Guns = Dangerous? (Read the first post first, damnit)

[Jintor]

Are guns dangerous?

(Taken from repiV's Virginia Teach Shootings - Gun Debate topic.)

A gun sitting on a table is entirely safe, as is a responsibly handled gun. Just like a stationary or responsibly driven car. Only when misused does it become dangerous.
This is common sense and completely bloody obvious.
Guns serve a useful purpose on a day-to-day basis aswell - just because you prefer to roll over and play dead does not mean that self-defence and target shooting are not valid reasons.
Furthermore, in a free society you do not need to have an externally valid reason to own something - you need a damn good reason to deny someone the right to own it. You need a much better reason than "guns are designed to kill!!!!1111". Especially when the constitution specifically lays down the fundamental right to bear arms.

You can leave a gun sitting on a desk for a thousand years and noone will get hurt. You can leave it in the hands of a responsible owner for life and noone will get hurt. Guns are not dangerous.

You can hold a loaded gun correctly and it's still not dangerous. Our world is full of things that are difficult to master and potentially dangerous - that's why we spend decades learning how to live. I can also guarantee you that my 600cc superbike is infinitely more likely to cause injury or death than any firearm I might own. But I also had to take a demanding intensive course and pass an extremely difficult test to be able to ride it - funny how that works, eh?

A gun is never dangerous - it does not have a brain and it does absolutely nothing unless externally manipulated. Only the people using the guns can be dangerous.
Comparing guns to a shark or a radiation leak which are dangerous without any external input is absolute nonsense.
The intent behind a gun depends entirely on which gun it is, what ammo it's using and what purpose it's for.
NATO assault rifles, contrary to popular belief, with their 5.62mm ammo are specifically designed to wound the enemy enough to take three or five soldiers off the battlefield for every enemy down - one injured, the rest to look after the injured.
9mm submachineguns are designed to kill, instantly - to neutralise the threat before they can harm anyone else in close quarters.
.22s are designed for target shooting.
Handguns are usually designed for effective personal defence.

On the other side of the fence is:

Hello? IT IS DESIGNED TO KILL. IT IS NOT SAFE. A GUN IS NOT SAFE. GUN IS NOT SAFE TO PEOPLE. GUN KILLS PEOPLE. KILLING BAD, NOT SAFE.

There are more issues and arguements on both sides, but I'm stupid and can't think of them.

Opinions please! (and votes.)

 

[Gray Fox]

Basically what Sulky said in that same thread. Guns by themselves are not dangerous, but the same go's for nukes, and anthrax.
But the potential for misuse is enormous. And hence we have to ask ourselves do the positives outweigh the negatives. Are more people saved by guns then crimes committed. And are there alternatives that could accomplish what guns do without the disadvantages. Like more surveillance, and better alarm systems in the house or organized neighborhood watches.

It is also dependent on the culture and society. In some country it is more dangerous to have a right to carry then others.


One thing that bothers me about anti gun advocates is this. Why not go after Alcohol, it's misuse is directly responsible for more deaths then guns, and the only useful purpose is one of recreation. So the right to drink alcoholic beverages does in fact go against my right to live. And yet I see no one complaining about that. Is it so fair them to attack the gun lobby, because guns do actually have a useful positive purpose, and far less negative effects then alcohol. Maybe it should be accepted that we simply like guns, so much, that just like with alcohol we are willing to accept their bad sides.

 

[CptStern]

bubonic plague dangerous or not? lets put 20 in a room with bubonic plague hidden somewhere and 0 people in another room filled to the brim with bubonic plague


bubonic plague dangerous or no? ..you decide




CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT


if a gun is in a forest and no one knows it's there is it dangerous? if a gun should be brought to a kindergarden for show and tell is it dangerous? ..these questions and more to be answered with this thought provoking, yet idiotic poll

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Yes guns are dangerous. Its ridiculous justification to say there not. They were designed to kill and kill is what they do. They serve no other porpose, so, because of this, they are dangerous as people cannot use them any other way than defense/mass murder as in this case.

