Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun control.

Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 3:34:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think gun control is a load of bull. If I want a gun so I can hunt rabbits, defend my home and shoot my daughter's potential boyfriends, why should I be restricted in my ability to do so? It's unjust.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 8:33:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 3:34:31 AM, Jack212 wrote:
I think gun control is a load of bull. If I want a gun so I can hunt rabbits, defend my home and shoot my daughter's potential boyfriends, why should I be restricted in my ability to do so? It's unjust.

I don't think most people have an issue with this.
The issue is more, do you need an assault rifle to do these things?
My work here is, finally, done.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 10:14:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 8:33:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/22/2013 3:34:31 AM, Jack212 wrote:
I think gun control is a load of bull. If I want a gun so I can hunt rabbits, defend my home and shoot my daughter's potential boyfriends, why should I be restricted in my ability to do so? It's unjust.

I don't think most people have an issue with this.
The issue is more, do you need an assault rifle to do these things?

Of all the assault rifles in the public, how many are used in violent crimes? Less than .1%. Why take away the other 99.9% of assault rifles because of a couple, and I do mean a couple, bad seeds.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 3:30:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 8:33:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I don't think most people have an issue with this.
The issue is more, do you need an assault rifle to do these things?

Absolutely! Using a handgun is fine, but it's not as cool.

At 8/22/2013 10:14:58 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

Of all the assault rifles in the public, how many are used in violent crimes? Less than .1%. Why take away the other 99.9% of assault rifles because of a couple, and I do mean a couple, bad seeds.

Oi, watch who you're dissing there. I'm part of that 0.1%.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 3:33:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 10:14:58 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 8:33:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/22/2013 3:34:31 AM, Jack212 wrote:
I think gun control is a load of bull. If I want a gun so I can hunt rabbits, defend my home and shoot my daughter's potential boyfriends, why should I be restricted in my ability to do so? It's unjust.

I don't think most people have an issue with this.
The issue is more, do you need an assault rifle to do these things?

Of all the assault rifles in the public, how many are used in violent crimes? Less than .1%. Why take away the other 99.9% of assault rifles because of a couple, and I do mean a couple, bad seeds.

Would you prefer that I used the term "handguns", then?
For protecting one's home, hunting, and threatening boyfriends, a shotgun or rifle will do.

That is the issue.
Not guns per se, but the mobility/overpowered/capacity of them.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 3:40:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 3:33:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Would you prefer that I used the term "handguns", then?
For protecting one's home, hunting, and threatening boyfriends, a shotgun or rifle will do.

That is the issue.
Not guns per se, but the mobility/overpowered/capacity of them.

Watch this.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 6:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, so why should we make it easier for them by giving them weapons of war.

If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

Nope. They should all be banned anyways.


What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??

Yep, that's my plan. Here's another good question for you; why do need a gun?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 6:52:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

The average Joe isn't affected by a plutonium ban because it's f*cking expensive and needs advanced scientific/technical skills to manipulate. The only ones affected by plutonium bans are:

1. Corporations.

2. Terrorist networks.

3. Criminal masterminds.

4. Developing nations.

5. Mad scientists.

Basically, anybody who'd have the resources and know-how to do something with plutonium.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 6:58:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:52:37 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

The average Joe isn't affected by a plutonium ban because it's f*cking expensive and needs advanced scientific/technical skills to manipulate. The only ones affected by plutonium bans are:

1. Corporations.

2. Terrorist networks.

3. Criminal masterminds.

4. Developing nations.

5. Mad scientists.

Basically, anybody who'd have the resources and know-how to do something with plutonium.

Are you saying that this is a case of false equivalency? Because, I can assure you, the only people affected by a gun ban are those that can use guns.

By the by, your average nuclear physicist is just as effected by the ban, because it limits his ability to research nuclear reactivity and radiation.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 7:05:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:58:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:

By the by, your average nuclear physicist is just as effected by the ban, because it limits his ability to research nuclear reactivity and radiation.

No they're not, because they usually don't have the money to do nuclear research unless they're associated with a research facility (in which case they'd have access to plutonium anyway).
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 7:18:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 6:52:22 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, so why should we make it easier for them by giving them weapons of war.

If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

Nope. They should all be banned anyways.


What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??

Yep, that's my plan.

lol...I figured as much

Here's another good question for you; why do need a gun?

Protection, hunting, and target shooting
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 7:28:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 7:05:08 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:58:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:

By the by, your average nuclear physicist is just as effected by the ban, because it limits his ability to research nuclear reactivity and radiation.

No they're not, because they usually don't have the money to do nuclear research unless they're associated with a research facility (in which case they'd have access to plutonium anyway).

Me thinks you don't understand how hard it is to get something like plutonium. And plutonium isn't quite as expensive as you seem to think. Albeit at around four thousand dollars a gram, it isn't exactly cheap either. But in quantities required for research, it is affordable.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 7:29:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 7:18:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:52:22 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, so why should we make it easier for them by giving them weapons of war.

