Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Guns Do Kill People!

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 4:25:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So what about the gun lover's snappy slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Isn't that a little like saying that "Peanut butter doesn't cause itself to stick to the roof of your mouth, people who choose to eat peanut butter cause it to stick to the roofs of their mouths"? Our human choice doesn't absolve inanimate objects of their role in the outcome.

Which is to say sure, there's a human element in any shooting or homicide involving a firearm, but if a gun is used then it's also a significant element in the crime, and in many cases arguably a factor to boot.

Possessing the means to carry out an intention most certainly factors into the final choice to turn your intention into action. If I have no mountain climbing equipment then my motivation to go mountain climbing is most likely going to go nowhere. But if I'm provided with the crampons, helmet, harnesses, and other gear I need, well, then my decision to scale or not to scale a mountain might very well be tipped in the direction of yea rather than nay. Likewise, someone in the possession of a gun who's contemplating a crime may be influenced by the fact that he has a lethal weapon at his disposal. The voice in his head may say yea when it would have said nay had he been without a piece.

Every alcoholic knows that an inanimate bottle of booze can talk to him, can tempt him, can say pick me up and use me. Inanimate objects work their influence on our choices all the time. Of course they don't take away, don't rob us of our freedom of choice, that's why no one will ever be acquitted of murder by claiming that his gun made him do it and any attorney who tried such a defense would be out of his gourd. But items such as guns, drugs, credit cards, etc. do have some sway, it's still our moral responsibility to resist it, but the sway is there and is significant.

And sometimes the sway of something is much easier to resist if it isn't actually readily available to you, that's why credit counselors often advise people in debt to cut up their credit cards. It's much easier to refrain from the temptation to use them if they're gone! That's only common sense after all. But when it comes to guns that common sense seems to get tossed out the window. People seem to think that we can have millions of guns accessible to every weak-willed Tom, Dick, and Harry in society without it leading some of them to commit crimes such as murder and armed robbery.

When a criminal offense has been perpetrated with the aid of a gun, well, the gun becomes the proverbial elephant in the room. We focus exclusively on the human perp, and avert our thoughts from the way the gun both facilitated and partially motivated the heinous deed. If someone does have the good sense to spread some of the blame around to the gun, he gets attacked for not being severe enough in his judgment of the "bad guy", as if recognizing the gun's participation in the crime lets its user off the hook one iota.

A gun is not a tool, it's a weapon, and a weapon is the means to commit a violent act. And means is an element of motive. Guns are not innocent items that we can allow to exist in abundant numbers in our society, especially not in our society with its proclivity to violence. Yes, I realize that guns are not the whole explanation for our high violent crime rates, we have a violent culture. But that's all the more reason why guns shouldn't be made too accessible to civilians. Throwing guns at people raised in the violent culture of America is like throwing liqueur at a drunk! Not the most sensible thing to do, hmm?

At any rate, a gun is an especially tempting weapon to use for someone who's already prone to criminality. A gun gives its user total, or at least a sense of total control over a situation. A crook can walk into a store with a sawed-off shotgun or a 9 millimeter and feel like he's in command of the situation. A baseball bat or a knife just doesn't give its user the same feeling of invincibility. A gun is also the only weapon that you can actually use for certain crimes. You can't exactly do a drive-by by throwing a baseball bat out a car window at your victim. So, not only are guns not innocent, they're especially insidious objects and a society that makes them too easy to obtain either lacks wisdom or is trapped in its history and culture.

Or both, which is the case with the US. The United States has a strong gun culture, rooted in its pioneer and violent history, a gun culture that seems to rob us, as a society, of any intelligence and wisdom when it comes to our gun laws. Most other societies in the First World realize that guns aren't toasters or hammers, that they're not something that you allow everyone to own, the US is somewhat aberrant in its inability to come to terms with this truth. Heck, if someone tries to express the opinion that guns are dangerous and that their ownership should be restricted he/she's shouted down with the mindless chant "Guns don't kill people…" The anti-guns viewpoint can't even get on the table!

Then, of course, gun nuts, if they're also of a right-wing political persuasion, which is frequently the case, will also haul out other arguments, such as the myth that societies without millions of guns floating around all become totalitarian dictatorships, that if the citizenry isn't armed the government becomes oppressive. Well, this argument of course doesn't take account of countries such as France, Sweden, Britain, Belgium, and on and on. No other Western "democracy" makes gun ownership so easy as the US, and none of them have been taken over by a tyrant yet. What are all the wannabee tyrants waiting for?