 

[repiV]

Yes guns are dangerous. Its ridiculous justification to say there not. They were designed to kill and kill is what they do. They serve no other porpose, so, because of this, they are dangerous as people cannot use them any other way than defense/mass murder as in this case.

Of course they serve other purposes. Most Western assault rifles aren't even designed to kill. If you can't even get that simple and obvious fact straight, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

Of course they serve other purposes. Most Western assault rifles aren't even designed to kill. If you can't even get that simple and obvious fact straight, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

Dude,I have had to come out of my self imposed nearly 6 month lurk to say, You are an idiot.

A gun has a single purpose and that is to inflict harm and death on whatever it is shot at. It only has one purpose. And Assault Rifles are used to inflict Rapid amounts of damage in a short period of time.

 

[repiV]

Dude,I have had to come out of my self imposed nearly 6 month lurk to say, You are an idiot.

A gun has a single purpose and that is to inflict harm and death on whatever it is shot at. It only has one purpose. And Assault Rifles are used to inflict Rapid amounts of damage in a short period of time.

So guns used for target shooting are designed to inflict death? Despite having a calibre and method of operation that is specifically designed for competition usage and not inflicting death and destruction?
Actually, assault rifles with 5.62mm calibre ammunition such as the British SA80 and M16 are designed to cause injury, not to kill. Injured soldiers take their comrades out of the battle too, dead soldiers only lower the enemy manpower by one.

You are the idiot here.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

Yes a gun used for target shooting is a weapon, its doesn't matter if it might never be used that way but it could.

And as for your statements about Assault Rifles??? You're either implying that a 5.65mm round to the chest or head won't kill or that the soldiers in combat won't be aiming to kill if they were to be attacked?

And finally lower the enemies number by one each time has been the primary method at winning wars for the entirety of human history,why would they stop now?

 

[repiV]

Yes a gun used for target shooting is a weapon, its doesn't matter if it might never be used that way but it could.

You're contradicting yourself. You said the sole purpose a gun has is to kill, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you pretend you never made that statement.

And as for your statements about Assault Rifles??? You're either implying that a 5.65mm round to the chest or head won't kill or that the soldiers in combat won't be aiming to kill if they were to be attacked?

A 5.62mm round to the chest probably won't kill. Not instantly, anyway. A 7.65mm round, however, will.
Soldiers in battle don't aim to kill, they aim to neutralise the threat the enemy poses. Whether they die or not is immaterial.

And finally lower the enemies number by one each time has been the primary method at winning wars for the entirety of human history,why would they stop now?

Modern war is far more complicated than that. We don't seem to be winning the Iraq war any time soon, but we have taken relatively very few casualties.

 

[Kyorisu]

Modern war is far more complicated than that. We don't seem to be winning the Iraq war any time soon, but we have taken relatively very few casualties.

Because it isn't a war in the traditional sense of taking over the place and using it for your own deeds rather than the current let them rule their own country policy.

As for the gun debate. No matter what you design something for someone else will find another use for it. Guns are fine if your have a good set of rules in place to control them and their distribution.

 

[repiV]

Because it isn't a war in the traditional sense of taking over the place and using it for your own deeds rather than the current let them rule their own country policy.

No modern war is a war in the traditional sense. Thank globalisation, asymmetrical warfare, the prevalence of armed groups not directly associated with nation-states and soft power.

As for the gun debate. No matter what you design something for someone else will find another use for it. Guns are fine if your have a good set of rules in place to control them and their distribution.

Exactly.

 

[Glo-Boy]

I understand all sides of the argument, but personally, I just love shooting at the range way too much to give up my right to own a firearm. I have a license to carry and conceal, but there's really no reason for me to ever do that. That is, unless I'm on the way to the range, or i'm somehow in Compton or something. I wish more people empathized with responsible, safe gun owners.

 

[Kyorisu]

When I say traditional what I really mean is.

"I dethroned you by force, now get out and take your lousy people with you. This land shall make for good farming land if I don't say so myself. Take a message to your allies why don't you. Kyorisu was here a land fallen and many more to come. Men fire up the torches we have a palace to burn."

