope you are being sarcastic when you ask this question though, as it is a very stupid question.The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people. Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do.
i kept asking YOU that...
surely it's that countries 'right' to have what the fuck they want? just as it appears to be your 'right' to have a piece of equipment that has been solely designed to kill in your possession? Iran and N.Korea think they are responsible enough to have the weapons... what makes it ok for the US to interfere with another nation when it has shit on its own doorstep? They don't even interfere with a 'law-abiding citizen' getting a gun arsenal even though that 'law-abiding person' appeared to have been thrown out of a college due to his unfit mental state?
please remember that only 2 nukes have ever been used on civilians and lest i remind you it was your own nation who did this... nobody else has ever used them for their primary function... unlike guns which are used for their primary function in the US more than any other developed country in the world.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Well, nukes are mostly used for "target practice" and for show. Only 2 has ever been used agressively.
So since most detonated nukes has no human casualties, why is it a problem?
The problem you run into is that most thinks that nuts people shouldn't have big and dangerous weapons. which means it must be regulated somehow to avoid that nuts people get them (while perhaps assuring that regular law-abiding folks are allowed to). This is easily transferred to the gun argument, so the question is really relevant principally. If nuclear proliferation should be avoided, why should not gun proliferation also be avoided? It's really about the same.
Peace
Dan
haha gun = nukes???...The difference between guns and nukes is in kind, not degree. An atom bomb can't be used selectively, in fact it's designed that way to be as indiscriminate as possible, threaten as many people as possible with one button push, so that the whole world can be held hostage by a tiny group of people. So the question, "who should have them?" is a false question, because no one should.
Why is nixion a psychopath? When was this medical diagnosis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy 'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'
I admire your self-discipline for sticking to that self-exile.
Can't believe it was a matter of terminology rather than principle that made you snap!
There is no point arguing about something that isn't going to change. I've got better things to do. My exile was to not to participate in a pro-gun vs anti-gun discussion, of which I have not.
haha, yeah, you're right, I dont care about the terminology. I think people got the point.
But the point of this discussion is about what needs to change, and its just my opinion that if enough people ask questions and do things about these horrible trajedies, lives can be saved. and I think things WILL change. Laws will change.
For instance, clip (haha, ok 'magazine'!) limits. This is a law that was changed recently in AZ, and if changed back to how it was prior to 2004, it could save lives. its pretty simple really, at least why not make an attempt?
It scares me to hear people say that nothing is gonna change and these psychos are going to do this (ie, AZ) no matter what, so we shouldnt do anything. Love wont fix everytihg in the world. Some people will always have parent that are uncapable of that.
Like I said too, no BAN, just compromise.
Why is nixion a psychopath? When was this medical diagnosis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy 'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'
Seems like he fits the description to a T.
Thanks for the link to his medical diagnosis, I have never seen that before. :roll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy 'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'
haha gun = nukes???...The difference between guns and nukes is in kind, not degree. An atom bomb can't be used selectively, in fact it's designed that way to be as indiscriminate as possible, threaten as many people as possible with one button push, so that the whole world can be held hostage by a tiny group of people. So the question, "who should have them?" is a false question, because no one should.
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
To protect by killing no?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
To protect by killing no?
Warning shots??? You could put blanks in the gun and fire it, to scare the person away.
* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
yes they are... the gun was designed as a weapon of war. all you've done is list of some of its sideline uses... be like saying a spade is not made solely to dig, some people use them for spreading grit, holding open shed doors, clearing elephant shit from a zoo, etc... but its primary function and the function its designed for is digging...
a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
In other words, kill, threaten to kill/kill, practice the aim to improve killing/threatening, and lastly kill.
As for warning shots, pretty much every nuke ever fired has been as practice/warning shots.
