117 replies to this topic

[some_weirdGuy]

Are you really trying to argue that a gun cannot kill more quickly and easier then a knife/bat can?

[Beowulf]

You made it sound like every gunshot is fatal. This is not true.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Chances are someone who owns a gun would have done some kind of target practice or training,that increases the chances of a lethal blow quite a bit.

But I think we are missing the point.
We shouldn't be banning guns, but banning Rednecks.

[Rattuskid]

Chances are someone who owns a gun would have done some kind of target practice or training,that increases the chances of a lethal blow quite a bit.

Chances are someone who owns a gun for home defense should be doing training to know when to shoot and when not to. Know what your target is, and what is behind it. There are whole books on this shit.

Also, I've been in rooms filled with hundreds of guns, and came out alive... I don't think the object is the issue. It's the operator of them.

[Vortigern]

OK then, so the USA needs tighter gun control to stop complete morons like wife-shooter guy from being able to have one. I'm sure you're a perfectly competent gun nut, but the simple fact is that there are plenty of people who aren't, and there needs to be some kind of system in place to stop them getting their hands on deadly force.

[Allathar]

How about a moron tax on the guns?

[some_weirdGuy]

You made it sound like every gunshot is fatal. This is not true.

A gun can be instantly fatal, from a distance.

Just cause that's how you decided to interpret it does not mean that's what i meant. I said exactly what i meant, can be. I didn't say every gunshot is fatal, and i didn't mean every gunshot is fatal.

Comparing a gun to a knife or bat it is clearly the superior killing weapon. And just as i said;

with a gun all you have to do is stand back and squeeze a trigger. Its so quick and simple that making a rash decision/mistake like this is alot easier to do.

[Ring o' Fate]

Look, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. IT'S THE GODDAMN MORONS HOLDING THE GUNS. I have a solution to all of this.
If your IQ is less than 75, YOU CAN'T GET A GUN.
Please expand/fix/rip this idea.

[Pasidon]

Should depend on the IQ test. According to Steen Logan's Mathematical Agenda, I shouldn't even be carrying a stick. Luckily The Shane D. Test says I'm ready for a high-powered rail gun.

What people are trying to say Fate is that these morons behind the weapons have a better chance of killing people with a gun rather than a staple remover, thus a gun must be considered a weapon since it was created to kill people. Or something like that... I haven't been paying that much attention.

[Rattuskid]

OK then, so the USA needs tighter gun control to stop complete morons like wife-shooter guy from being able to have one. I'm sure you're a perfectly competent gun nut, but the simple fact is that there are plenty of people who aren't, and there needs to be some kind of system in place to stop them getting their hands on deadly force.

What kind of system do you propose? In the US, the instant background check already weeds out those deemed incompetent by the hospitals, felons, wife-beaters, illegal aliens, and anyone with a dishonorable discharge. What kind of system would you propose for weeding out morons? This isn't Minority Report. We can't predict who is and who isn't going to be a douche with a weapon when we see them.

I think this kind of "something must be done" without a lot of thought put into the filters for that 'something' is one of the reasons so many things tend to get cocked up by legislators anyway.

How about a moron tax on the guns?

All ammo and certain kinds of weapons are indeed taxed. Not taxed the same way cigarettes are, though.

Edited by Rattuskid, 27 October 2009 - 01:05 PM.

[Vortigern]

Well, I figure it's best just to make the whole lot illegal. That way only the criminals will be able to get hold of them, as they can anyway, and accidents like this one won't happen because that dude wouldn't have had a gun. Maybe you could legalise swords to keep the 2nd Amendment folks happy. You'll note that the constitution never once states which kind of arms you're allowed to bear. They'll just have to man up and train with their swords, and it'll be hilarious.

[Rattuskid]

Well, I figure it's best just to make the whole lot illegal. That way only the criminals will be able to get hold of them, as they can anyway,

It's pretty depressing that it usually takes so much bickering to get gun control people to admit this basic point... and you gladly do, but then come to the polar opposite conclusion to what's rational... or at least what's rational when we establish that this would imply the criminal elements in society will be armed when the average person is not.

It may not make sense on face value, but this actually makes it seem more likely that one will get shot. After all, criminals tend to not follow safety rules.

and accidents like this one won't happen because that dude wouldn't have had a gun. Maybe you could legalise swords to keep the 2nd Amendment folks happy. You'll note that the constitution never once states which kind of arms you're allowed to bear. They'll just have to man up and train with their swords, and it'll be hilarious.

