guns and bullets

Godfather.

zarocat wrote:

Culture, maybe ? But it is definitely GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAY OR I WILL SHOOT YOU IN THE FACE.
Human's snap for all kinds of reasons. I figure that is the argument someone on the side of pro guns can make meaning people kill people. Guns don't just kill people. Let's say that is the case, people kill people, there is no reason that guns should be available the way they are. I'm sorry, but can someone tell me the last time they used a machine gun or a magnum 57 to kill a deer ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjA2-VvY ... C&index=59

Or....When was the last time someone used a weak argument to stop a terroist attack or used another to stop a home invaision, come on man it was the gun/weapon that bought and preserved this country's(and every other country in the world) freedom.
Not to mention the recreational use of guns, people blame music for suicides in some cases so should we stop making music or ban bands like Ozzy ? People keep blaming guns without addressing the real issue which is people them selfs,mental illness , etc., on a side note it sure be easier to bag a buck with a machine gun.

Godfather.

zarocat

" it was the gun/weapon that bought and preserved this country's(and every other country in the world) freedom."

I refuse to believe that.

redrock

CJMST3K wrote:

Target shooting is not only a very recent practice. Unless you consider 130+ years or so "very recent".

Sorry... must be the European in me... 130 years IS very recent, all things considered

redrock

CJMST3K wrote:

Guns in their infancy were designed exclusively to kill, and that certainly is part of their design today. But just as humans evolved, so has the technology, and use.

....

Going back to your post above, your point could more easily be made about knives.

Guns: Invented about 900 years ago, though the first hand-held ones invented about 700 years ago.
Knives: Invented more than 2.5 MILLION years ago

Knives, like guns, were ALSO invented as instruments to hunt/kill with. Given the scale of history, which do you think has a longer history as use as a "weapon"? Yet, which is the one that some on here demonize?

The thing is the tool that was 'discovered' by prehistoric man (ie the precursor to the knife) was not done so with the intention to kill another human being or even to kill animals as, those that did eat meat, were scavengers. The sharp tools were used to cut the meat/bones/hide/plants. Naturally over centuries, these stone men evolved as did their tools and their use (if the term 'evolved' is the right one to use when killing another human is involved!).

The point here with guns vs. knives is that a gun is a killing machine. Though one can commit murder with knives as well, it is quite difficult to go on a rampage and kill loads of people with them. Laughner's Glock held 30 rounds, potentially 30 people killed. How could one hope for the same kind of mayhem with knives? Pick up your gun with maybe spare ammo - a minute or two, 30 knives? Hmmm.... don't even think it would be safe for the guy to carry all of them on him! That's the difference.

Yes, I understand firearms are used for sporting activities and I can understand the rush anyone may get from being damn good at it but it is also the weapon of choice for mass shootings. I don't think anyone is talking about banning ownership of firearms or banning the sport, etc. but looking at much tighter regulations as to how and when people can purchase guns, and possibly look at 'follow-ups'. And I really don't think that this is an infringement on any potential gun owner's 'rights'. Both Laughner & Cho had their weapons legally. They should never have been able to purchase them as they both had 'issues', but the current system decided they were 'law abiding citizens'. What happens if you ARE a law abiding citizen with no problems but a couple of years down the line you lose it (say deep depression diagnosed by your doctor and you should be taking meds)? Should it be reported? Or say you get arrested several times for beating up your wife but never get charged - should one think that maybe next time, you may use your gun on her? Should this be reported? These people who have 'changed' - should they get their permits/guns taken away from them because they are 'risks' (a bit like your driver license being revoked after certain/several offenses)?

It's the whole system that needs to be looked at (and yes, also all the underlying causes of crime).

CJMST3K

redrock wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

Target shooting is not only a very recent practice. Unless you consider 130+ years or so "very recent".

Sorry... must be the European in me... 130 years IS very recent, all things considered

Or could just be your age then. :P

Suffice it to say that target shooting since the 1800's has been an enjoyable sport to practice, with no link at all to violence. Just as rugby is not similar to purse-snatching.

And in your most recent post, I do want to clarify that many skilled shooters are not doing it to experience a "rush", but instead for the calm it brings, as is required to shoot accurately.