Again, I claim you have no principle argument here. Weapons are weapons and their use are as such. If pocket nukes were made so that you could obliterate say an of a foot x a foot in diameter (or even an inch x an inch), would that be open for ownership for all? And what if you made guns ridiculously big so they couldn't help but killing many if fired, that would be off-limits? You're arguing that nukes is of a different kind than guns, while I maintain the main difference is magnitude of destruction pr unit.
Then again, if effect of use is what should mostly be considered, that should open the door wide open to regulate amount of guns, and particularly those most efficient ones. Allowing some certain guns for target practice, rifles in general for hunting and limiting the possession of both.
Your argument seems to be that weapons designed to kill are bad, but guns are different somehow. I'm not getting why it's different in kind.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
yes they are... the gun was designed as a weapon of war. all you've done is list of some of its sideline uses... be like saying a spade is not made solely to dig, some people use them for spreading grit, holding open shed doors, clearing elephant shit from a zoo, etc... but its primary function and the function its designed for is digging...
a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.
So were humans, whats your point. That the other uses don't count???
So were humans, whats your point. That the other uses don't count???
Humans aren't "designed", and we're very much multi-purpose.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So were humans, whats your point. That the other uses don't count???
Humans aren't "designed", and we're very much multi-purpose.
Peace
Dan
Sorry evolved, nevertheless our main purpouse is consumption/surviving - Which means killing something whether that be animals/plants. So you are ok with mans other purpouse's and not a guns???
So were humans, whats your point. That the other uses don't count???
my point is that the other uses are a derivative of the original use... like a tea tray can be used for sledging... a pen can be used to dislodge a ball of earwax...
you could fire a gun at clouds for all i care but it doesnt take away from the fact they were designed to kill.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
In other words, kill, threaten to kill/kill, practice the aim to improve killing/threatening, and lastly kill.
As for warning shots, pretty much every nuke ever fired has been as practice/warning shots.
Again, I claim you have no principle argument here. Weapons are weapons and their use are as such. If pocket nukes were made so that you could obliterate say an of a foot x a foot in diameter (or even an inch x an inch), would that be open for ownership for all? And what if you made guns ridiculously big so they couldn't help but killing many if fired, that would be off-limits? You're arguing that nukes is of a different kind than guns, while I maintain the main difference is magnitude of destruction pr unit.
Then again, if effect of use is what should mostly be considered, that should open the door wide open to regulate amount of guns, and particularly those most efficient ones. Allowing some certain guns for target practice, rifles in general for hunting and limiting the possession of both.
Your argument seems to be that weapons designed to kill are bad, but guns are different somehow. I'm not getting why it's different in kind.
Peace
Dan
I guess because I use my gun for home protection and only that, the same can't be said for a nuke, you can't nuke an individual that is going to cause harm to you, in doing that you will always destroy innocent people. ALso nukes warning shots are not for self defense, they are to see if it works. TOtally different than a gun shooting warning shots.
So were humans, whats your point. That the other uses don't count???
my point is that the other uses are a derivative of the original use... like a tea tray can be used for sledging... a pen can be used to dislodge a ball of earwax...
you could fire a gun at clouds for all i care but it doesnt take away from the fact they were designed to kill.
So were knives??? they are pretty much a short spear. Just because something was designed to kill does not mean that you have to use it to kill people. MIllions of people have guns for home protection, they did not buy the gun looking to kill somebody.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
yes they are... the gun was designed as a weapon of war. all you've done is list of some of its sideline uses... be like saying a spade is not made solely to dig, some people use them for spreading grit, holding open shed doors, clearing elephant shit from a zoo, etc... but its primary function and the function its designed for is digging...
a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.
As much as I now have no care to use a gun or have a gun in my home I disagree with this. I at one time back in the military was a pretty good shot on my college rifleteam. It was just as much a challenge to hit the bullseye as it was to get a turkey in bowling (3 strikes in a row) or dunking a basketball (which I could do at one time ). It was great fun for me shooting at the rifle range honing in my skills as a rifleman. Many people today shoot their rifles/pistols solely as getting the best scores at a range rather than to kill people. If I'm not mistaken rifles and pistols are used as an Olympic event, something back then I would have loved to participate in that competition.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Comments
Oh Dunkman....