Of course staunch Second Amendment advocates will cite the fact that Hitler took guns away from civilians and then took over Germany. But Germany didn't have any kind of a democratic tradition or a commitment to democratic institutions when Hitler seized power, this little factoid certainly has a lot more to do with the Nazis being able to gain totalitarian control of the country than the banning of private ownership of guns! No, when it comes to actual democracies, the lack of a well-armed citizenry doesn't seem to put democracy in jeopardy.

Well, even without taking away our guns the ruling economic elite of society has co-opted our system of government, made a lie of our vaunted democracy, and placed itself in the political catbird seat. So guns in the hands of millions of private individuals are really no guarantee that a democracy will endure. Either way, the "We need guns to preserve our democracy" argument is an abject fallacy.

Guns are deadly hazards in the hands of private citizens, they contribute to crime, and they serve no purpose as far as protecting ourselves from the government go. People whose mentality is locked into the gun culture of our society, and who enjoy the feeling of manhood and power they derive from packing a big ole gun will always be loathe to part with their weapons, but if we're ever going to get real about violence in this country we need to begin looking more critically at the role of guns.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:25:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow. Long. And completed irrational. Probably the worst thing I have seen you post yet, it even tops the conservative.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:28:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:25:16 PM, jharry wrote:
Wow. Long. And completed irrational. Probably the worst thing I have seen you post yet, it even tops the conservative.

If you're going to say he's wrong, you have to demonstrate why he's wrong.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:34:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Someone or something must pull the trigger in order for a bullet to be ejected so in that the gun cannot kill by itself plus to be more accurate it is the bullet the gun is simply a striking and directing system for the bullet . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:36:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:28:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:25:16 PM, jharry wrote:
Wow. Long. And completed irrational. Probably the worst thing I have seen you post yet, it even tops the conservative.

If you're going to say he's wrong, you have to demonstrate why he's wrong.

Why? Does he ever reply to anything said about his posts?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:38:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:36:53 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:28:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:25:16 PM, jharry wrote:
Wow. Long. And completed irrational. Probably the worst thing I have seen you post yet, it even tops the conservative.

If you're going to say he's wrong, you have to demonstrate why he's wrong.

Why? Does he ever reply to anything said about his posts?

Yes he does, actually. But, usually, it's just more incoherent blathering that induces headaches from slamming your head against your desk... <shrugs> You reply at your own peril.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:40:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:34:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Someone or something must pull the trigger in order for a bullet to be ejected so in that the gun cannot kill by itself plus to be more accurate it is the bullet the gun is simply a striking and directing system for the bullet . . .

. . . agree . . . disagree . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:40:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:38:16 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:36:53 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:28:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:25:16 PM, jharry wrote:
Wow. Long. And completed irrational. Probably the worst thing I have seen you post yet, it even tops the conservative.

If you're going to say he's wrong, you have to demonstrate why he's wrong.

Why? Does he ever reply to anything said about his posts?

Yes he does, actually. But, usually, it's just more incoherent blathering that induces headaches from slamming your head against your desk... <shrugs> You reply at your own peril.

Oh. I don't really read anything he posts, but this one caught my eye for some reason:).
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:50:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I look at his first paragraph and see if he replies.

The analogy is not great. To blame the peanut butter it would have to get out of the jar and get in your mouth. Kinda like outlawing gravity so planes don't crash.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 8:44:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 4:25:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
Guns are deadly hazards in the hands of private citizens, they contribute to crime, and they serve no purpose as far as protecting ourselves from the government go. People whose mentality is locked into the gun culture of our society, and who enjoy the feeling of manhood and power they derive from packing a big ole gun will always be loathe to part with their weapons, but if we're ever going to get real about violence in this country we need to begin looking more critically at the role of guns.

I'm not quoting the rest of your post as it's mostly rhetoric (albeit legitimate rhetoric) that doesn't really need to be responded too (unles you wish me too). However your last paragraph can be responded too.

Private ownership of guns is not a society-wide deadly hazard as you're stating it to be. According to an FBI study circa-2009, 81% of households owned a firearm, yet reported violent crime using firearms is at a 35-year low, nearly half what is was in 1991. And the vast majority of crime is done using a weapon other then a gun, whose crime rates (non-firearm weapons) is on the rise. If guns are such a deadly menace that contributes to crime, why are more and more criminals using less and less firearms?

