A case for gun control

[Mr Stabby]

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?

You said all outcomes from a gun result in death or injury, there an example where you're wrong. Doesn't matter if there over powered it's a function they are widely used for.

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

Yes but good death and injury, guns have a positive use.

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

Flamethrowers don't kill instantly, getting cooked alive would be a horrible way to die, so it wouldn't be reasonable force, also you could burn down houses with them, so they are substantially more dangerous than guns. It isn't at all logical to suggest that rocket launchers and flamethrowers should be open to the public, there is no reason that any member of the public should own either.

 

[Eejit]

I'm saddened that a fellow Norn Irnshman would be against gun control. Just imagine how much ****ing worse the Troubles would have been if every Billy and Paddy had a rifle, and if the paramilitaries had been able to get them so much more easily.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Yes, our extremely strict gun laws worked didn't they...

 

[Eejit]

They worked a lot better than having no laws.

The majority of the weapons were smuggled into the country at great expense, rather than legitimate imports distributed via legal retailing.

Are you dense or just biased? It would have been far, far worse if we'd had the kind of gun control (or lack thereof) the US does.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Guns still got into the country in large numbers, when a gun ban was rigorously enforced by the army to a degree that isn't at all possible in America.

The gun ban may well have been necessary but the situation was entirely different to America today, America is not at risk of a civil war. However the paramilitaries got all the guns they needed so who did the gun ban protect us from, at the same time left the general public completely defenceless.

 

[Solaris]

Yes, our extremely strict gun laws worked didn't they...

In the late 60's early 70's both IRA's had to turn away volunteers due to having not enough weapons.

 

[Eejit]

However the paramilitaries got all the guns they needed so who did the gun ban protect us from, at the same time left the general public completely defenceless.

Defenceless?
Do you have any idea what the paramilitaries would have been liked if civilians started shooting back at them? They would have gone ****ing apeship. They had more tricks up their sleeve than pistols or rifles, forcing them to escalate even more would not have been a good idea...
Sometimes it's better to be 'defenceless'.

 

[Cavalry]

Its not the firearm that needs controlling, its the people using the firearm that need controlling.

 

[Mr Stabby]

In the late 60's early 70's both IRA's had to turn away volunteers due to having not enough weapons.

In the late 60's the IRA effectively didn't exists, and the harsh guns laws were brought in after the troubles kicked off in the 70's

Defenceless?
Do you have any idea what the paramilitaries would have been liked if civilians started shooting back at them? They would have gone ****ing apeship. They had more tricks up their sleeve than pistols or rifles, forcing them to escalate even more would not have been a good idea...
Sometimes it's better to be 'defenceless'.

Escalate to what, tanks? Neither the IRA on UDA, possessed the capacity to do anything further than what they already did. They were already aggravated by the paramilitaries retaliating against each other anyway. I still doubt that groups like the Shankill butchers would have been so keen to abduct innocent civilians if they thought the civilians maybe be armed. If I had lived during the 70's I would definitely have preferred the option of a gun.

 

[kineaesth]

SO I THINK GUN CONTROL IS EXCELLENT AND SHOULD BE MORE RIGOROUS AND WIDESPREAD

YEH I AGREE.

 

[Cavalry]

YEH I AGREE.

I Don't

Toaster- If a person really wants to die, you want to deny them that right?

 

[kineaesth]

They should find a way that isn't so violent and stupid.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Hasn't been said yet, so,


"gun control" is being able to hit your target. xP


In my very humble opinion, too much thought is going into "saving lives". The world is not designed to save lives. If people were meant to prosper, they would not be stupid. Let the stupid people have their guns, let them kill each other. Keep out of the private affairs of other people and look after your damn self.

 

[xcellerate]

Its not the firearm that needs controlling, its the people using the firearm that need controlling.

unfortunately you can't regulate that. You pretty much can get a gun if you aren't crazy, don't do drugs, and haven't been in any real trouble with the police.

There isn't really anything you could do to make sure a person isn't an idiot, other than following them around for a couple days while they shoot...which is impossible.



I said it earlier, but deleted it, and people with guns have the same mentality people who drive fast do. They think they're better than they really are, and they have the 'it will never happen to me' mentality. A lot of gun owners believe if somebody breaks into their house or tries to car jack them, they will be able to draw their gun and kill them before the attacker does anything bad. Which just isn't true.