You know guns are legal in your nation right? You know civilians in the little island you live in do own shotguns and bolt action rifles right? Swords are legal on both sides of the pond too, already. Just you lot can't have 'samuri' ones, for some stupid awful reason (hurp, not like a rapier or a claymore is less lethal).

The constitution says 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' I think it's hard to interpret such a statement to mean something narrow like 'blades' especially considering when it was written guns very well existed.

I wouldn't mind carrying a sword, but the thing is, the thugs who jack you at a red light... don't use swords. You see the inherent problem?

[Allathar]

Vort, you're only looking at the downside of having guns. Yes, morons can shoot someone. But it'll also greatly decrease crime - I doubt a criminal will dare to break in when he knows the inhabitant of the house may very well just shoot him without consequences.

[Beowulf]

Well, I figure it's best just to make the whole lot illegal. That way only the criminals will be able to get hold of them, as they can anyway, and accidents like this one won't happen because that dude wouldn't have had a gun. Maybe you could legalise swords to keep the 2nd Amendment folks happy. You'll note that the constitution never once states which kind of arms you're allowed to bear. They'll just have to man up and train with their swords, and it'll be hilarious.

Banning anything has never been a good solution to a problem. Ever.

[Phil]

Vort, you're only looking at the downside of having guns. Yes, morons can shoot someone. But it'll also greatly decrease crime - I doubt a criminal will dare to break in when he knows the inhabitant of the house may very well just shoot him without consequences.

Because the crime rate in the US is so low...
Seriously, having guns in your house will not stop a criminal from breaking into your house - it will just make him bring a gun himself and shoot first.

[Vortigern]

I may only have been looking at the downside, but it seems like half the time you guys are only looking at the upside. And Rattus, guns are only legal for farmers and hunters here. You need to have a valid reason for a gun which relates to your profession before you can get one, and licensing is not cheap. We don't just have gun racks in amongst the clothes and soap and food.

And if we're going to make points based on when the constitution was written, you'll also note that guns were wildly inaccurate at that point, could be fired about once a minute and were generally used in conjunction with pikes, swords, cavalry and the like. Besides which, America wasn't really a country back then, and had plenty of enemies, and Mexicans, natives, Canadians, British, French, Spanish and whoever else trying to invade them. It made sense in the 18th century. It doesn't make sense now.

[Pasidon]

Parliament is just afraid people will buy guns to overthrown the government or something.

[Rattuskid]

And Rattus, guns are only legal for farmers and hunters here. You need to have a valid reason for a gun which relates to your profession before you can get one, and licensing is not cheap. We don't just have gun racks in amongst the clothes and soap and food.

You have to join a shooting club, get your safe inspected by the police, yada yada... I know most of this because of all the people bitching on /k/ about the pain in the ass process... but I'm positive Killa is not a farmer or hunter and I know he has an Enfield. Buying a gun in America isn't as easy or string-free as you believe it is, either.

And if we're going to make points based on when the constitution was written, you'll also note that guns were wildly inaccurate at that point, could be fired about once a minute and were generally used in conjunction with pikes, swords, cavalry and the like. Besides which, America wasn't really a country back then, and had plenty of enemies, and Mexicans, natives, Canadians, British, French, Spanish and whoever else trying to invade them. It made sense in the 18th century. It doesn't make sense now.

When the constitution was written your average 'rifle' fired a ball of lead wider and far heavier than a shotgun slug, which had a nasty tendency to explode like a grenade in the human body. People usually solved the reload time issue by having more loaded rifles at the ready. As recently as 100 years ago it was legal to own milsurp CANNONS and display them on private property in Manhatten. When the short-barreled shotgun was moved to the restricted weapons list, the high court did so because it WASN'T a 'militia' or military style weapon.

Switzerland has mandatory conscription and gun distribution plus lax personal firearms laws. They haven't had a war in quite some time, even when they were the only free people in mainland Europe between 1941 and 1944. You can measure your success by how often you don't have to use a gun.

And let's be frank here. This has jack shit all to do with deterring crime and accidental death. Pistols were banned in the UK not because of the prevalence in crime, but because of the pedo shooting up Dunblane. This is why they've stayed banned even as firearm crime in the UK actually increased. Think about this for a second. Your police still wear body armor against knives and firearms despite the fact that locking knives and firearms are all but illegal for the average person to own. Why? Because you just made the only users of such items the career criminal element. No law you can pass will apply to those who survive by means outside the law.

And even when you ban all firearms like China, you still get nuts who kill 13 people with a knife or 10 with an axe! Maybe it's not the fucking guns that are the issue, but the nuts in the first place, since they are clearly still dangerous without them.

Edited by Rattuskid, 27 October 2009 - 08:44 PM.