guns and bullets

1111214161724

Comments

  • eyedclaareyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.

    :clap:

    I missed Cliffy's initial post here. Like Byrnzie, I applaud the phrasing. Very succinct. Very true.
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    eyedclaar wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.

    :clap:

    I missed Cliffy's initial post here. Like Byrnzie, I applaud the phrasing. Very succinct. Very true.
    Good luck. I think the latest Call of Duty game made a billion dollars world-wide in only a few weeks. It would also mean the end of Batman and Spiderman movies and even most Adam Sandler movies. If we did change the culture, it would be a boon to Jennifer Aniston's career because that is what we would be stuck with after Lethal Weapon series is banned.

    And after you achieve that, you would still have to defeat the N.R.A. ... and I think changing Hollywood and the gaming industry will be easier to do.
  • eyedclaareyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    Jason P wrote:
    Good luck. I think the latest Call of Duty game made a billion dollars world-wide in only a few weeks. It would also mean the end of Batman and Spiderman movies and even most Adam Sandler movies. If we did change the culture, it would be a boon to Jennifer Aniston's career because that is what we would be stuck with after Lethal Weapon series is banned.

    And after you achieve that, you would still have to defeat the N.R.A. ... and I think changing Hollywood and the gaming industry will be easier to do.


    Yeah, I didn't say there was a hope in hell that it would actually happen...
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    eyedclaar wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    Good luck. I think the latest Call of Duty game made a billion dollars world-wide in only a few weeks. It would also mean the end of Batman and Spiderman movies and even most Adam Sandler movies. If we did change the culture, it would be a boon to Jennifer Aniston's career because that is what we would be stuck with after Lethal Weapon series is banned.

    And after you achieve that, you would still have to defeat the N.R.A. ... and I think changing Hollywood and the gaming industry will be easier to do.


    Yeah, I didn't say there was a hope in hell that it would actually happen...
    You never know, Obama and his socialist agenda is picking up steam ;)
  • eyedclaareyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    Jason P wrote:
    You never know, Obama and his socialist agenda is picking up steam ;)


    Soon even the Godfather will be employing flamboyantly gay Mexicans while holding a limp daisy instead of a Glock.
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    eyedclaar wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    You never know, Obama and his socialist agenda is picking up steam ;)


    Soon even the Godfather will be employing flamboyantly gay Mexicans while holding a limp daisy instead of a Glock.
    At the very least, I'm sure they make excellent margaritas :)
  • usamamasan1usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    if guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat. :P
  • acoustic guyacoustic guy Posts: 3,770
    Sure that was a tragic situation that happened the other day. Their are many tragic situations that happen because of weapons.
    But guns have also saved many peoples lives.
    I don't know for sure but I remember reading how the states with the laws allowing people to carry guns have the lowest crime rates. I am not able to look it up right now but I am pretty sure its true.

    You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands......
    Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
    Sweep the Leg Johnny.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    if guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat. :P

    did you copy and past that tired expression from another site?

    person misspells the word but uses the pencil to write it down wrongly... if he had no pencil he wouldn't misspell anything

    person gets drunk and drives a car.... runs someone over... but uses the car to do so... if he had no car then it would just be a drunk person making that funny car noise and bumping into people.. brrrroooommmmmm bbbbrrrooommmmm

    now a gun does kill people... well the bullets do... but if you give one man a gun and ask him to shoot a 9 year old in the face and then give another man a muffin and ask him to shoot a 9 year old in the face then i'm pretty sure the gun helped kill that 9 year old girl don't you think?

    i'm bored of that "guns don't kill people, people do" shittty line... it actually makes no sense... it's like saying "airplanes don't fly people, people do"
    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.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    dunkman wrote:
    i'm bored of that "guns don't kill people, people do" shittty line... it actually makes no sense... it's like saying "airplanes don't fly people, people do"

    :lol:
    too funny!
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • dunkman wrote:
    if guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat. :P

    did you copy and past that tired expression from another site?

    person misspells the word but uses the pencil to write it down wrongly... if he had no pencil he wouldn't misspell anything

    person gets drunk and drives a car.... runs someone over... but uses the car to do so... if he had no car then it would just be a drunk person making that funny car noise and bumping into people.. brrrroooommmmmm bbbbrrrooommmmm

    now a gun does kill people... well the bullets do... but if you give one man a gun and ask him to shoot a 9 year old in the face and then give another man a muffin and ask him to shoot a 9 year old in the face then i'm pretty sure the gun helped kill that 9 year old girl don't you think?