However, I'm not averse to having a review of how to keep legal guns out of the hands of crazy people. And I suppose the question with Laughner & Cho is, if there were a system which worked to keep them out of their hands legally, would they have then just bought them illegally? ...just food for thought.

I think that in a free society, where bearing arms is permitted as well as illegal arms available, it is just impossible for someone to stop someone else from obtaining a gun, when their intentions are bad.

redrock

CJMST3K wrote:

Or could just be your age then. :P

You're probably right!

CJMST3K wrote:

And in your most recent post, I do want to clarify that many skilled shooters are not doing it to experience a "rush", but instead for the calm it brings, as is required to shoot accurately..

What I meant by rush is what any person would feel in achieving a good result in whatever the field they choose. Just being good at something - the feeling of accomplishment. Not the 'rush of the kill' (like hunting).

CJMST3K wrote:

However, I'm not averse to having a review of how to keep legal guns out of the hands of crazy people. And I suppose the question with Laughner & Cho is, if there were a system which worked to keep them out of their hands legally, would they have then just bought them illegally? ...just food for thought. .

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Would they have been 'knowledgeable' enough to know how/where to purchase an illegal arm? It's easier to get something through established channels as there is a fixed process - no need to think about it. Some other perpetrators of mass shootings have done so in an 'opportunistic' way - ie they flipped, they had a gun, they went out to kill (eg getting fired, being pissed of, fuming at home, getting the gun out of the drawer, going back to the office and killing the lot). I'm sure if they didn't have a gun readily available, they wouldn't have gone on a killing spree.

Again, I'm sure people would say 'well, if he/she didn't have a gun, the pissed off person would have used something else'. Maybe. But as said before, then the mayhem would have probably been less. Any tool can be used to kill (I could be pissed off with my boss and hit him over the head with my cast iron frying pan if I didn't have a gun), but a firearm was intended for that purpose (until about 130 years ago when they are also used for target practice!). My cast iron frying pan was intended to cook food (and it does so pretty damn well).

Godfather.

zarocat wrote:

" it was the gun/weapon that bought and preserved this country's(and every other country in the world) freedom."

I refuse to believe that.

Sorry brother but you might want to do some history on that, without valor and superior fire power we would be living a whole different life right now.

Godfather.

ed243421

Godfather. wrote:

zarocat wrote:

" it was the gun/weapon that bought and preserved this country's(and every other country in the world) freedom."

I refuse to believe that.

Sorry brother but you might want to do some history on that, without valor and superior fire power we would be living a whole different life right now.

Godfather.

g
if i am allowed to ask
if
guns don't kill people, people kill people
than how did a gun buy and preserve freedom?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

excellet question.

ed243421 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

zarocat wrote:

" it was the gun/weapon that bought and preserved this country's(and every other country in the world) freedom."

I refuse to believe that.

Sorry brother but you might want to do some history on that, without valor and superior fire power we would be living a whole different life right now.

Godfather.

g
if i am allowed to ask
if
guns don't kill people, people kill people
than how did a gun buy and preserve freedom?

Godfather.

ed243421 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

zarocat wrote:

" it was the gun/weapon that bought and preserved this country's(and every other country in the world) freedom."

I refuse to believe that.

Sorry brother but you might want to do some history on that, without valor and superior fire power we would be living a whole different life right now.

Godfather.

g
if i am allowed to ask
if
guns don't kill people, people kill people
than how did a gun buy and preserve freedom?

the answer you're looking for, simply a tool to defeat the enemy but if the enemy know you have more and bigger weapons they mat not attack you, this is a silly argument of corse guns are ment to kill hundreds of years of war would tell you that but they are also used for reasons other than killing, all that aside who has the right to tell me/you I can't have a gun, some people should not have a gun for obvious reasons but I don't want to be punished for their actions.

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Godfather. wrote:

who has the right to tell me/you I can't have a gun, some people should not have a gun for obvious reasons but I don't want to be punished for their actions.
Godfather.

what a confusing statement. so you think no one has the right to deny you or I the right to own a firearm, but follow that immediately by saying that some people should not have that same right. so are you saying YOU have the right to deny someone that right?

zarocat

And this word 'freedom' that we solemnly throw around like it actually exists. Excuse me, and this may belong in another thread, but you & I are not living in a 'freedom' society.

Godfather.