I just look dumb.....
you know the answer to your question already
and so I know why you ask it.
I will tell you this...
I am a spiritual person.
I have a strong belief in the path we walk, that we are here to learn,
that many souls choose how they will leave this world before they come here.
That we are all connected.
This has brought me peace that many still seek.
I believe that both tragedies and the good in this world bring opportunity for spiritual growth.
So when we ask ourselves what we can do to prevent this terrible tragedy
the answer is Love.
It starts with each person.
The only true way to keep people safe is to spread love.
To teach people not to judge and hate those different than themselves,
including those with different opinions from different countries.
To be respectful and uncondtional in our love.
It starts with how we treat each other, every day, every meeting, everywhere.
Trust has to be built... it is the key to understanding and mutual respect.
I don't trust you.
Your words are quick and sharp, they bite and hurt
and are unnecessary when sharing feelings and thoughts, when baring one's soul.
This is true of others here.
Granted I am a vulnerable person, and hurt easy, that might not be true of the next person.
The rolling eyes thing to me is total disrespect, and hurtful.
I think a good motto for this forum could be "think twice be nice"
we must be cautious, we hold anothers heart in our hand
and if we all want real change we will work on loving each other.
It is hard for evil to exist in the presence of love, and that, Dunkman, is our only hope....
in my opinion!
Its more densely populated and has a worse drug problem than say Colorado...
FACT:
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
Colorado has a pop. of 5.0 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 11.5
thats 20 times the death rate of an entire nation from just one state... and the weapons used was a gun... yet you and many others are arguing that the guns are not a problem... that its the person and that person would do whatever they could to kill and maim anyway?
So if that is indeed the case then why is the death rate by a gun 16 times higher in the the US than the rest of the worlds next 25 richest nations combined?
so we not have mental fuckers living here? is it more likely that we do but that A: they get better medical help and B: they don't have the know-how and/or the balls to attack people using a knife, especially when it is so ridicuously easy to get guns
you gotta be fuckin kidding me
"The problem is nukes are inherently aggressive because they're impossible to use without killing innocent people."
how else do you want to use nukes?
they are designed to kill innocent people
guns are designed to kill, anything the bullet hits
"Arguably, just constructing a nuke is itself an act of aggression that no one has any "right" to do."
and if this is your argument
why do we construct guns?
for the good of man?
to eat?
c'mon man
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
But as history has shown, when you put guns, or nukes, in the hands of psychopaths, then innocent people will die.
Placing nuclear weapons in the hands of a psychopath like Richard Nixon is no more, or less, irresponsible than allowing the average nutter on the street to walk into a store and buy a Glock, or 44. Magnum.
Relevant here is the 3 times higher murder rate. Many of the crimes would also depend alot on how stuff is registered, while a murder is a murder anywhere.
And you should frankly also factor in pr capita behind bars, where the US would knowck everyone else out of the park. Since you incarcerate anyone caught with a joint, a lot of bad eggs are behind bars. (along with a good bunch of good and half-decent eggs, mind you)
So the high murder rate, coupled with the not so much lower rates on other stuff (I think the high imprisonment rate has alot more to do with that), should make it relevant to ask why so many guns are needed, and whether they really have much of an effect.
I dont think the US is anymore "criminal" than other countries, but you sure have a lot of murders, you sure have lax gun laws, and you sure have more than your share of nuts people grabbing a gun and blowing away a two-digit number of people as a show of disgruntlement. People kill, true, but more people kill more easily if they have a gun on hand anytime they blow a fuse or get provoked in some way.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Byrnzie you are right in that it takes a Professional to use a knife to kill many people in one setting.