It's sort of like fighting, the VAST majority of the population has NEVER been in a REAL fight. So in their head a lot of people are bruce lee, they imagine themselves being really fast/strong/accurate...maybe taking a few punches but they just brush them off because they're strong.

The same goes with guns, the VAST majority of the population has NEVER used their gun in self defense. So they picture themselves being fast and accurate, and saving the day with their skill and ability. Which just won't be true.

 

[Higlac]

*random uneducated and obnoxious arguments that I refuse to read*

Guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands. People who intend to kill other people with them can always manage to find one. Here in the U.S.A. I have every right to own a gun. I'm not saying that everyone should own a gun, but "The right to own a firearm shall not be infringed." If I intend to own a large, unwieldy rifle, for the purpose of recreational deer hunting, that is strictly monitored to keep herd size under control, is that still wrong?

 

[Lizardizzle]

the video doesnt load for me. :/

offtopic: Lookit mah new avatar! It's so cute!

 

[Link]

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?



because you say it isnt?



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



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



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



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



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 ..



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:

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

Right, first off, I am not getting into the "quote by quote" game. It is designed to win arguments by picking every single thing that is said apart a sentance at a time, taking advantage of every mistake and underthought expresion. If you want to attack what I saying, attack my point, not the way I make it.

Anyway, regarding the car issue, its a fully valid argument. Hitting somone with a car is a very effective way of killing somone. So, tell me this, assuming it had been created for the purposes of killing, even though it was then used almost exclusivly for other purposes, would you class it in with guns, as bad things, because they are designed to kill.

One other thing I want to be VERY clear on. I am not an american. I am british, where guns, as I say, are almost completly illegal. More importantly, I am not going on about freedoms being taken when I complain about liberals, I am complaining about the fact that liberals think that these idiots need protection from themselves. LET THEM DIE, WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

And stern? Don't stoop to insults. "durr the liebrals want to take away our freedoms!!!"? Thats beneath you.

 

[Eejit]

Escalate to what, tanks? Neither the IRA on UDA, possessed the capacity to do anything further than what they already did. They were already

I was talking about with regards to civilians.
What would happen if someone targeted for a punishment beating or a kneecapping pulled a gun? They'd be killed.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I was talking about with regards to civilians.
What would happen if someone targeted for a punishment beating or a kneecapping pulled a gun? They'd be killed.

You don't think the possibility of getting shot would deter the kneecappers?

 

[Eejit]

No, I just think they'd aim for somewhere other than the knee.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Well, I think the prospect of getting killed would deter the would be attackers.

Private ownership of guns would make it substantially more dangerous for the paramilitaries to target civilians, as they themselves risk being shot, yet the gun ban didn't stop such groups obtaining large arsenals of weapons.

 

[Eejit]

They would have just used bombs and rifles more, keeping their distance and causing more damage.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Bombings are a lot more difficult to carry out, so if they had to rely on that, then their capacity to cause trouble would be reduced.

 

[Higlac]

Well, I think the prospect of getting killed would deter the would be attackers.

Private ownership of guns would make it substantially more dangerous for the paramilitaries to target civilians, as they themselves risk being shot, yet the gun ban didn't stop such groups obtaining large arsenals of weapons.

This is why the U.S.A. has the Second Amendment. It was written in order for the people to have the ability to overthrow an unjust government. Also why we don't have a standing military during peacetime.

 

[Eejit]

Paramilitary != Military, Higlac.

Bombings also cause far more destruction than shootings. Fewer attacks but more of them bombings = more deaths.

 

[Higlac]

Paramilitary != Military, Higlac.

Bombings also cause far more destruction than shootings. Fewer attacks but more of them bombings = more deaths.

Oh, shit, I think I have dyslexia. Well, it allows you to form a paramilitary group opposed to the government.

 

[cheddarrr]

I think you guys are forgetting the fact that man has since the begining of time and will always kill his fellow man.

guns.. knives.. fists.. rocks..

It really doesnt matter. If someone wants someone else dead enough its going to happen. thats all tehre is to it.


So on that note, the most reasonable approach to having accidental gun fatalities is education. Anyone can buy a gun But, I can tell you from the Hunter's Safety course they cover many, many things that everyone should know before they even tough a firearm.