 

[Ennui]

Basically what Sulky said in that same thread. Guns by themselves are not dangerous, but the same go's for nukes, and anthrax.
But the potential for misuse is enormous. And hence we have to ask ourselves do the positives outweigh the negatives. Are more people saved by guns then crimes committed. And are there alternatives that could accomplish what guns do without the disadvantages. Like more surveillance, and better alarm systems in the house or organized neighborhood watches.

It is also dependent on the culture and society. In some country it is more dangerous to have a right to carry then others.


One thing that bothers me about anti gun advocates is this. Why not go after Alcohol, it's misuse is directly responsible for more deaths then guns, and the only useful purpose is one of recreation. So the right to drink alcoholic beverages does in fact go against my right to live. And yet I see no one complaining about that. Is it so fair them to attack the gun lobby, because guns do actually have a useful positive purpose, and far less negative effects then alcohol. Maybe it should be accepted that we simply like guns, so much, that just like with alcohol we are willing to accept their bad sides.

Guns generally kill people other than the person who is using it. Alcohol generally kills the person who is using it, it's a very key difference here. Don't bring up drunk driving, either, because that's a whole other thing politically and EVERYONE rails against that.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

Incorrect, I define a weapon as something used to kill, And while there isn't a living being standing in the crosshairs you can still use a Sporting rifle to kill,It might not be efficent but its still a weapon. And if you are still unsatisfied Ill admit,I was wrong and will amend my statement by saying a Gun whose purposes include and ARE limited to

1. Killing
2. Training to use it more efficently

Soldiers are trained to kill, because as you so nicely put it,it is the most efficent way neutralise the threat the enemy poses And I doubt in a full firefight if some insurgent gets shot in the chest,A US medic is going to be concerned with saving him over a wounded American soldier. But I'm talking in bullshit what if's so lets look at it logically:

The majority of a humans body mass is made up of the torso,If a bullet its either lung,without immediate medical attention they fill with water and he drowns. They hit the heart its game over. Liver is death within a few hours,Kidneys you can get away with but again bloodloss is a problem. Say though the bullet hits the meat of the gut then yes someone might survive if blood loss,Infection etc don't get him.

Military docterine is the aim for the chest to give a higher chance of hitting the target and with the M16 for instance it is also practice to fire in single shot for long range and 3round bursts at closer ranges to maximise damage. 3 rounds to the chest will kill a high percentage of the time assuming the recoil doesn't pull the final round into the persons face or throat then its almost guarenteed.

And as for the debacle in Iraq,Well the war is offically over after all,That was won most effectivly but now we're in occupation time when all bets are off, the occupiers can't win by killing their opponents as 3 more will take their place, The onus is on the occupied to inflict enough casualties till the occupiers lose the will to remain. This also has no place in this debate so lets leave it unconcluded.


EDIT: I'm leaving it at that,Those are my feelings on the matter, I don't have any problem with guns in the hands of the governments of the world but it is unnessacary for individuals to own them.
And saying a Gun isn't a lethal weapon is just stupid, They only have the one purpose and it will always be so. Finally while responsible safe gun-owners I'm sure exist, its the rest of them that scare the crap out of me.

 

[Absinthe]

This topic sounds heavily motivated by some personal grudge. I can't imagine that being an awesome foundation.

Guns are dangerous, used for recreation purposes or otherwise. But I can't say I favor a ban. That seems too far and it wouldn't work out well in the United States. At the least, however, I do believe there needs to be some serious thought and effort behind restrictions. That goes for both the difficulty of obtaining a weapon, who is eligible for one, and what is available to civilians. There's nothing smart about Average Joe having the firepower equivalent to a US marine.

 

[repiV]

When I say traditional what I really mean is.

"I dethroned you by force, now get out and take your lousy people with you. This land shall make for good farming land if I don't say so myself. Take a message to your allies why don't you. Kyorisu was here a land fallen and many more to come."

You're odd.



On a more serious note, using your definition "traditional" wars are long extinct.