Take a look at this seen from one of the BEST assassin movies ever
The Professional...lessons from Leon to Matilda go to the the 2:37 mark where he speaks about knives.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Well, nukes are mostly used for "target practice" and for show. Only 2 has ever been used agressively.
So since most detonated nukes has no human casualties, why is it a problem?
The problem you run into is that most thinks that nuts people shouldn't have big and dangerous weapons. which means it must be regulated somehow to avoid that nuts people get them (while perhaps assuring that regular law-abiding folks are allowed to). This is easily transferred to the gun argument, so the question is really relevant principally. If nuclear proliferation should be avoided, why should not gun proliferation also be avoided? It's really about the same.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i kept asking YOU that...
surely it's that countries 'right' to have what the fuck they want? just as it appears to be your 'right' to have a piece of equipment that has been solely designed to kill in your possession? Iran and N.Korea think they are responsible enough to have the weapons... what makes it ok for the US to interfere with another nation when it has shit on its own doorstep? They don't even interfere with a 'law-abiding citizen' getting a gun arsenal even though that 'law-abiding person' appeared to have been thrown out of a college due to his unfit mental state?
please remember that only 2 nukes have ever been used on civilians and lest i remind you it was your own nation who did this... nobody else has ever used them for their primary function... unlike guns which are used for their primary function in the US more than any other developed country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'
Seems like he fits the description to a T. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGVfzwvtlJM
haha, yeah, you're right, I dont care about the terminology. I think people got the point.
But the point of this discussion is about what needs to change, and its just my opinion that if enough people ask questions and do things about these horrible trajedies, lives can be saved. and I think things WILL change. Laws will change.
For instance, clip (haha, ok 'magazine'!) limits. This is a law that was changed recently in AZ, and if changed back to how it was prior to 2004, it could save lives. its pretty simple really, at least why not make an attempt?
It scares me to hear people say that nothing is gonna change and these psychos are going to do this (ie, AZ) no matter what, so we shouldnt do anything. Love wont fix everytihg in the world. Some people will always have parent that are uncapable of that.
Like I said too, no BAN, just compromise.
My pleasure. Like I said, the description fits him to a T.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGVfzwvtlJM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
'Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.'
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Warning shots??? You could put blanks in the gun and fire it, to scare the person away.
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
All those crimes prevented without killing somebody.
yes they are... the gun was designed as a weapon of war. all you've done is list of some of its sideline uses... be like saying a spade is not made solely to dig, some people use them for spreading grit, holding open shed doors, clearing elephant shit from a zoo, etc... but its primary function and the function its designed for is digging...
a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.
As for warning shots, pretty much every nuke ever fired has been as practice/warning shots.
Again, I claim you have no principle argument here. Weapons are weapons and their use are as such. If pocket nukes were made so that you could obliterate say an of a foot x a foot in diameter (or even an inch x an inch), would that be open for ownership for all? And what if you made guns ridiculously big so they couldn't help but killing many if fired, that would be off-limits? You're arguing that nukes is of a different kind than guns, while I maintain the main difference is magnitude of destruction pr unit.
Then again, if effect of use is what should mostly be considered, that should open the door wide open to regulate amount of guns, and particularly those most efficient ones. Allowing some certain guns for target practice, rifles in general for hunting and limiting the possession of both.
Your argument seems to be that weapons designed to kill are bad, but guns are different somehow. I'm not getting why it's different in kind.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
my point is that the other uses are a derivative of the original use... like a tea tray can be used for sledging... a pen can be used to dislodge a ball of earwax...
you could fire a gun at clouds for all i care but it doesnt take away from the fact they were designed to kill.
As much as I now have no care to use a gun or have a gun in my home I disagree with this. I at one time back in the military was a pretty good shot on my college rifleteam. It was just as much a challenge to hit the bullseye as it was to get a turkey in bowling (3 strikes in a row) or dunking a basketball (which I could do at one time
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)