If guns kill people

Post Reply New Topic

.....acquiring game in such a manner than one who has little experience could take down an animal, or defending oneself (though a bladed instrument or pushing the attacker down a flight of stairs may have the same desired effect--to kill) against man or beast (they do make Grizzly Spray for this though), facilitating one in the commission of a crime (same can be true for virtually anything), generating revenue for collectors of rare/historic firearms, providing a hobby.

Cars can kill people; just watch Duel or Christine...

OK, now for a real reply: I have to agree that those opposed to gun ownership/use and those in support of it possess equally flawed logic. One can argue that guns don't kill people or that guns only serve the purpose to kill (especially humans) until they are blue in the face and still not obtain victory. Personally, I tend to not play either side, even though I do own, collect (historic/rare) and use firearms. In the end, it boils down to this: If you favor gun ownership and/or want to own one, fine. If you dislike firearms and see no reason to own one, this is likewise fine. Don't purchase one (with that said, I am aware there are several countries that prohibit the possession of firearms by anyone short of the military).

The point is, just because it's easy to kill with a gun doesn't mean they should be outlawed. ANYTHING CAN be a weapon.



Also, statistics show that there is LESS crime in areas where gun ownership laws are more lenient. Crime rates go up when gun control is implemented.

Gun Control Defined:
A theory espoused by some people; who claim to believe, that a violent predator who ignores the laws prohibiting them from robbing, raping, kidnapping, torturing and killing their fellow human beings will obey a law telling them that they cannot own a gun.

For anybody anti gun, I challene you to come to Ireland. You will be killed.
Our police don't even have guns. The only thing we have is farmers with rifles and shotguns. Crossbows are illegal, handguns are illegal, katanas are illegal, machetes are illegal, carrying something sharp or pointed for any reason is illegal, intending to defend yourself with anything but your bare hands outside of your house is ilegal. So we are pretty much an anti gun haven. Criminals have no fear because they know people cannot defend themselves and they will kill with anything they can (be it an illegal gun, box cutters, baseball bat, petrol bomb, anything) because what have they to fear? Come to our anti gun anti weapon haven and enjoy having your organs fall out of your slashed abdomen, enjoy having your skull smashed to pieces with a baseball bat.
Criminals do as they please because the law doesn't govern them. Gun control only affects those that already obey. Anti gun society to criminals is a bit like giving a hunter a deer with no leg, it just makes it so easy for them.

Also, the point is... Yes, a belt is for holding up pants, but it can also be used to hurt people. The intent lies not with the object, but rather the person. Banning all belts because some people use them as weapons is stupid. That's the point trying to be made here. Some people have guns so they can hurt others, and some people have guns to protect themselves if need be. If we tried to get rid of all guns, there will always be criminals who make them or find a way to buy them underground. Not every gun owner is a trigger happy maniac either. You have the weapon in case you need it. You show it off when threatened so people can see what they'd be dealing with. It's no different than a dog showing its teeth. It does so as a warning. If you don't heed its warning, you get bitten. If you do, and you leave, you don't get bitten. Same concept.

we should have wide spread gun ownership, and increased spread gun control (more specifically its use)

diffuse power by not only allowing the government to be the only armed ones. But with it comes great responsibility. We need an increase in both, but I do not know of a gun control advocate or a gun rights supporter who would be for that.

Bingo. Law abiding citizens don't go around shooting people nearly so often as criminals do, and a criminal has no incentive to get rid of a gun because it's illegal.

Propelling projectiles in a linear fashion in as predictable a manner as possible, for an end determined by the user.

if one is very angry, and one has a belt or a knife or a mace or whatever other utensil that is not a gun, then their likelyhood to back off with their attack before the death of their quarry is very high.

a bullet in the head (which is the place most people aim for when they fight) is rarely non fatal. just one angry press of a trigger is far more destructive than 5 angry stabs of a knife i would think. people like to inflict injury in stages, and they can stop short of murder if they resort to baseball bats and get their anger out in a few swings rather than overreact and expel all their frustration in their first pull of a trigger.

if guns are legal, then almost everyone who wants one can have one.
the supply is such that the affordability of guns is acceptable to everyone.

when everyone has guns, guns are cheap.
when guns are rare and hazardous to own( due to them being illegal), then guns are very expensive, and so the only people who are the most fervent in their criminal pursuits are in the position to know where to buy guns, and they would use those guns not indiscriminately.

if it was only gangsters that owned guns, then i would feel safer because gangsters and me have no history together.

if everyone was able to obtain guns and they had the ability to suddenly decide to blow my brains out ,i would more carefully inspect what other people make of what i say to them.

i prefer to say what i really think, and i do not think i could submit to the ideas that are foisted upon me.

This is a complex issue. I found two studies (both from Harvard) that reach different conclusions.

Within the US there is a positive correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates when comparing states.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975 (no direct access, though)

But internationally no such correlation exists.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

Alse see this table.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... world-list

That being said, I find it difficult to explain the high gun homicide rate in the US compared to other highly developed countries (ten times higher than many EU countries) without attributing at least some of the difference to the availability of firearms.

I just purchased a gun,why?Self defense,I don't even really like them,they are loud.But we have a rabies problem right now,three times the average and I'm not taking on a rabid skunk with a stick.And my next door neighbor came home to find burglars in her house.I live alone,it would take the cops around 30mnts to get here.We also have a serious meth problem,some people on meth become psychotic and extremely violent.The meth problem was so bad a couple of years ago we had seven homicides in one year,there are only about 7,000 people in this county so one in a thousand got murdered(and some of these killings were gruesome) statistically that year we were more dangerous than most large cities.We are a poor county and the sheriff department is understaffed,as one deputy told me "most people have to handle their problems themselves,we may not can get there on time).
My ex-husband was attacked and beaten on the job by a tweaker,he asked the wrong question and set the guy off,he attacked my ex with a metal tape measure,it happened so fast,a quick blow to the head and then he stomped and kicked my ex.In this case no guns involved,a tape measure and feet did all the damage.

I thought it was a parabolic curve to be more precise?

Hell yeah. If I aimed and fired at the head of a person at the range of 50 metres with my issued HK-G3 rifle during conscription, that person would probably be less likely to die from the gunshot than I would be.

A person might achieve a trajectory that *looks* linear within standard rifle ranges when firing a rail gun, though... In which case I wouldn't pick a fight with that person .

You sir, are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

The same black and white fallacy again. Not every criminals are committed to break ALL laws. Really with that logic, we should see street robbers murdering all their targets.

It's called a false dichotomy, but in this case it can be argued that robbing, raping, kidnapping, torturing and killing are all laws a potential offender would be less likely to ignore than firearms laws.

In your list only ammonium nitrate fertilizer can be considered effective bomb making material, but it IS tightly regulated.

I think potassium nitrate and thermite is at best difficult to obtain if not regulated.

Bleach may at best be used to make low explosive (sodium or potassium chlorate). However, the efficiency of the procedure is so low that one literally needs a ton of bleach to produce a few kilos of explosive.

By ammonia I think you are talking about NCl3 .Same problem as above, and very unstable.

Gasoline, propane, diesel, charcoal are just flammable. One may create an explosion by mixing with air under some restrictive conditions. The mechanism of doing so is very complicated and often classified.

Really it is naive to think one with little chemical training can produce explosive by just reading the internet, where the writer may or may not know what he is doing. Moreover, creating a small firework is different from making a bomb. A bomb must contain enough explosive to be effective. Then it must be reliably transported and detonated.

A gun for shooting spee is more comparable with buying a grenade, pull the pin and throw into a crowd.