Now in the past I was against the whole idea of gun-ownership and thought that gun controls laws should be enhanced. But after having begun to use and learn the use of firearms and firearm safetey for my job as a security officer and future profession as a police officer, I now believe the opposite. And as has been proven by history, private citizens having the ability to own and use firearms when the time come does indeed protect them from an overzealous government. Just because we aren't running to our armories and lynching the nearest politicians over the slightiest infraction they cause us, doesn't mean we agree with it and if push came to (a very big) shove, we wouldn't defend ourselves with out personal firearms.
Noblesse Oblige
fatdan33
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 9:49:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am glad that you don't own a gun. Most people who own guns realize how dangerous they can be when they "arn't properly handled". Most people take the time to understand their gun and their "SAFTY FEATURES" to prevent accidental fire and other unwanted actions. You learn to handle the gun in a manner that only allows the gun to be fired when you make it shoot, no other time. These people are smart, I trust them with guns.

You, I don't trust with a gun. You don't even know how to feed yourself. I love peanut butter. I quickly learned that if I didn't want to get the peanut butter stuck on the roof of my mouth I had to make sure that before I put the spoon/sandwhich in my mouth, I needed to make sure that my mouth was thoroughly wet with saliva. If you can't figure out this simple fact when feeding yourself then I suggest you avoid guns....... and tail on shrmp.
A fat kid to the fat end... are you going to finish that?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 9:51:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 9:49:52 PM, fatdan33 wrote:
I am glad that you don't own a gun. Most people who own guns realize how dangerous they can be when they "arn't properly handled". Most people take the time to understand their gun and their "SAFTY FEATURES" to prevent accidental fire and other unwanted actions. You learn to handle the gun in a manner that only allows the gun to be fired when you make it shoot, no other time. These people are smart, I trust them with guns.

You, I don't trust with a gun. You don't even know how to feed yourself. I love peanut butter. I quickly learned that if I didn't want to get the peanut butter stuck on the roof of my mouth I had to make sure that before I put the spoon/sandwhich in my mouth, I needed to make sure that my mouth was thoroughly wet with saliva. If you can't figure out this simple fact when feeding yourself then I suggest you avoid guns....... and tail on shrmp.

This. 10/10
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:35:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:34:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Someone or something must pull the trigger in order for a bullet to be ejected so in that the gun cannot kill by itself plus to be more accurate it is the bullet the gun is simply a striking and directing system for the bullet . . .

Which is precisely why some countries with strict gun control laws also have strict ammo control laws. Of course access to both guns and bullets needs to be restricted. As for the fact that a gun can not kill by itself, well, I do cover that in the original thread and won't rehash the argument in this reply since I've already been too wordy in some people's estimation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:38:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:36:53 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:28:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:25:16 PM, jharry wrote:
Wow. Long. And completed irrational. Probably the worst thing I have seen you post yet, it even tops the conservative.

If you're going to say he's wrong, you have to demonstrate why he's wrong.

Why? Does he ever reply to anything said about his posts?

Yes I do reply, quite a bit Dirty jharry. Take your best shot at my argument, go ahead "Make my day".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:53:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:50:57 PM, jharry wrote:
I look at his first paragraph and see if he replies.

The analogy is not great. To blame the peanut butter it would have to get out of the jar and get in your mouth. Kinda like outlawing gravity so planes don't crash.

My argument never, repeat never absolves or aims to absolve the human beings who use guns in the commission of a crime of their responsibility for making and carrying out the mental choice to do an armed robbery or take a life. You need to reread my original post more carefully before constructing your rebuttal.

I made explicitly clear that guns can often be a factor, I repeat, a factor, not the sole factor in a crime of violence. Just as in a case in which a passive accomplice in crime is a factor in causing the perpetration of a crime by aiding and egging on his partner, the fact that the one partner was aided and motivated by the other doesn't take away his moral responsibility or his legal accountability. On the other hand, the passive partner still shares responsibility for the crime, and may still be charged with the crime or related offenses. In other words, there's plenty of culpability to go around, and you can give some of it to an accomplice without taking any away from the main actor in a crime. A gun is kind of like a passive accomplice, of course it can't get up off a table on its own a carry out a crime, but it can help facilitate and motivate it, therefore it can be said that guns are not innocent objects, they are dangerous instruments of death that do kill people, and access to them should be severely restricted, as it is in most societies that don't suffer from selective insanity when it comes to this issue.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:02:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 8:44:34 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/20/2010 4:25:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
Guns are deadly hazards in the hands of private citizens, they contribute to crime, and they serve no purpose as far as protecting ourselves from the government go. People whose mentality is locked into the gun culture of our society, and who enjoy the feeling of manhood and power they derive from packing a big ole gun will always be loathe to part with their weapons, but if we're ever going to get real about violence in this country we need to begin looking more critically at the role of guns.