Paul David wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

who has the right to tell me/you I can't have a gun, some people should not have a gun for obvious reasons but I don't want to be punished for their actions.
Godfather.

what a confusing statement. so you think no one has the right to deny you or I the right to own a firearm, but follow that immediately by saying that some people should not have that same right. so are you saying YOU have the right to deny someone that right?

a little common sense here buddy, would you agree that some people should not have guns ? convicted felons
criminally insane etc.

Godfather.

Godfather.

zarocat wrote:

And this word 'freedom' that we solemnly throw around like it actually exists. Excuse me, and this may belong in another thread, but you & I are not living in a 'freedom' society.

you sound young, maybe if you did a comparison with the US to other some of the countries in the world or really thought about what you have as a US citizen you might see it ain't so bad in the good ol' US of A

Godfather.

zarocat

Young ? I consider 33 young I guess but I don't consider 'IT AIN'T ALL THAT BAD IN THE GOOD OL' US OF A' to mean I am free. A government to claim that I am free because of them and for me to justify that, if it is indeed true, should not come from the comparison to another country. If it does come from the comparison to another country, that is not 'freedom.' That is 'more free than them.'
You sound misinformed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgqeL0Av ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd0_7BcU-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsN3nptiz3M

P.S. No hard feelings

dunkman

Godfather. wrote:

Paul David wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

who has the right to tell me/you I can't have a gun, some people should not have a gun for obvious reasons but I don't want to be punished for their actions.
Godfather.

what a confusing statement. so you think no one has the right to deny you or I the right to own a firearm, but follow that immediately by saying that some people should not have that same right. so are you saying YOU have the right to deny someone that right?

a little common sense here buddy, would you agree that some people should not have guns ? convicted felons
criminally insane etc.

Godfather.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

where does it say there that convicted felons and insane people cannot have a gun? it specifically states 'shall not be infringed'

JonnyPistachio

CJMST3K wrote:

However, I'm not averse to having a review of how to keep legal guns out of the hands of crazy people. And I suppose the question with Laughner & Cho is, if there were a system which worked to keep them out of their hands legally, would they have then just bought them illegally? ...just food for thought.

I think that in a free society, where bearing arms is permitted as well as illegal arms available, it is just impossible for someone to stop someone else from obtaining a gun, when their intentions are bad.

Great question.. I think these are the hardest questions to answer in this debate.

The highlighted part is what I have a problem with though. We cannot even consider how many people have been diverted by the law because those situations havent happened because the law prevented them. I'm sure there are some cases of whakos who have bad intentions that would like to shoot up a mall or campus, but dont know how to get a handgun under the current system. There are surely some lazy whackos and some that arent intelligent enough, or have the resources or funds to obtain a weapon in current society -- but we'll never know those cases.
My point is, yes there are problems with identifying mentally unstable people, but there are also problems witht he gun laws. It cant hurt to extend some regulations...we dont know if we dont try.

Godfather.

zarocat wrote:

Young ? I consider 33 young I guess but I don't consider 'IT AIN'T ALL THAT BAD IN THE GOOD OL' US OF A' to mean I am free. A government to claim that I am free because of them and for me to justify that, if it is indeed true, should not come from the comparison to another country. If it does come from the comparison to another country, that is not 'freedom.' That is 'more free than them.'
You sound misinformed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgqeL0Av ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd0_7BcU-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsN3nptiz3M

P.S. No hard feelings

didn't mean to offend, no.......come to think of it we all might be misinformed, just what I was getting at is all that sets this country apart from others and the fact that you can voice your opinion on just about anything and not be executed or jailed for the rest of your life,we have the opportunity to educate our selfs and earn a good living and so on.

Godfather.

Godfather.

dunk come on brother now your just being sarcastic, but if want some whacked out psycho in your neighborhood with an uzi please keep them there.

dunkman

Godfather. wrote:

didn't mean to offend, no.......come to think of it we all might be misinformed, just what I was getting at is all that sets this country apart from others and the fact that you can voice your opinion on just about anything and not be executed or jailed for the rest of your life,we have the opportunity to educate our selfs and earn a good living and so on.

Godfather.

so what sets America apart from others is exactly the same as what every other Euro country, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc has also?

we can voice our opinions here in the UK without fear of jail or execution
we have the opportunity to educate ourselves in a University system older than your country.. and unlike the US its free
as for earn a good living... i think we do ok thanks.