 

[repiV]

Incorrect, I define a weapon as something used to kill, And while there isn't a living being standing in the crosshairs you can still use a Sporting rifle to kill,It might not be efficent but its still a weapon. And if you are still unsatisfied Ill admit,I was wrong and will amend my statement by saying a Gun whose purposes include and ARE limited to

1. Killing
2. Training to use it more efficently

All manner of everyday objects can be used to kill. Should we ban kitchen knives, paperweights, baseball bats, motor vehicles, powertools...?
Poor argument.

Soldiers are trained to kill, because as you so nicely put it,it is the most efficent way neutralise the threat the enemy poses And I doubt in a full firefight if some insurgent gets shot in the chest,A US medic is going to be concerned with saving him over a wounded American soldier. But I'm talking in bullshit what if's so lets look at it logically:

The majority of a humans body mass is made up of the torso,If a bullet its either lung,without immediate medical attention they fill with water and he drowns. They hit the heart its game over. Liver is death within a few hours,Kidneys you can get away with but again bloodloss is a problem. Say though the bullet hits the meat of the gut then yes someone might survive if blood loss,Infection etc don't get him.

Military docterine is the aim for the chest to give a higher chance of hitting the target and with the M16 for instance it is also practice to fire in single shot for long range and 3round bursts at closer ranges to maximise damage. 3 rounds to the chest will kill a high percentage of the time assuming the recoil doesn't pull the final round into the persons face or throat then its almost guarenteed.

Please don't lecture me about military doctrine.
The calibre of ammunition used in the M16 is designed to incapacitate the target, but not to kill them instantly. Someone hit by a couple of M16 rounds is likely to still be alive at least long enough to warrant some desperate medical attention, whereas someone hit by a couple of AK47 or MP5 rounds is probably going to be dead by the time they hit the ground.
Causing incapacitating injuries neutralises multiple enemies - killing them only neutralises one. Hence, the use of 5.62mm ammunition in battle rifles.

And as for the debacle in Iraq,Well the war is offically over after all,That was won most effectivly but now we're in occupation time when all bets are off, the occupiers can't win by killing their opponents as 3 more will take their place, The onus is on the occupied to inflict enough casualties till the occupiers lose the will to remain. This also has no place in this debate so lets leave it unconcluded.

It's a war, whichever way you look at it - and an unconventional one too.

 

[Gunner]

All manner of everyday objects can be used to kill. Should we ban kitchen knives, paperweights, baseball bats, motor vehicles, powertools...?
Poor argument.

How many people do you think Cho-Seung could have killed with a knife before being disarmed and tackled to the ground?

 

[repiV]

How many people do you think Cho-Seung could have killed with a knife before being disarmed and tackled to the ground?

More than he could have killed with a gun if others on campus were also carrying guns.

 

[Gunner]

More than he could have killed with a gun if others on campus were also carrying guns.

What? I don't understand.

And if other students on campus had guns, it would have turned into a bloodbath. No one could identify the real shooter, and they'd just start shooting each other till the SWAT teams come in and kill everybody.

 

[CptStern]

More than he could have killed with a gun if others on campus were also carrying guns.

that makes no sense ...how many people would/could have injured/killed by stray bullets ..are you really advocating the school should have turned into a scene from the shootout at OK Corral? are you really suggesting that it should easier for the mentally unstable to bring weapons into a school/public place? this is the problem with guns ...I cant trust that the general public will not do something stupid ..in fact I count on it ..arming every tom dick or henry who loves guns is like throwing matches at a powder keg


I still cant believe every single gun advocate ignores an extremely obvious fact here ..WHY was a mentally deranged person allowed to purchase guns? obviously the law failed to provide adequate measures to keep the criminally insane from purchasing guns ...guns are an enabler ..so are gun advocates ..because you cherish your right to own a gun you enable the crazies and no so crazy to use it as an instrument of death ..I cant see how this point escapes most of you

 

[repiV]

What? I don't understand.

And if other students on campus had guns, it would have turned into a bloodbath. No one could identify the real shooter, and they'd just start shooting each other till the SWAT teams come in and kill everybody.

Who said I was referring to the students?
If staff were trained and required to carry handguns, these tragedies would never, ever happen.