If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

Nope. They should all be banned anyways.


What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??

Yep, that's my plan.

lol...I figured as much

Here's another good question for you; why do need a gun?

Protection,

I disagree with this, but I'll get back to it later.

hunting, and target shooting

Let's say that you being able to have a gun for these purposes cost exactly one life, do you believe it's worth it?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 8:40:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 7:29:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 7:18:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:52:22 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, so why should we make it easier for them by giving them weapons of war.

If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

Nope. They should all be banned anyways.


What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??

Yep, that's my plan.

lol...I figured as much

Here's another good question for you; why do need a gun?

Protection,

I disagree with this, but I'll get back to it later.

hunting, and target shooting

Let's say that you being able to have a gun for these purposes cost exactly one life, do you believe it's worth it?

To answer the question, no. However, not every gun that is owned by a law abiding citizen costs one life so why start with that perspective?? Why not start with the view that every law abiding citizen who owns a gun may end up saving multiple lives as a result of having it available.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 8:50:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 8:40:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 7:29:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 7:18:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:52:22 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, so why should we make it easier for them by giving them weapons of war.

If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

Nope. They should all be banned anyways.


What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??

Yep, that's my plan.

lol...I figured as much

Here's another good question for you; why do need a gun?

Protection,

I disagree with this, but I'll get back to it later.

hunting, and target shooting

Let's say that you being able to have a gun for these purposes cost exactly one life, do you believe it's worth it?

To answer the question, no. However, not every gun that is owned by a law abiding citizen costs one life so why start with that perspective?? Why not start with the view that every law abiding citizen who owns a gun may end up saving multiple lives as a result of having it available.

You're correct, not every citizens ownership of a gun costs a life. Now, do you feel that the existence of guns is worth the lose of even one life?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 8:59:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't have much to say other than this. Don't use the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people argument," because it's ridiculous. Let's replace that with something else.

Toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast.

While it is people who pull the trigger, the gun is still a tool. A tool made exclusively to kill things. If you can find anything that a gun does that does not involve killing, or severely injuring, someone please tell me. There is no reason to own a gun other than killing, because that's all it does.

I lied. I have one more thing to say. Why doesn't anyone bring up the fact that there are two times more suicides by gun than homicides?It is the most used way of killing oneself, because it is quick, easy, and virtually painless (If done correctly).
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:00:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 8:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 8:40:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 7:29:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 7:18:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:52:22 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, so why should we make it easier for them by giving them weapons of war.

If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

Nope. They should all be banned anyways.


What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??

Yep, that's my plan.

lol...I figured as much

Here's another good question for you; why do need a gun?

Protection,

I disagree with this, but I'll get back to it later.

hunting, and target shooting

Let's say that you being able to have a gun for these purposes cost exactly one life, do you believe it's worth it?

To answer the question, no. However, not every gun that is owned by a law abiding citizen costs one life so why start with that perspective?? Why not start with the view that every law abiding citizen who owns a gun may end up saving multiple lives as a result of having it available.

You're correct, not every citizens ownership of a gun costs a life. Now, do you feel that the existence of guns is worth the lose of even one life?

No
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:07:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem with gun control as with most things in life, no matter how you play it there is going to be a trade off.

Some people think the better trade off is to allow pretty much any military weapon you can name, grenades, flame throwing, m-16 with explosive monkey rounds.

Some people think the better trade off is to allow pistols and maybe shot guns and no more.

Some people think the better trade off is to not allow anything that could be counted as a fire arm.

All can bring up situations and hypothetical which favor their position. But in such and such a case..........ergo allow flame thrower. But in such and such a case........ergo don't allow m-16's.

So how are you going to decide this issue ?

All I know is I want a weapon that shoots lazer beams..............pew pew.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:08:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

Because clearly everyone who kills another person, using a gun, is someone who methodically planned out their attack so that they could kill someone, rather than someone who, say, got into a domestic argument that turned heated and someone shot someone else.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:15:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 9:08:56 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

Because clearly everyone who kills another person, using a gun, is someone who methodically planned out their attack so that they could kill someone, rather than someone who, say, got into a domestic argument that turned heated and someone shot someone else.

If it got that heated and there was no gun around, what do you think would have happened?? Do you think that they would kiss and make up instead?? No, if someone has that little control of their temper then the weaker one would get strangled, beaten to death with fists or other objects, stabbed to death with a knife or other sharp object. A killer is going to kill, period. Heck, Ted Bundy even used a log to kill one girl. Banning guns is not your answer.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:19:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 9:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 8:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 8:40:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 7:29:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 7:18:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:52:22 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:29:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:27:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:14:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 6:02:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:52:52 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

I see this argument alot, and yet it's ridiculously unsound. Lets take a situation where, world wide, assault rifles were banned. Riddle me this medic, in this world where do people get their assault rifles?