I'm not quoting the rest of your post as it's mostly rhetoric (albeit legitimate rhetoric) that doesn't really need to be responded too (unles you wish me too). However your last paragraph can be responded too.

Private ownership of guns is not a society-wide deadly hazard as you're stating it to be. According to an FBI study circa-2009, 81% of households owned a firearm, yet reported violent crime using firearms is at a 35-year low, nearly half what is was in 1991. And the vast majority of crime is done using a weapon other then a gun, whose crime rates (non-firearm weapons) is on the rise. If guns are such a deadly menace that contributes to crime, why are more and more criminals using less and less firearms?

Now in the past I was against the whole idea of gun-ownership and thought that gun controls laws should be enhanced. But after having begun to use and learn the use of firearms and firearm safetey for my job as a security officer and future profession as a police officer, I now believe the opposite. And as has been proven by history, private citizens having the ability to own and use firearms when the time come does indeed protect them from an overzealous government. Just because we aren't running to our armories and lynching the nearest politicians over the slightiest infraction they cause us, doesn't mean we agree with it and if push came to (a very big) shove, we wouldn't defend ourselves with out personal firearms.

Firstly, I never simplistically blamed all violent crime on the easy availability of guns in our society. On the contrary, I stated that the real underlying reason for our above-the-average-of-other-Western-societies violent crime rates is the fact that the US has a violent culture. My argument is merely that guns are a significant factor in many crimes, and therefore the gun lobby's slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is rubbish.

Secondly, when you're a cop on patrol you may find yourself wishing that there weren't quite so many firearms out there in the hands of private citizens. Would you rather work a high crime neighborhood where a perp might come at you with an AK-47 or a baseball bat? Myself, if I were in the shoes of a cop, I'd rather be confronted by crooks with inferior not superior firepower!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:24:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 9:49:52 PM, fatdan33 wrote:
I am glad that you don't own a gun. Most people who own guns realize how dangerous they can be when they "arn't properly handled". Most people take the time to understand their gun and their "SAFTY FEATURES" to prevent accidental fire and other unwanted actions. You learn to handle the gun in a manner that only allows the gun to be fired when you make it shoot, no other time. These people are smart, I trust them with guns.

You, I don't trust with a gun. You don't even know how to feed yourself. I love peanut butter. I quickly learned that if I didn't want to get the peanut butter stuck on the roof of my mouth I had to make sure that before I put the spoon/sandwhich in my mouth, I needed to make sure that my mouth was thoroughly wet with saliva. If you can't figure out this simple fact when feeding yourself then I suggest you avoid guns....... and tail on shrmp.

You're talking about people who are interested in being responsible with their guns, what about all the folks who aren't? What about those who relish owning a gun because they're street gang members who get off on doing drive-bies, or muggers who like the sense of being totally in control when they pull their piece on a victim? There are plenty of people like that in our society too, and with guns being so readily available, well, many of them will be heavily armed. A well-armed criminal class, that's a lovely thing for a supposedly civilized society!

And no, it is NOT the case that outlaws, in the main, possess illegal guns. Most of the guns used by criminals in the US were NOT obtained from underground gun runners that smuggled them in across the border. Rather, most guns used by gangsters and other crooks began their history as legal weapons. Enterprising and conscienceless individuals and crime rings will travel to states with lax gun laws and purchase a carload of weapons, then drive back to New York City or wherever and sell them at a marked-up price on the street to thugs and thieves. Or a thief will come across a gun while burglarizing a residence and either use it in future crimes or sell it to a more violent crook who uses it to kill a liquor store clerk, etc.

