A case for gun control

[CptStern]

..because any idiot can pull a trigger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdGBxoR3whs

 

[xcellerate]

I condone everything that these guys did.

 

[cheddarrr]

we need more IDIOT CONTROL, not gun control

 

[CyberPitz]

I lol'd.

 

[Raziaar]

My god... what idiot lets another idiot put an idiot killing gun to his idiot head?

An idiot, that's who.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Idiots of a feather flock somewhere.
Something control won't make that not true.
The easiest thing to do is just keep away from someone like that.

 

[cheddarrr]

lets think about how things would have been if that went a little different..

say he blows teh guys head off.
he goes to jail..


so what does that leave us with?

2 less idiots on the loose!!

 

[Mr Stabby]

The guy however didn't die, as the gun was not aimed at his head. I don't see anything wrong with what they did.

 

[Link]

Yeah, gun controls brilliant. Take in the UK for example. Guns in nearly all forms are illegal, and you certainly can't carry it concealed. This is great, because it means that criminals can't carry guns. Those are from this month btw, and theres more that I'm linking. ****ing liberals.

 

[Raziaar]

The guy however didn't die, as the gun was not aimed at his head. I don't see anything wrong with what they did.

Well if bullets didn't have the potential to be very unpredictable after they have left the chamber of a firearm and start colliding with shit, I would agree with you.

However, that's not the case.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Well if bullets didn't have the potential to be very unpredictable after they have left the chamber of a firearm and start colliding with shit, I would agree with you.

However, that's not the case.

Maybe in an unrifled musket, but not in a gun manufactured in the last 80 years.

 

[Kyorisu]

Yeah, gun controls brilliant. Take in the UK for example. Guns in nearly all forms are illegal, and you certainly can't carry it concealed. This is great, because it means that criminals can't carry guns. Those are from this month btw, and theres more that I'm linking. ****ing liberals.

No one I know argues people cannot acquire guns, just that's it's substantially harder to do so.

 

[CptStern]

funny how some of you completely missed the point of the thread title, the video and my comments ... it's not about gun control as an issue but rather keeping guns away from the idiots and since most people are stupid and god knows we cant trust people to not be stupid why would we willingly give them the means to destroy lives with one stupid act? ....btw they werent even shitfaced yet ..how good will their aim be then? hopefully it throws their vertical aim off by at least 3-4 inches ..down rather than up would be preferable

 

[Link]

No one I know argues people cannot acquire guns, just that's it's substantially harder to do so.

Oh, I agree, its just that when shagnasty who did manage to get one gets one and points it at me, I won't be able to defend myself with anything but harsh language.

In terms of the guys this thread is about, they wouldn't have been doing that with random members of the public, and I wouldn't hang out with anyone that ****ing stupid. For me, the choise between it being a little bit harder for crims to get the guns they are going to get anyway, and me actually being able to defend myself, is an easy one.

 

[Seppo]

what the **** did i just witness with my very own eyes?

stupidity. god damnit.

 

[Kyorisu]

Oh, I agree, its just that when shagnasty who did manage to get one gets one and points it at me, I won't be able to defend myself with anything but harsh language.

In terms of the guys this thread is about, they wouldn't have been doing that with random members of the public, and I wouldn't hang out with anyone that ****ing stupid. For me, the choise between it being a little bit harder for crims to get the guns they are going to get anyway, and me actually being able to defend myself, is an easy one.

Well here's the thing I live in a country where you cannot possess a firearm without a license and then there are all the usual restrictions when that firearm is in transit. I don't think I'll ever need to defend myself from someone wielding a firearm. I can understand if your living in a country which is well rather afraid of criminals having naturally higher crime rates than we do down here but still. Hasn't crime in the UK been decreasing recently?

 

[Higlac]

Yeah, gun controls brilliant. Take in the UK for example. Guns in nearly all forms are illegal, and you certainly can't carry it concealed. This is great, because it means that criminals can't carry guns. Those are from this month btw, and theres more that I'm linking. ****ing liberals.