    i'm bored of that "guns don't kill people, people do" shittty line... it actually makes no sense... it's like saying "airplanes don't fly people, people do"

    so, we should also outlaw pencils, cars and airplanes?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    dunkman wrote:
    if guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat. :P

    did you copy and past that tired expression from another site?

    person misspells the word but uses the pencil to write it down wrongly... if he had no pencil he wouldn't misspell anything

    person gets drunk and drives a car.... runs someone over... but uses the car to do so... if he had no car then it would just be a drunk person making that funny car noise and bumping into people.. brrrroooommmmmm bbbbrrrooommmmm

    now a gun does kill people... well the bullets do... but if you give one man a gun and ask him to shoot a 9 year old in the face and then give another man a muffin and ask him to shoot a 9 year old in the face then i'm pretty sure the gun helped kill that 9 year old girl don't you think?

    i'm bored of that "guns don't kill people, people do" shittty line... it actually makes no sense... it's like saying "airplanes don't fly people, people do"

    so, we should also outlaw pencils, cars and airplanes?

    where the fuck did i say that?
    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.
  • dunkman wrote:
    where the fuck did i say that?

    the point of that statement (guns don't kill people, people do) is that we can't blame an inanimate object - we have to blame the conscious mind who decides to harm another person. Logically, if you say that we can blame the object, then the government can then tell us that we can't be trusted to be responsible for anything that they deem to be dangerous.

    You said (paraphrasing here) that if there was no gun, no shooting - no car, no drunken accidents - no pencil, no misspelled words, etc. That statment, to me, is an implicit agreement that the government should be relied upon to keep us safe by not allowing us to have anything "dangerous" in our possession. That, to me, is as scary as any 1984 type of fascist hypothetical.

    So, if the human mind is responsible, what do we do? Well, if we took better care of each other I don't think these sorts of events would happen. But, they always have happened. Humans are violent, stupid, self-serving creatures and we've lost some sort of compassion for each other since we left the "tribe society" and developed an "agriculture-based, industrialized, technocracy" that leaves people alone, jaded and without the proper care and attention that we need. I think the driving forces behind WHY people commit these terrible acts is much more deep seated and complex than most people can imagine.

    Paradoxically, I think we need LESS government intervention and control into these matters as I think government has CREATED those deep seated factors that cause violence.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    dunkman wrote:
    where the fuck did i say that?

    the point of that statement (guns don't kill people, people do) is that we can't blame an inanimate object -


    toasters don't burn bread, people do
    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.
  • dunkman wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    where the fuck did i say that?

    the point of that statement (guns don't kill people, people do) is that we can't blame an inanimate object -


    toasters don't burn bread, people do

    okay... again, that statement means that you agree, or you are being sarcastic and simultaneously think that toasters indeed SHOULD be made illegal. :?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • MotoDCMotoDC Posts: 947
    dunkman wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    where the fuck did i say that?


    toasters don't burn bread, people do

    okay... again, that statement means that you agree, or you are being sarcastic and simultaneously think that toasters indeed SHOULD be made illegal. :?
    That wall you're banging your head against -- is it padded? Because it looks painful. :D
  • yeah, I guess the joke is that he thinks that the statement "guns don't kill people, people do" is absurd, so he posts an even more absurd statement, a FARCICAL statement at that, to show that they're equally absurd somehow. I'm going to keep beating my head against the wall... yes. :D
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • the point that is constantly missed with these ridiculous arguments about "well, if we outlaw guns, then surely we need to outlaw (insert household inanimate object here)" is that the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot a living target with the intent to kill/injure. That's not the sole purpose, even any purpose, of a car, airplane, or spoon. CAN these objects cause harm if used improperly? Yep. But then we'd have to outlaw people's hands and minds too. Guns kill people whether used for their intended purpose or not.

    However, as I've stated before, our society has drowned itself in too much stupidity and egomaniacal behaviour to ever rid ourselves of this useless tool, so outlawing is not the answer. EXTREME regulation is.

    so, we should also outlaw pencils, cars and airplanes?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • dunkman wrote:
    where the fuck did i say that?

    the point of that statement (guns don't kill people, people do) is that we can't blame an inanimate object - we have to blame the conscious mind who decides to harm another person. Logically, if you say that we can blame the object, then the government can then tell us that we can't be trusted to be responsible for anything that they deem to be dangerous.