 

[repiV]

that makes no sense ...how many people would/could have injured/killed by stray bullets ..are you really advocating the school should have turned into a scene from the shootout at OK Corral? are you really suggesting that it should easier for the mentally unstable to bring weapons into a school/public place? this is the problem with guns ...I cant trust that the general public will not do something stupid ..in fact I count on it ..arming every tom dick or henry who loves guns is like throwing matches at a powder keg


I still cant believe every single gun advocate ignores an extremely obvious fact here ..WHY was a mentally deranged person allowed to purchase guns? obviously the law failed to provide adequate measures to keep the criminally insane from purchasing guns ...guns are an enabler ..so are gun advocates ..because you cherish your right to own a gun you enable the crazies and no so crazy to use it as an instrument of death ..I cant see how this point escapes most of you

The point doesn't escape me at all, it just doesn't concern me. It is not my place to debate the finer points of American domestic policy.
When it turns into ammunition for the "guns are bad" movement, then I have something to say.

 

[CptStern]

now it's staff? should they have a safe in their classroom, a gun rack in the teachers lounge or concealed in their sock? again I ant trust that even people who have lifelong training wont do something extremely stupid ..why would I trust anyone with something that could easily take my life ..sorry I trust no one until they give me a reason to

 

[BeenJumpin]

How to test if something is safe:

Ask yourself, "Would I let a five year old play with this?"
If the answer is No, it's either breakable or dangerous. Guns are pretty solid.

However, I must say, guns are safe, bullets are dangerous

 

[repiV]

now it's staff? should they have a safe in their classroom, a gun rack in the teachers lounge or concealed in their sock? again I ant trust that even people who have lifelong training wont do something extremely stupid ..why would I trust anyone with something that could easily take my life ..sorry I trust no one until they give me a reason to

No, they should have a holster at their hip.
If you can't trust a teacher to carry a gun responsibly, then you certainly shouldn't trust them to look after your children.

Either way, I've provided a pretty simple solution to this problem. The only conclusion I can draw from your response is that you're more interested in the principle of banning guns than in practical methods of saving innocent lives.

 

[CptStern]

No, they should have a holster at their hip.
If you can't trust a teacher to carry a gun responsibility, then you certainly shouldn't trust them to look after your children.

yes because teachers can be trusted without question:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/05/21/wtur21.xml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19991111/ai_n14273553
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Warmus
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/teacher-akela-dillon-slaps-a-black-student-for-dating-a-white-one/
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/tea...rs-for-having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-student/
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/bac...xual-abuse-and-giving-kids-drugs-and-alcohol/
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/teacher-christopher-culver-arrested-for-touching-first-grade-boys/


etc etc etc etc

 

[repiV]

yes because teachers can be trusted without question:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/05/21/wtur21.xml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19991111/ai_n14273553
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Warmus
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/teacher-akela-dillon-slaps-a-black-student-for-dating-a-white-one/
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/tea...rs-for-having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-student/
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/bac...xual-abuse-and-giving-kids-drugs-and-alcohol/
http://www.teachersmackdown.com/teacher-christopher-culver-arrested-for-touching-first-grade-boys/


etc etc etc etc

Point being?

My solution would still prevent these tragedies from ever occuring. If once in a blue moon a crazy teacher shoots a few students, well, the situation is still far better, isn't it?

 

[CptStern]

point being? what you didnt see my point? how can you not see my point?

look it's not a teachers job to defend their students with their lives ..that's a job for the police. Again you're being unrealistic

 

[Terminator]

Stupid poll, it depends what you define as dangerous.

They are not inherently dangerous, like a grenade with no pin but they do have the capability of being very dangerous in someones hands.

 

[repiV]

point being? what you didnt see my point? how can you not see my point?

look it's not a teachers job to defend their students with their lives ..that's a job for the police. Again you're being unrealistic

I'm being entirely realistic. I'm offering a practical, easy to implement solution to the problem. You suggest banning guns in America. That will a) never happen and b) wouldn't work anyway. It also has the side-effect of criminalising millions of ordinary people.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I agree that banning guns in America would never work but my solution would be more restriction, not less.

Do you think that banning firearms is a good idea in general/in principle?

I know it's difficult and arguably a little pointless to divorce these things from their social and political contexts. Do you support a ban in Britain?