No, that means that law-abiding citizens won't carry guns. That doesn't stop anyone that really wants a gun.

funny how some of you completely missed the point of the thread title, the video and my comments ... it's not about gun control as an issue but rather keeping guns away from the idiots and since most people are stupid and god knows we cant trust people to not be stupid why would we willingly give them the means to destroy lives with one stupid act? ....btw they werent even shitfaced yet ..how good will their aim be then? hopefully it throws their vertical aim off by at least 3-4 inches ..down rather than up would be preferable

Should we take cars away too?

 

[Krynn72]

Should we take cars away too?

Yes. Now what bitch?

 

[CptStern]

Should we take cars away too?

oh this same old tired inaccurate argument that does absolutely nothing to prove anything ...apples and oranges, cars are not specifically made to kill people ..guns are

 

[Higlac]

oh this same old tired inaccurate argument that does absolutely nothing to prove anything ...apples and oranges, cars are not specifically made to kill people ..guns are

Knives kill people too. Should we take them out of your kitchen drawer?

Guns aren't specifically made to kill people. I own several guns that were meant to hunt with. Are you going to take those too?

 

[CptStern]

Knives kill people too. Should we take them out of your kitchen drawer?

you just followed up an inaccurate comarison with another inaccurate comparison ..butter knives are not specifically made for killing people

Guns aren't specifically made to kill people.

crack walnuts? hammer in nails for hanging picture frames?

I own several guns that were meant to hunt with. Are you going to take those too?

it's to specifically kill something ..just because that "something" isnt wearing a pair of trousers doesnt make my point invalid

and again the above video could have (has) occured had they been using "hunting" rifles

 

[DreamThrall]

Sport hunters getting shot by their own weapons seems an awful lot like karma to me.

 

[CptStern]

instant karma?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jBqUBq3fMsrNppklpyQiHcgI6tew

 

[Link]

No, that means that law-abiding citizens won't carry guns. That doesn't stop anyone that really wants a gun.

Way to actually read my post, you actually managed to completly reverse what I was saying.

Stern, whilst guns may be made specifically to kill and cars not, the fact remains that you are far more likley to be killed by a car than a gun.

Aside from that though, the fact that it is designed to kill is not relevent. Guns can be used to hunt and target shoot, which is both morally and legalally acceptable. Put it this way, if the guy who invented the car had done so with the intention of killing someone with it, then it would have been designed to kill. Would that mean that you would class it in with guns?

The simple fact remains that I will never be killed by an idiot friend with a gun, simply because, frankly, no one I would accosiate with would do anything that foolish, and if they did I take the damn thing off them. Thus, if I am ever shot, it will be by a crim, so I should be entitled to defend myself.

Oh, and gun control stopping me defending myself so that morons don't kill themselves/each other? They can all form a national lava diving group for all I care. As I said at the start, ****ing liberals.

 

[Terminator]

oh this same old tired inaccurate argument that does absolutely nothing to prove anything ...apples and oranges, cars are not specifically made to kill people ..guns are

This is an equally old argument.

What something is designed for is irrelevant it is what it is actually used for and how much of a threat it is.

This in no way states my view on what is more dangerous or anything, just simply a point.

 

[DreamThrall]

Stern, whilst guns may be made specifically to kill and cars not, the fact remains that you are far more likley to be killed by a car than a gun.

Aside from that though, the fact that it is designed to kill is not relevent. Guns can be used to hunt and target shoot, which is both morally and legalally acceptable. Put it this way, if the guy who invented the car had done so with the intention of killing someone with it, then it would have been designed to kill. Would that mean that you would class it in with guns?

The simple fact remains that I will never be killed by an idiot friend with a gun, simply because, frankly, no one I would accosiate with would do anything that foolish, and if they did I take the damn thing off them. Thus, if I am ever shot, it will be by a crim, so I should be entitled to defend myself.

Oh, and gun control stopping me defending myself so that morons don't kill themselves/each other? They can all form a national lava diving group for all I care. As I said at the start, ****ing liberals.

First of all, we aren't talking about the problem of people getting killed by cars, we're talking about people getting killed by guns. And the guy that invented the car did not do so with the intention of making it weapon, so I'm not even sure how that can be an argument... You can't just say OH HYPOTHETICALLY BLAH BLAH BLAH, SEE? and use it as an argument...

It is good that you and your friends may be responsible gun users. However, people like you are not the problem - people like those in the video in the OP are, and there are far too many people like that.

