more kids shot in US schools... awesome gun laws!!!

UKDave

Ahnimus wrote:

It's still pretty easy to get matches and you can burn down their house with them inside.

Or you can get javex and put it in their punch.

Or hit them with a car.

Saw off their limbs.

Attack them with a cordless nail gun.

Stick 'em with a sword/knife.

Pull the plug on them in the hospital.

Strangle them to death.

Kick 'em in the head.

Beat 'em with a baseball bat.

Etc.. it's really easy to kill someone, even unintentionally. I personally know someone who killed another person in self-defense with a baseball bat to the skull. He did 5 years for manslaughter.

So let's leave all the guns out there then? :rolleyes: That's a stupid argument, it's like saying let anyone have anything they want because they could just find another way of achieving their intention, simple equation:
less guns = less people being killed by guns - go figure...

The only reason to argue against this is that you don't WANT to give them up...

dunkman

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't know man, there wasn't much I would have wanted more at the age of 13 than a Kalishnikova, that would have been sweet!

when i was 13 all i ever wanted was a girlfriend who would let me feel her tits... seems like some people get their kicks in other ways :rolleyes:

69charger

mancore wrote:

a large part of this has to be a fascination with guns, a fascination that can be fed due to the availabilty of them

I find this to be exactly the opposite. Children raised around firearms an taught to use an respect firearms will most likely never get hurt by one. It's often the "forbidden fruit" that get folks into trouble.

UKDave

69charger wrote:

I find this to be exactly the opposite. Children raised around firearms an taught to use an respect firearms will most likely never get hurt by one. It's often the "forbidden fruit" that get folks into trouble.

To some extent I can agree with that, it's like different approaches to alcohol, some wine with a meal as they grow up can take away the mystique with alcohol for kids etc...

But when you add in the availability and the sheer efficiency of the killing machine, after all that is what it is designed to do, you have a problem.

All these arguments about people dying from other causes is crap, none of these things are designed to kill / maim, except maybe knives and they should be treated the same way, there should be no justification for carrying either of them.

edit: will somebody please tell me WHY they NEED a gun ffs?

dunkman

69charger wrote:

I find this to be exactly the opposite. Children raised around firearms an taught to use an respect firearms will most likely never get hurt by one. It's often the "forbidden fruit" that get folks into trouble.

thats correct... thats why 5 kids per day die playing with their dads guns.

keywords are "most likely"... lets remove some of that likelyhood... make people keep guns only at an authorised shooting club for a start!

redrock

The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300. These are accidents in 'the home', ie. no hunting accidents, etc. Just kids raised in responsible homes with responsible parents who have responsibly taken care of their guns.......

mancore

69charger wrote:

I find this to be exactly the opposite. Children raised around firearms an taught to use an respect firearms will most likely never get hurt by one. It's often the "forbidden fruit" that get folks into trouble.[/QUOT

unfortunately you cant teach everyone to respect firearms. and children being raised and taught to use firearms, respect or not, thats just asking for trouble, take one twisted kid, give him access to a gun, teach him to use it, guess what the danger is?

redrock

There is no excuse for guns. However you see it, guns are made for killing - they have NO other purpose. Whether you have them 'as a right', for hunting or whatever takes your fancy, they were not made with the intention of just looking pretty. They are lethal weapons that have no place in our society.

69charger

UKDave wrote:

edit: will somebody please tell me WHY they NEED a gun ffs?

Because guns exist.

I must to be able to defend the rights given to my by the constitution of my country or those rights mean nothing. They are merely illusions that rely on someone else's good graces.

I'd say the most fundamental right of all is a right to self-preservation.

dunkman

redrock wrote:

They are lethal weapons that have no place in our society.

like my barbed tongue

also, dont people realise the argument of "but i could kill you with a hairdryer... should we ban hairdryers" is completely pointless..

out of all the things these people list the gun is the only one designed for the purpose of killing... someone mentioned a knife, but knifes were primarily designed using the blueprint of flint tools... which were used to hunt animals for food, before the current rule of Burger King people had to hunt and prep their food with flint tools, then they "invented" knives once they discovered Iron or whatever it was first!

so enough with the car is more dangerous analogy as its not really comparable

69charger

redrock wrote:

The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300. These are accidents in 'the home', ie. no hunting accidents, etc. Just kids raised in responsible homes with responsible parents who have responsibly taken care of their guns.......