    I don't know if this was ever answered or not, as I left the thread for a while, but if we go by your argument of LESS government and that the people should be left to their own sense of societal responsibility, do you think we should also make all drugs legal? I mean, if it doesn't harm you or another person, who cares if I shoot myself in the arm with a needle instead of you shooting yourself in the foot with a gun?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Paul David wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    where the fuck did i say that?

    the point of that statement (guns don't kill people, people do) is that we can't blame an inanimate object - we have to blame the conscious mind who decides to harm another person. Logically, if you say that we can blame the object, then the government can then tell us that we can't be trusted to be responsible for anything that they deem to be dangerous.

    I don't know if this was ever answered or not, as I left the thread for a while, but if we go by your argument of LESS government and that the people should be left to their own sense of societal responsibility, do you think we should also make all drugs legal? I mean, if it doesn't harm you or another person, who cares if I shoot myself in the arm with a needle instead of you shooting yourself in the foot with a gun?

    sure, I mean if I don't own my body then what the fuck do I own?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    edited January 2011
    yeah, I guess the joke is that he thinks that the statement "guns don't kill people, people do" is absurd, so he posts an even more absurd statement, a FARCICAL statement at that, to show that they're equally absurd somehow. I'm going to keep beating my head against the wall... yes. :D

    indeed.. they are both as ridiculous as each other... a gun is necessary in the whole "gun slaying of 6" stories we hear so often... as is a person.... which is why i think the pro-gun slogan of 'guns don't kill people, people do' is just pathetic.

    guns don't kill people by themselves, they are a tool of the user... hammers don't hit nails, people do... which is just moronic... guns DO kill people... if they didnt have a gun then shouting BANG wouldnt do much damage so i think the gun is quite important in the whole "i'm mental and want to shoot people' equation.
    Post edited by dunkman on
    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.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Paul David wrote:
    Guns kill people whether used for their intended purpose or not.

    And their intended purpose is to kill or maim. That was exactly the intention of the people who first assembled bits and pieces and added gunpowder to these. It wasn't for sport or target practice or anything of the sort... just killing or maiming. We may have found another 'use' for them with sporting events, but those are 'second thoughts'.

    On the other hand, as some have said, a car/airplane/pencil were 'invented' for their current use, ie transport or writing, not as killing implements. Sure one can kill/maim with cars and airplanes (and I suppose a pencil if you stick it in your eye) but that is not their primary purpose. I'm thinking that the guy who created the first car didn't think 'let's make something that can kill people, potentially en masse, and maybe, at the same time, we can get from A to B a bit quicker than with horse and cart.'

    Why is this so difficult to understand?
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    redrock wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    Guns kill people whether used for their intended purpose or not.

    And their intended purpose is to kill or maim. That was exactly the intention of the people who first assembled bits and pieces and added gunpowder to these. It wasn't for sport or target practice or anything of the sort... just killing or maiming. We may have found another 'use' for them with sporting events, but those are 'second thoughts'.

    On the other hand, as some have said, a car/airplane/pencil were 'invented' for their current use, ie transport or writing, not as killing implements. Sure one can kill/maim with cars and airplanes (and I suppose a pencil if you stick it in your eye) but that is not their primary purpose. I'm thinking that the guy who created the first car didn't think 'let's make something that can kill people, potentially en masse, and maybe, at the same time, we can get from A to B a bit quicker than with horse and cart.'

    Why is this so difficult to understand?

    Just a thought:
    Guns were also a second thought,the Japanese invented gun powder way back in the 13 or 1400"s I think and quickly became used in fireworks then bombs then guns ?...Not necessarily in that order :lol:
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Godfather. wrote:
    redrock wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    Guns kill people whether used for their intended purpose or not.

    And their intended purpose is to kill or maim. That was exactly the intention of the people who first assembled bits and pieces and added gunpowder to these. It wasn't for sport or target practice or anything of the sort... just killing or maiming. We may have found another 'use' for them with sporting events, but those are 'second thoughts'.

    On the other hand, as some have said, a car/airplane/pencil were 'invented' for their current use, ie transport or writing, not as killing implements. Sure one can kill/maim with cars and airplanes (and I suppose a pencil if you stick it in your eye) but that is not their primary purpose. I'm thinking that the guy who created the first car didn't think 'let's make something that can kill people, potentially en masse, and maybe, at the same time, we can get from A to B a bit quicker than with horse and cart.'