 

[CptStern]

Stern, whilst guns may be made specifically to kill and cars not, the fact remains that you are far more likley to be killed by a car than a gun.

and? you're far more likely to be killed by cancer than by a mis-thrown boomerang ..what does that have to do with anything?

Aside from that though, the fact that it is designed to kill is not relevent.

because you say it isnt?

Guns can be used to hunt and target shoot

ya like how hunters hunt deer with Uzis and grenade launchers are specifically made to take out unsuspecting paper targets

which is both morally and legalally acceptable.

because you say it is? hunting is rarely morally justifiable unless the hunters are without food and there's not a 7/11 with in walking distance

Put it this way, if the guy who invented the car had done so with the intention of killing someone with it, then it would have been designed to kill. Would that mean that you would class it in with guns?

how does that even make sense? it's sole purpose is transportation ..you'd have a hard time NOT classifying it as a lethal weapon if it was studded with spikes and shot flames from all sides ..if it were specifically made to kil people and all subsequent vehicles are fitted with gas pipes that emit sarin toxin when you enter the car you'd have a point ..however logic says your anology is ridiculous

The simple fact remains that I will never be killed by an idiot friend with a gun, simply because, frankly, no one I would accosiate with would do anything that foolish, and if they did I take the damn thing off them.

I'm far less trusting stupid people wont do what they do they best: doing stupid things ..my chances of being shot in a similar fashion as that video approaches zero ..you're however, sinply due to your proximity to guns makes your chances a hell of a lot higher ..and just because you wont be shot it doesnt mean no one else would ..you are not the centre of the universe

Thus, if I am ever shot, it will be by a crim, so I should be entitled to defend myself.

you intend to survive being shot by a criminal? only fools plan their own demise ..better shoot first then ...scratch that, better figure out if the person really is a criminal before you shoot them dead ..

Oh, and gun control stopping me defending myself so that morons don't kill themselves/each other?

you're wrong, I applaud morons killing each other at every single opportunity ..if it were up to me there'd be one gun for sale:

They can all form a national lava diving group for all I care. As I said at the start, ****ing liberals.

typical stupid response from the knuckle dragger set

"durr the liebrals want to take away our freedoms!!!"

if you're allowed to have a lethal weapon why cant I own an rpg or flame thrower? I want a tactical nuke, I evoke my right to defend myself as god intended me to

 

[CptStern]

This is an equally old argument.

What something is designed for is irrelevant it is what it is actually used for and how much of a threat it is.

really? then I'm allowed to have a thermal nuclear device? how about a vial of Sarin toxin?


they're designed to do the same thing as guns ..why cant I ownthem if they're the same? I want my WMD now goddam it!

 

[Mr Stabby]

A nuclear bomb can be used for self defence?

Edit: dynamite isn't intended to kill people but it'd be far more dangerous then guns in the wrong hands.

 

[Terminator]

really? then I'm allowed to have a thermal nuclear device? how about a vial of Sarin toxin?


they're designed to do the same thing as guns ..why cant I ownthem if they're the same? I want my WMD now goddam it!

What the hell? i don't think you got my point.

Like i said, it isn't what something was originally designed it's the potential for mis-use and danger that is to be considered not what it was designed for.

Nuclear weapons and sarin are obviously highly dangerous regardless that they were designed as weapons.

A firework is designed to make a nice display but can be used as a weapon you don't say 'oh a massive rocket is ok because it was designed for a firework show'

I was simply stating that your argument lacked logic.

 

[CptStern]

A nuclear bomb can be used for self defence?

yes ..it guarentees no one from the victems side will ever come seeking to settle the score

Edit: dynamite isn't intended to kill people but it'd be far more dangerous then guns in the wrong hands.

dynamite not made to kill people? Clint eastwood westerns seem to disagree with you

dynamite is just repackaged gun powder in stick form ..and gun powder was initially invented for fireworks, the first knives were made for cutting things and the first club was made to open coconuts ..I dont see what point you're trying to make because dynamite is not a gun

 

[Terminator]

dynamite is just repackaged gun powder in stick form ..and gun powder was initially invented for fireworks, the first knives were made for cutting things and the first club was made to open coconuts ..I dont see what point you're trying to make because dynamite is not a gun

Dynamite was originally a purely peaceful invention, you know nobel peace prize n all?

