guns and bullets

Blockhead · January 2011

* 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]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
All those crimes prevented without killing somebody.

dunkman · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

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.

OutOfBreath · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

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

Blockhead · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

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???

OutOfBreath · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

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

Blockhead · January 2011

OutOfBreath wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

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???

dunkman · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

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.

Blockhead · January 2011

OutOfBreath wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

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.

Blockhead · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

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.

g under p · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

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

wolfamongwolves · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

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.

Nukes are precisely for home protection, just that the home in question is the nation. Dan's point about difference of scale, but not of kind stands here, though the point about nukes always killing innocents is fair enough.

But nuke warning shots (by definition of "warning") are absolutely for self-defence. The entire Cold War was perpetuated by exactly that well-accepted "balance of power" concept. It's not just to test that they work, it's to show off tht they work.

Blockhead · January 2011

wolfamongwolves wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

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.

Nukes are precisely for home protection, just that the home in question is the nation. Dan's point about difference of scale, but not of kind stands here, though the point about nukes always killing innocents is fair enough.

But nuke warning shots (by definition of "warning") are absolutely for self-defence. The entire Cold War was perpetuated by exactly that well-accepted "balance of power" concept.

A gun used for home protection is only targeting the person entering YOUR HOUSE, and can't go hunt someone down in THEIR house and shoot them, So logically a Nuke is not home protection as we are not going to attack someone entering our HOME with a nuke as that would kill our people. So when you use that nuke on another country you will, no matter what kill innocents. Using a gun for home protection is not targeting innocent people, it is targeting a criminal entering your home. (yes i know accidents have happend, but you get my point)

haffajappa · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

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.

Oh right I forgot that some people use them to bake cakes.

dunkman · January 2011

g under p wrote:

a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.[/size

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

disagree all you want... the invention of the gun was primarily for killing.... the fact we now use them for sport is by the by... they were invented to kill other humans... undeniable fact.

g under p · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

g under p wrote:

a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.[/size

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

disagree all you want... the invention of the gun was primarily for killing.... the fact we now use them for sport is by the by... they were invented to kill other humans... undeniable fact.

Well, you didn't speak of the invention of the gun you spoke of the design of the gun. They ARE guns designed for target shooting (quite expensive BTW) and yes even those guns can kill too.

Peace

usamamasan1 · January 2011

This is a great expanation of why we should be able to carry. It's long but if you get a chance give it a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

dunkman · January 2011

g under p wrote:

dunkman wrote:

g under p wrote:

a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.[/size

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

disagree all you want... the invention of the gun was primarily for killing.... the fact we now use them for sport is by the by... they were invented to kill other humans... undeniable fact.

Well, you didn't speak of the invention of the gun you spoke of the design of the gun. They ARE guns designed for target shooting (quite expensive BTW) and yes even those guns can kill too.

Peace

semantics...

i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.

Blockhead · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

semantics...

i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.

So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???

Byrnzie · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

semantics...

i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.

So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???

Knives were designed to kill animals and to cut food. Hunter gatherers used spears and knives as survival tools. And you cannot commit a massacre with a knife unless you're Zorro, or a ninja.

dunkman · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

semantics...

i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.

So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???

actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharpening wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.

the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.

guns and bullets

Comments

Categories