    Why is this so difficult to understand?

    Just a thought:
    Guns were also a second thought,the Japanese invented gun powder way back in the 13 or 1400"s I think and quickly became used in fireworks then bombs then guns ?...Not necessarily in that order :lol:

    Fireworks were there long before gunpowder. Gunpowder (or similar) was 'invented' by accident by the chinese way before the 1300's and was immediately used for weapons. Also, the term 'gunpowder' is a modern one. But we are not discussing gunpowder but guns (or similar in the days) - a complete item created to kill, no other idea in mind.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Godfather. wrote:
    Just a thought:
    Guns were also a second thought,the Japanese invented gun powder way back in the 13 or 1400"s I think and quickly became used in fireworks then bombs then guns ?...Not necessarily in that order :lol:


    Just a thought:
    The Chinese invented gun powder.

    The Japanese invented Ultraman and Nintendo.
    edit: for the record, the Chinese invented Won-Ton Soup.. bless their souls! YUM!
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    haffajappa wrote:
    Just a thought:
    The Chinese invented gun powder.

    The Japanese invented Ultraman and Nintendo.
    edit: for the record, the Chinese invented Won-Ton Soup.. bless their souls! YUM!

    That's not all:


    Battens in sails and cloth
    Blast furnace
    Cast iron
    Chopsticks
    Crank
    Repeating crossbow
    Escapement mechanism for clocks
    Exploding cannonball
    Fire Arrow
    The fork
    Gunpowder
    Firearm
    Horse collar
    Hull compartments/bulkheads
    Indian ink
    Kite
    Land mines
    Menus for Song-era restaurants
    Naval mines
    Noodles
    Paper
    Pendulum (Zhang Heng)
    Printing (woodblock printing and movable type)
    Rockets: Fire Arrow, Multistage rocket
    Rudder
    Sailing carriage
    Seismometer (of Zhang Heng)
    Silk
    South Pointing Chariot (differential gear, of Ma Jun)
    Sluice gates
    Toilet paper
    Trebuchet (traction)
    Trip hammer
    Winnowing machine
    Abacus
    Armillary sphere
    Bellows
    Belt drive
    Bituminous coke for the iron and steel industry
    Compass
    Camera obscura
    Cardan Suspension
    The cannon
    Chain drive
    Chain pumps
    Crossbow
    Drydock
    The Flamethrower
    Flash lock
    Early explosive grenades
    Odometer
    Paddle wheel, for boats
    Paper money
    Parachutes
    Pontoon bridge
    Porcelain
    Postal system
    Pound lock
    Saw
    Scissors
    Steel
    Suspension bridge
    Star catalogue
    Tea
    Umbrella
    Vaccination
    Water clock
    Waterwheel
    Wheelbarrow
    Windmill
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    inventions.. now we're talking!! ;)
    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.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Canadians invented insulin and basketball!
    The latter of which we don't care much for anyways, but it still pisses off our neighbours that we were the one's who did it!
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • acoustic guyacoustic guy Posts: 3,770
    HeidiJam wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    If somebody is going to kill someone they will do it regardless of weather there are guns or not. Some of you need to think logically instead of what your parties views are.

    worst spell of weather we've had for ages.

    anyway, it's quite difficult for a mentalist to kill 6 people including a 9 year old girl with a penknife... its much easier with a semi-automatic weapon...

    ironically thats the only semi men with guns can actually achieve.
    Wow, strong argument... spelling, really?
    Gun control seeks to disarm the lawless through law. It doesn't really work in practice. Look at Vermont. Vermont is one of 3 states that allows concealed carry with no licensing system whatsoever. You can go into any gun shop and if you pass a background check you can carry concealed. They literally have the most lax gun control in the country. Yet their crime rate is tiny and their murder rate is near zero.

    There is no correlation between crime and availability of firearms through legal channels. Poverty seems to have far more effect on crime than things like gun control ever will. Enact harsher punishments for gun crime. Don't restrict us law abiding citizens. We aren't the problem.
    Swimming pools cause more deaths a year in children than guns do, by your logic we should ban swimming pools?

    Beautiful...well said :clap::clap:
    Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
    Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Sign In or Register to comment.