In fact, when guns are smuggled across the US border they usually go the other way. The Mexican drug cartels purchase many of their guns in legal gun stores in Texas and elsewhere and then smuggle them into Mexico where their sicarios can use them to commit murder and mayhem. So the upshot is that guns being legal makes them more plentifully available to the criminal element, the idea that criminals don't use legal or originally guns, that they have their own firearms black market of guns that were never on the legal market, is a myth. If there weren't legal gun stores and so many guns floating around in society perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many well-armed "bad guys".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:33:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 5:38:16 PM, annhasle wrote:

annhasle, I hope you don't actually own a gun, as you acknowledged in a reply to one of my other posts that under the right circumstances your nihilistic outlook on life would permit you to commit murder. You self-admittedly already have the mentality of a potential killer, please don't provide yourself with the easy means to commit a homicide!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:37:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:33:04 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:38:16 PM, annhasle wrote:

annhasle, I hope you don't actually own a gun, as you acknowledged in a reply to one of my other posts that under the right circumstances your nihilistic outlook on life would permit you to commit murder. You self-admittedly already have the mentality of a potential killer, please don't provide yourself with the easy means to commit a homicide!

I actually do not own a gun myself. But, I have been hunting since I was eight years old and have been trained to know how to use multiple firearms. And thankfully, my family owns a multitude of different guns that I'm allowed to use. Happy?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 12:18:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 10:35:18 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/20/2010 5:34:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Someone or something must pull the trigger in order for a bullet to be ejected so in that the gun cannot kill by itself plus to be more accurate it is the bullet the gun is simply a striking and directing system for the bullet . . .

Which is precisely why some countries with strict gun control laws also have strict ammo control laws. Of course access to both guns and bullets needs to be restricted. As for the fact that a gun can not kill by itself, well, I do cover that in the original thread and won't rehash the argument in this reply since I've already been too wordy in some people's estimation.

You still have not refuted my argument!
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 2:33:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:31:01 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/21/2010 12:50:40 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Guns don't kill people, governments kill people.

And lots and lots of them.

. . . with a side of poverty and oppression . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 2:40:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:02:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/20/2010 8:44:34 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/20/2010 4:25:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
Firstly, I never simplistically blamed all violent crime on the easy availability of guns in our society. On the contrary, I stated that the real underlying reason for our above-the-average-of-other-Western-societies violent crime rates is the fact that the US has a violent culture. My argument is merely that guns are a significant factor in many crimes, and therefore the gun lobby's slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is rubbish.

Secondly, when you're a cop on patrol you may find yourself wishing that there weren't quite so many firearms out there in the hands of private citizens. Would you rather work a high crime neighborhood where a perp might come at you with an AK-47 or a baseball bat? Myself, if I were in the shoes of a cop, I'd rather be confronted by crooks with inferior not superior firepower!

The United States isn't any more violent culturally then any of the other western nations. The only true difference between the Unied States and the rest of Western europe is that they've been slaughter eachother for thousands of years while we've only been doing for for a couple hundred. After awhile things get boring and overdone.

And "many" crimes is a relative term. 500 crimes commited with firearms may seem like a high number (many), but when out of 10,000 total crimes are commited with only 500 having firearms involved, it's not a high quantitive amount at all. "Many" people die from terrorist attacks, yet comparatively 450,000 people die in a single year from coronary heart disease; 500 times the number of terrorist killed individuals over a period of 10 years.

Kitchen butcher knives kill more people per year in violent crimes then guns do, so by your logic we should ban the use of butcher knives in private homes. The fact is, any weapon can kill somebody and anything can become a weapon. It's a mater of the individual wielding that weapon that determines how it is used and who if anyone it can harm.

As much as a loath to since I disagree with him on so many things regarding the topic, Dave Grossman puts it rather nicely, that the use of weapons is part of a human's "demonstration vs submission" behavior, and the invention of firearms and their early widespread and continued use is deeply entrenched in humanity's demonstration vs submission behavior. The numerical majority of firearm use in crimes is just that, a demonstration used to try and make someone else submit. A good portion of the deaths due to firearms in crime is a result of accidents when the demonstration got out of hand. However the same demonstration would be done with any other wepaon if firearms weren't available, however it'd be less effective and likely lead to more harm due to the less likely submission on the part of the 'criminals' target.
Noblesse Oblige
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:37:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:02:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
Firstly, I never simplistically blamed all violent crime on the easy availability of guns in our society. On the contrary, I stated that the real underlying reason for our above-the-average-of-other-Western-societies violent crime rates is the fact that the US has a violent culture. My argument is merely that guns are a significant factor in many crimes, and therefore the gun lobby's slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is rubbish.

Blaming "violent culture" for our crime problem is a not so subtle proxy for "black people listening to rap". Crime is caused by a variety of socioeconomic issues along with black market drug violence. Culture has almost nothing to do with it.