FAKEEDIT: Probably I should keep all my arguments in one thread, now I thinkabahdit.

 

[CptStern]

you cannot give a teacher the means to decide between life and death and expect them to act accordingly, it's never been a part of their job ..police officers who have intensive training and live the life every single day they're in the force make mistakes ..are you saying that a few gun courses will make Edwina the 89 year old librarian the best person to call when someone goes postal ..you're not being realistic in the least ..most teachers are women, the ones who are not are gay the ones who are not are humanitarians who love children ...is this the demographic you would arm? I used to be a teacher ...will you give me a gun?

 

[repiV]

I agree that banning guns in America would never work but my solution would be more restriction, not less.

Do you think that banning firearms is a good idea in general/in principle?

In principle, no. I believe it's an infringement on individual freedom to choose.

I know it's difficult and arguably a little pointless to divorce these things from their social and political contexts. Do you support a ban in Britain?

Considering that banning handguns did not stop gun crime, and simultaneously victimised ordinary people, I would have to say no.
In Britain it is not the lack of guns that bothers me, it's the general attitude that if you're carrying a weapon - even non-lethal, or even a tool that could potentially be used as a weapon such as a swiss army knife - you must have an intent to attack someone. It's an utter load of authoritarian bullshit, and it's partly what's responsible for chavs taking over our streets.

 

[repiV]

you cannot give a teacher the means to decide between life and death and expect them to act accordingly, it's never been a part of their job ..police officers who have intensive training and live the life every single day they're in the force make mistakes ..are you saying that a few gun courses will make Edwina the 89 year old librarian the best person to call when someone goes postal ..you're not being realistic in the least ..most teachers are women, the ones who are not are gay the ones who are not are humanitarians who love children ...is this the demographic you would arm? I used to be a teacher ...will you give me a gun?

Ordinary citizens all over America have the means to decide between life and death. Why should teachers be excluded?
I would have no problem at all giving you a gun.

 

[CptStern]

Ordinary citizens all over America have the means to decide between life and death. Why should teachers be excluded?
I would have no problem at all giving you a gun.

ordinary citizens are NOT responsible for the well being of 32 children on a daily basis ..that comparison makes no sense ..there is no way I'd send my kids to a school where the teachers are armed ..i'd much rather just pull them from school if it's that dangerous that teachers have to be armed

I can tell you have no children ..ask the same question to parents and the majority would be appalled by such an idea

oh and giving me a gun? how do you know I wont shoot you as soon as you give it to me? how do you that I as a person of conscience would do the right thing when the time came? I dont know you and there's no way I'd trust you with a gun anywhere near me

 

[tehsolace]

Anything that requires a warning label when sold is dangerous. "Warning: Do not point at face." should give you a hint that its quite possibly dangerous to point a gun at your face.

Only an idiot would point a gun to his face and then say "oh dont worry this is completely safe. its only dangerous if i pull the trigger -- THEN i have to be careful"

fact is, you have to be careful whenever anyone around you (or you) are handling guns, which implies some amount of danger.

 

[Terminator]

The whole gun thing is based around mistrust.
If we trusted everyone there would be no reason for any weapons.

 

[repiV]

ordinary citizens are NOT responsible for the well being of 32 children on a daily basis ..that comparison makes no sense ..there is no way I'd send my kids to a school where the teachers are armed ..i'd much rather just pull them from school if it's that dangerous that teachers have to be armed

As the incident at Virginia Tech and other similar incidents show, teachers would be much more able to make good on that responsibility if they were armed.

I can tell you have no children ..ask the same question to parents and the majority would be appalled by such an idea

That's because they would have an emotional reaction to the situation moreso than a logical one. The choice is simple really - either you can let schools continue to be turkey shoots for nutcases, or you can defend them.

oh and giving me a gun? how do you know I wont shoot you as soon as you give it to me? how do you that I as a person of conscience would do the right thing when the time came? I dont know you and there's no way I'd trust you with a gun anywhere near me

I'd like to think I'm a good enough judge of character to know you wouldn't shoot me the moment I give you a gun.