Same place most criminals get their weapons, the black market. There are people who know how to build guns, and as long as there is a market for it, someone will provide them. You might make them a little more scarce, but you'll never get rid of them. The problem is that the only people owning them will be the criminals.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that people can still build guns. Even though the idea of people still being able to do so is ridiculous, due to the necessary machinery required. Assuming this, do you really think the output would be the same as it is now? And, by the by, you do realise that all guns currently on the black market were originally made legally. So, banning assault rifles removes the current source. But, lets put this in terms you might understand.

Making plutonium illegal is useless, because the only people who will get it will be criminals anyways. All you're doing is taking it out of the hands of law abiding nuclear physicists.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, so why should we make it easier for them by giving them weapons of war.

If you find 13 people killed in a shooting, does it really matter whether they were killed by an assault rifle, or 4 handguns??

Nope. They should all be banned anyways.


What's the next step if that doesn't fix the problem?? Come after all handguns too?? Then hunting rifles and shotguns??

Yep, that's my plan.

lol...I figured as much

Here's another good question for you; why do need a gun?

Protection,

I disagree with this, but I'll get back to it later.

hunting, and target shooting

Let's say that you being able to have a gun for these purposes cost exactly one life, do you believe it's worth it?

To answer the question, no. However, not every gun that is owned by a law abiding citizen costs one life so why start with that perspective?? Why not start with the view that every law abiding citizen who owns a gun may end up saving multiple lives as a result of having it available.

You're correct, not every citizens ownership of a gun costs a life. Now, do you feel that the existence of guns is worth the lose of even one life?

No

Then you're left with two options, either you're lying or you believe that there has never been a death due to the existence of guns.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:22:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 9:15:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 9:08:56 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

Because clearly everyone who kills another person, using a gun, is someone who methodically planned out their attack so that they could kill someone, rather than someone who, say, got into a domestic argument that turned heated and someone shot someone else.

If it got that heated and there was no gun around, what do you think would have happened?? Do you think that they would kiss and make up instead?? No, if someone has that little control of their temper then the weaker one would get strangled, beaten to death with fists or other objects, stabbed to death with a knife or other sharp object. A killer is going to kill, period. Heck, Ted Bundy even used a log to kill one girl. Banning guns is not your answer.

Noah crooks, a 13 year old boy, shot his mother to death during a dispute over her punishing him. If he didnt have that gun, there's a very good chance she would still be alive. Sure, he could have grabbed a knife. But he was half her size, so a knife wouldn't have helped him to much.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 9:15:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 9:08:56 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 8/22/2013 4:48:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Banning certain kinds of guns only affects law abiding citizens, collectors, and enthusiasts. If people are intent on killing, they're going to kill, period. Do we favor people being killed with one type of weapon, over others?? No, dead is dead. If they want to kill multiple people all they have to do is carry multiple guns, so we're not stopping any crime at all with gun bans.

Because clearly everyone who kills another person, using a gun, is someone who methodically planned out their attack so that they could kill someone, rather than someone who, say, got into a domestic argument that turned heated and someone shot someone else.

If it got that heated and there was no gun around, what do you think would have happened?? Do you think that they would kiss and make up instead?? No, if someone has that little control of their temper then the weaker one would get strangled, beaten to death with fists or other objects, stabbed to death with a knife or other sharp object. A killer is going to kill, period. Heck, Ted Bundy even used a log to kill one girl. Banning guns is not your answer.

Banning guns is not the answer ? it depends on the question.

If the question is, will banning guns stop all human on human killing then the answer is no.

If the question is will banning guns result in less death and injury all other things being equal......probably.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 9:38:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 8:59:53 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I don't have much to say other than this. Don't use the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people argument," because it's ridiculous.

It's true. Guns don't kill unless there is a killer pulling the trigger, or an irresponsible person owning something he shouldn't have.

Let's replace that with something else.

Toasters don't toast toast,

Right, toasters don't toast toast, toasters toast bread.

toast toasts toast.

Toast doesn't toast anything, toasters do.

While it is people who pull the trigger, the gun is still a tool. A tool made exclusively to kill things.

So are hands, feet, knees, elbows, knives, scissors, golf clubs, baseball bats, ropes, automobiles, nail guns, etc. Almost anything can be used as a weapon. Shall we ban all those things too??

If you can find anything that a gun does that does not involve killing, or severely injuring, someone please tell me. There is no reason to own a gun other than killing, because that's all it does.

I already mentioned two, hunting and target shooting.

I lied. I have one more thing to say. Why doesn't anyone bring up the fact that there are two times more suicides by gun than homicides?It is the most used way of killing oneself, because it is quick, easy, and virtually painless (If done correctly).

If a person wants to die, they're going to find a way. You'd rather them die a slower and more painful death??