Secondly, when you're a cop on patrol you may find yourself wishing that there weren't quite so many firearms out there in the hands of private citizens. Would you rather work a high crime neighborhood where a perp might come at you with an AK-47 or a baseball bat? Myself, if I were in the shoes of a cop, I'd rather be confronted by crooks with inferior not superior firepower!

What a joke. Have you ever actually talked to a cop before? Last survey I checked showed that 76% of street police officers were in favor of granting all responsible adults handgun carry permits. Ironically it's those who work in law enforcement who DON'T walk the streets that are more likely to support strict gun control.

Not to mention that increased gun restrictions have done nothing but increase the quality of arms used by criminals.

At 11/21/2010 11:24:49 AM, charleslb wrote:
So the upshot is that guns being legal makes them more plentifully available to the criminal element, the idea that criminals don't use legal or originally guns, that they have their own firearms black market of guns that were never on the legal market, is a myth. If there weren't legal gun stores and so many guns floating around in society perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many well-armed "bad guys".

You have absolutely no understanding of how firearm legislation works. It's almost impossible for a firearm to be inherently illegal, and those that are inherently illegal have very little utility for crime. I could start churning out rifles in my garage, and assuming that I don't sell them they would be considered "originally legal". Once I start transferring them, the transaction becomes extremely illegal and can be considered a part of the black market. I've never seen anyone suggest that any significant number of firearms were imported from another country as a defense against gun control. You are literally taking the most absurd and marginal points and framing them as the core of your opponents arguments. It makes you sound schizophrenic.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:42:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:37:28 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:02:35 AM, charleslb wrote:
Firstly, I never simplistically blamed all violent crime on the easy availability of guns in our society. On the contrary, I stated that the real underlying reason for our above-the-average-of-other-Western-societies violent crime rates is the fact that the US has a violent culture. My argument is merely that guns are a significant factor in many crimes, and therefore the gun lobby's slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is rubbish.

Blaming "violent culture" for our crime problem is a not so subtle proxy for "black people listening to rap". Crime is caused by a variety of socioeconomic issues along with black market drug violence. Culture has almost nothing to do with it.

Secondly, when you're a cop on patrol you may find yourself wishing that there weren't quite so many firearms out there in the hands of private citizens. Would you rather work a high crime neighborhood where a perp might come at you with an AK-47 or a baseball bat? Myself, if I were in the shoes of a cop, I'd rather be confronted by crooks with inferior not superior firepower!

What a joke. Have you ever actually talked to a cop before? Last survey I checked showed that 76% of street police officers were in favor of granting all responsible adults handgun carry permits. Ironically it's those who work in law enforcement who DON'T walk the streets that are more likely to support strict gun control.

Not to mention that increased gun restrictions have done nothing but increase the quality of arms used by criminals.

At 11/21/2010 11:24:49 AM, charleslb wrote:
So the upshot is that guns being legal makes them more plentifully available to the criminal element, the idea that criminals don't use legal or originally guns, that they have their own firearms black market of guns that were never on the legal market, is a myth. If there weren't legal gun stores and so many guns floating around in society perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many well-armed "bad guys".

You have absolutely no understanding of how firearm legislation works. It's almost impossible for a firearm to be inherently illegal, and those that are inherently illegal have very little utility for crime. I could start churning out rifles in my garage, and assuming that I don't sell them they would be considered "originally legal". Once I start transferring them, the transaction becomes extremely illegal and can be considered a part of the black market. I've never seen anyone suggest that any significant number of firearms were imported from another country as a defense against gun control. You are literally taking the most absurd and marginal points and framing them as the core of your opponents arguments. It makes you sound schizophrenic.

I like your argument care if copy it . . . ?
Plus civilians are not allowed to own machine guns . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:48:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:42:37 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I like your argument care if copy it . . . ?
Plus civilians are not allowed to own machine guns . . .

Sure. But civilians are in fact allowed to own machine guns. It's a two hundred dollar tax stamp, and the number of weapons in the pool is pretty small, but it's not overwhelmingly difficult to get approval assuming your state allows them. If you accept the premise that fully automatic have some kind of overwhelming advantage over semi automatic weapons (which the don't), then the current system has worked very well at keeping "non rich" people from acquiring equal levels of firepower as the social elite.
fatdan33
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:57:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:24:49 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/20/2010 9:49:52 PM, fatdan33 wrote:
I am glad that you don't own a gun. Most people who own guns realize how dangerous they can be when they "aren't properly handled". Most people take the time to understand their gun and their "SAFTY FEATURES" to prevent accidental fire and other unwanted actions. You learn to handle the gun in a manner that only allows the gun to be fired when you make it shoot, no other time. These people are smart, I trust them with guns.