I'm not denying your statistics but I will take issue with the "raised in responsible homes with responsible parents who have responsibly taken care of their guns" part. If the parents truly responsibly taken care of their guns, no accidents would ever happen.

So since guns are used up to 2.5 million times a year to protect the lives of individuals, we should give that up to save the lives of 1,300?

dunkman

69charger wrote:

Because guns exist.

so does AIDS, nuclear missiles and pink underwear... do you want all of those as well ?

redrock

69charger wrote:

Because guns exist.

I must to be able to defend the rights given to my by the constitution of my country or those rights mean nothing. They are merely illusions that rely on someone else's good graces.

I'd say the most fundamental right of all is a right to self-preservation.

And you'll throw yourself in a tank full of hungry white sharks just because it's there??

Live by the sword, die by the sword (or gun). If you're so keen on self-preservation, look at trying to save our environment.. that might keep you and future generations alive. Look at the destruction of all weapons.. might just save our planet.

It is no longer the wild west in the US and guns are not toys. Wake up.

69charger

dunkman1974 wrote:

so enough with the car is more dangerous analogy as its not really comparable

A gun is a tool designed to perform a job. So is a car. Cars just happen to be better performing the job guns were invented for

dunkman

69charger wrote:

1. I'm not denying your statistics but I will take issue with the "raised in responsible homes with responsible parents who have responsibly taken care of their guns" part. If the parents truly responsibly taken care of their guns, no accidents would ever happen.

2. So since guns are used up to 2.5 million times a year to protect the lives of individuals, we should give that up to save the lives of 1,300?

1. absolute rubbish... and i'll find a story to prove that

2. complete speculation... you can't say 2.5 million lives are saved because of guns... its a made up statistic... its bogus

UKDave

69charger wrote:

Because guns exist.

I must to be able to defend the rights given to my by the constitution of my country or those rights mean nothing. They are merely illusions that rely on someone else's good graces.

I'd say the most fundamental right of all is a right to self-preservation.

I was waiting for this one...

That's why you WANT a gun, not why you NEED one, take all the guns away who needs one to defend themselves... no-one yes, then we are back to the knives argument etc but the only way for you to go when you have guns is MORE guns, more POWERFUL guns so that can out-do your neighbour (that's with a u by the way) in some dilussional thought process where everyone is out to get you... paranoid society ensues, you're welcome to it...

dunkman

69charger wrote:

I'm not denying your statistics but I will take issue with the "raised in responsible homes with responsible parents who have responsibly taken care of their guns" part. If the parents truly responsibly taken care of their guns, no accidents would ever happen.

So since guns are used up to 2.5 million times a year to protect the lives of individuals, we should give that up to save the lives of 1,300?

why would you fight your own government??? its never gonna happen, and big fat fuckers with a 6 round pistol versus the Marines :eek: your guns would be futile...

its make believe land... you live in a dream world!

69charger

dunkman1974 wrote:

so does AIDS, nuclear missiles and pink underwear... do you want all of those as well ?

No but I would like the ability to defend against them

UKDave

69charger wrote:

I'm not denying your statistics but I will take issue with the "raised in responsible homes with responsible parents who have responsibly taken care of their guns" part. If the parents truly responsibly taken care of their guns, no accidents would ever happen.

So since guns are used up to 2.5 million times a year to protect the lives of individuals, we should give that up to save the lives of 1,300?

FFS!!! to protect them against other fucking GUNS dumbnut!!! :mad:

edit: anyway I'm going to get my hair cut and yeah I'll watch out for those extra dangerous scissors... :rolleyes:

redrock

69charger wrote:

If the parents truly responsibly taken care of their guns, no accidents would ever happen.

Exactly my point!!!!! It is not responsible for a parent (or anyone really) to have guns at home. These were legal gun holders, supposedly those responsible enough to own one.

69charger wrote:

So since guns are used up to 2.5 million times a year to protect the lives of individuals,

??? I dispute that these were used to 'protect the life of individuals'. If there were no guns, no guns would be needed to 'protect' one's life!

69charger wrote:

we should give that up to save the lives of 1,300?

CHILDREN, under the age of 14. These are ONLY purely accidental deaths. e are not even talking about those who were disfigurred, maimed, paralysed, or in a coma.