guns and bullets

haffajappa

dunkman wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/06/nebraska-school-shooting-vice-principal.html

this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.

if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.

Used his tribal spear.

haffajappa

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/06/nebraska-school-shooting-vice-principal.html

this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.

if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.

The problem with this is, You don't fucking know what he would do. You can't use that as an arguement or debate. You have some seriously bad debating skills.

Actually, dunk (and others) have argued what people WOULDN'T do, which is kill easily if they did not have access to guns. You have always argued what they WOULD do, which is kill each other with staple removers and ninja stars. How is that any different? You have some seriously good hypocritical skills.

usamamasan1

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the
Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter
(written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a
gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....


"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason
and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal
firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a
way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on
equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on
equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun
removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a
potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier
for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims
are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no
validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic
rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact
opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only
make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him
a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations
lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns
involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party
inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely
in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of
an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it
wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a
fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only
persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables
me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would
interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Jason P

eMMI wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

You disarm the people, you strip them of freedom.

Responsible gun-owners harm no one.

One of the problems, though, is that little to no measures are made to make sure only people responsible enough to own a gun can do so.

That is a good point. When I bought my handgun, all I had to do was wait seven days and pick it up. I did not receive any tips or training on handling, cleaning, shooting, etc. Now I was responsible enough to go seek out qualified individuals to train me, but I doubt most people do.

There are a few things that the government mandates training or testing on because we could be a threat to the safety of ourselves and others, such as driving motorcycles and cars. I don't understand why handgun purchases don't require the same initial training / test. (well, actually I do understand it's the NRA, but ...)

JonnyPistachio

For the record, these are all quotes from: "The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret), not usamasan directly.

usamamasan1 wrote:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

That’s a pretty simplistic way of thinking about it -- I dont like this kind of attitude. Then again, with a firearm, you can just skip ‘reason’ altogether, and go straight to ‘force’.

usamamasan1 wrote:

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

Not if someone else’s ‘force’ is forced on you first.

usamamasan1 wrote:

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.

Also incorrect. Many people think guns are terrible and would never be caught anywhere near one. Some HATE guns, but know there is a place for them. I know it makes it easier for a mugger to take things from me. I also know it makes that confrontation much more deadly than if he didn’t have a gun.

usamamasan1 wrote:

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. Its almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here.

Again, I am not in this to see guns banned. Guns are a problem though, and that is evident from the mass murder that is occurring more and more recently. Stricter laws are needed.

g under p

HeidiJam wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Heidijam, those are interesting stats, but I dont care about them, no offense.
But I am one of the anti-gun folks who knows that an overall BAN is not good. BUT, there has to be compromise. These terrible trajedies (Az) can possibly be avoided, or scaled back through compromise. The laws need to be stricter, there needs to be better background checks, and the 'magazine' capacities need to be less for hanguns.

This debate will go in circles forever with stats comparing two totally different countires and cultures.
Maybe we should talk more aobut ways to hinder uneccessary gun violence. I beleive it is possible though compromise. There is no way to tell how many incidences were thwarted because of tougher laws or stricter background checks because they havent happened. And I'm sure some were avoided through laws. Think about if that AZ shooter could get access to an UZI! 50 people would've died. Thank God there are some limitations.

We cant just sit back and say that criminals and whackos are going to get the guns and they're going to kill people no matter what. That passive attitude is bad.

I agree with you, I am just pointing out that everybody in here that is for gun bans really have no leg to stand on. No if people in here were talking about only restriction and stricter enforement on who and how one can recieve a gun, I would not have even posted in this thread. But some people in here are blinded by ingnorance that gun bans work, and seem to think that crime does not exist with out guns. As the study stated more guns do not equal more crime and less guns does not equal less crime. It seem that people in here only care about guns instead of actual crime.

I don't know what you mean by everyone in here wants gun bans, I know I certainly don't want anything like that. However yes they do needs to be some sort of tighter restrictions on who is allowed to purchase and carry a gun by stricter background check. Passing a certified gun range test similar to when one is seeking a drivers license. However, the minute anyone brings up these restrictions or certifications it's looked upon as the government is taking away our constitutional rights.

Just because some disagree with you doesn't mean they want guns to be banned from it's various uses in this country which I've pointed out previously.

Peace

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

You should probably keep reading...

and so should you

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press- ... 12007.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

Byrnzie

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.

ed243421

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-j ... -criticism

keeponrockin

usamamasan1 wrote:

and a single guy on
equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

That gun also makes a single guy more powerful than a gathering of people listening to their congresswoman.

eyedclaar

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.

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

Jason P

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.

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.

eyedclaar

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...

Jason P

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

eyedclaar

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.

Jason P

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

usamamasan1

if guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat. :P

acoustic guy

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......

dunkman

usamamasan1 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"

JonnyPistachio

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"

too funny!