It's deff not gunpowder either, it's a stabilised nitroglycerin.

Again, my point is that it's regardless of what something is 'intended for' or the invented solution of it's the potential and in practice use for harm that matters.

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes ..it guarentees no one from the victems side will ever come seeking to settle the score

It will also kill everyone in a 5 mile radius, which goes beyond reasonable force.

dynamite not made to kill people? Clint eastwood westerns seem to disagree with you

dynamite is just repackaged gun powder in stick form ..and gun powder was initially invented for fireworks, the first knives were made for cutting things and the first club was made to open coconuts ..I dont see what point you're trying to make because dynamite is not a gun

Dynamite was used extensively in mining and civil engineering for decades, don't look to Clint Eastwood for information and it's an entirely different chemical than gunpowder.

The point is, that the argument guns are bad because they are intended to kill is irrelevant. If anything should be banned it should be solely on how potentially dangerous it is.

 

[CptStern]

What the hell? i don't think you got my point.

Like i said, it isn't what something was originally designed it's the potential for mis-use and danger that is to be considered not what it was designed for.

Nuclear weapons and sarin are obviously highly dangerous regardless that they were designed as weapons.

A firework is designed to make a nice display but can be used as a weapon you don't say 'oh a massive rocket is ok because it was designed for a firework show'

I was simply stating that your argument lacked logic.

no it does not ..simply because you dont understand the argument does not make it invalid ..the point is that a gun was specifically created to kill things ..whether it's used properly or improperly is immaterial because the outcome is exactly the same: death or injry, whether used properly or improperly the outcome from fireworks is a stiff neck and overly excited children and perhaps the occasional burn ...apples to oranges short recoil

logically speaking gun ownership opens the door to all sorts of weapon ownership: from very lethal (nukes) to lethal (flamethrower) to even more lethal (2 pistols used to kill 33 students and staff) ..the only real difference is application and pubic perception ,,but a gun is designed to be just as lethal as a flamethrower ..more so because you dont have to be within spitting range to kill someone with a gun

 

[Mr Stabby]

no it does not ..simply because you dont understand the argument does not make it invalid ..the point is that a gun was specifically created to kill things ..whether it's used properly or improperly is immaterial because the outcome is exactly the same: death or injry, whether used properly or improperly the outcome from fireworks is a stiff neck and overly excited children and perhaps the occasional burn ...apples to oranges short recoil

How is shooting targets causing death and injury, and when a burglar or rapist attacks someone, and the victim has a gun and shoot the attacker isn't death and injury a good thing in such instances.

logically speaking gun ownership opens the door to all sorts of weapon ownership: from very lethal (nukes) to lethal (flamethrower) to even more lethal (2 pistols used to kill 33 students and staff) ..the only real difference is application and pubic perception ,,but a gun is designed to be just as lethal as a flamethrower ..more so because you dont have to be within spitting range to kill someone with a gun

slippery slope fallacy

 

[CptStern]

How is shooting targets causing death and injury,

I can amputate my toes with a lawnmower but that's not it's main purpose ..and if guns were made to shoot paper targets why are they lethal to everything why not just paper? i mean wouldnt that be a little like using a catapult to take out a fly?

and when a burglar or rapist attacks someone, and the victim has a gun and shoot the attacker isn't death and injury a good thing in such instances.

I dont see what this has to do with anything ..the outcome is still the same: death or injury

slippery slope fallacy

how so? the opens door comment? you miss the point ,,logically speaking ..if the stated purpose is self-defense why cant I have a flamethrower? the justification is the same ..can it be it's more lethal than a gun so that in itself makes it not ok? therefore the degree of lethality is the measuring stick as to what weapon is allowable? ..all this doesnt matter because the direct outcome is death or injury; the dispute is just in the numbers of dead, injured

 

[xcellerate]

sigh...

 

[Tyguy]

we could of debated that for days, but that 1 video basically does all the talking

 

[cheddarrr]

Guns will never ever go away. Gun control isnt going to do jack. The best we can do is edjucate people (or atleast try) how to handle somthing that dangerous.

 

[Seppo]

i hate guns. they make me feel incredibly uncomfortable