You, I don't trust with a gun. You don't even know how to feed yourself. I love peanut butter. I quickly learned that if I didn't want to get the peanut butter stuck on the roof of my mouth I had to make sure that before I put the spoon/sandwich in my mouth, I needed to make sure that my mouth was thoroughly wet with saliva. If you can't figure out this simple fact when feeding yourself then I suggest you avoid guns....... and tail on shrimp.

You're talking about people who are interested in being responsible with their guns, what about all the folks who aren't? What about those who relish owning a gun because they're street gang members who get off on doing drive-bies, or muggers who like the sense of being totally in control when they pull their piece on a victim? There are plenty of people like that in our society too, and with guns being so readily available, well, many of them will be heavily armed. A well-armed criminal class, that's a lovely thing for a supposedly civilized society!

And no, it is NOT the case that outlaws, in the main, possess illegal guns. Most of the guns used by criminals in the US were NOT obtained from underground gun runners that smuggled them in across the border. Rather, most guns used by gangsters and other crooks began their history as legal weapons. Enterprising and conscienceless individuals and crime rings will travel to states with lax gun laws and purchase a carload of weapons, then drive back to New York City or wherever and sell them at a marked-up price on the street to thugs and thieves. Or a thief will come across a gun while burglarizing a residence and either use it in future crimes or sell it to a more violent crook who uses it to kill a liquor store clerk, etc.

In fact, when guns are smuggled across the US border they usually go the other way. The Mexican drug cartels purchase many of their guns in legal gun stores in Texas and elsewhere and then smuggle them into Mexico where their sicarios can use them to commit murder and mayhem. So the upshot is that guns being legal makes them more plentifully available to the criminal element, the idea that criminals don't use legal or originally guns, that they have their own firearms black market of guns that were never on the legal market, is a myth. If there weren't legal gun stores and so many guns floating around in society perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many well-armed "bad guys".

I'm going to break this down to its most basic and simplistic form. Please let me know if you agree or not. It doesn't matter which way you feel about this topic. perhaps a little more so on one side than the other... Either way you look at it, especially your way, the gun is a symptom. Using your logic from previous statements, the gun will help tip the scales in the direction of committing a crime. There for its a "SYMPTOM". As anyone can tell you, treating a symptom does nothing to the root cause. In fact symptoms are can be seen as good things in some cases because they can help identify issues and sort out the root problem. I agree that this might be and extreme to that end but it doesn't matter. The issue is what caused the person to go to those lengths to commit the crime. People, (gangbangers, thugs, murderers, rapists, thieves, and so on) DO!! know that what they are doing to seen as bad by the rest of the culture. (I use the word culture very specifically as different cultures have different ideals on what is right and wrong) what lead them to rebel against their culture to what ever the degree is what should be addressed.

Also, stating that the gun was aid to criminals true.....but how very weak that connection is. Everything you do, think, say, and act upon for your entire life is an aid to the crime. The weight room aided in his strength to snatch the purse. The shoes aided in his ability to run away with the purse. The peanut butter (not stuck on the roof of his mouth) he ate aided in his having energy to commit the crime.

The truth is the criminal chose to commit the crime, then he chose what tools he needed to implement his crime. It doesn't matter what tools he chose, they come after the fact.
A fat kid to the fat end... are you going to finish that?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 6:09:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:48:18 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
At 11/21/2010 5:42:37 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I like your argument care if copy it . . . ?
Plus civilians are not allowed to own machine guns . . .

Sure. But civilians are in fact allowed to own machine guns. It's a two hundred dollar tax stamp, and the number of weapons in the pool is pretty small, but it's not overwhelmingly difficult to get approval assuming your state allows them. If you accept the premise that fully automatic have some kind of overwhelming advantage over semi automatic weapons (which the don't), then the current system has worked very well at keeping "non rich" people from acquiring equal levels of firepower as the social elite.

Last time I checked it was ex-military (or law enforcement) and it included fully automatic and Tommy guns . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 6:36:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 6:09:41 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Last time I checked it was ex-military (or law enforcement) and it included fully automatic and Tommy guns . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org...