Guns suck

[NeLi]

"The pen is mightier than the sword" also means that spoken or written words can be used to devastating effect when you want to kill a whole bunch of people. Hitler couldn't have done anything with just a gun. He used words instead.

That's such a silly comparison. Hitler used a whole machinery of manipulation to do what he did. Fact of the matter is though, that the pen is but a tool, while guns influence people, give them a false sense of security, and through stupidity cause deaths.

 

[Cybernoid]

That's such a silly comparison. Hitler used a whole machinery of manipulation to do what he did.

Mostly just words.

Fact of the matter is though, that the pen is but a tool

Much like a weapon, then.

while guns influence people, give them a false sense of security, and through stupidity cause deaths.

You are actually, seriously trying to tell me that guns have more of an influence on the human mind than ideas and thoughts? It's like saying that holding up a gun and saying "UGH! ME HAVE GUN!" has more of an effect than, say, a political speech.

As for the false sense of security, that's just your own personal problem.

 

[Sprafa]

You are actually, seriously trying to tell me that guns have more of an influence on the human mind than ideas and thoughts? It's like saying that holding up a gun and saying "UGH! ME HAVE GUN!" has more of an effect than, say, a political speech.

I hold a gun at a girl. I can order her to do me a blowjob in 5 secs.

It can take days and even weeks with a speech.

 

[Cybernoid]

everytime

That was a rhetorical question.

of course. The SS used words in the Eastern Front. The SS killed millions of Jews with words. Hitler had no guns....

Hitler used words to persuade the people to get more guns.

So guns are the root cause?

 

[Cybernoid]

I hold a gun at a girl. I can order her to do me a blowjob in 5 secs.

Yeah, and you can do the same without a gun, big ****ing deal. The simple fact is that a gun doesn't have nearly the same power as words.

It can take days and even weeks with a speech.

When you've killed millions, does it matter that it took a few weeks? I could argue that a pistol is more devastating than a nuclear bomb because it takes time and effort to use a nuclear bomb, while a pistol can be quickly used.

 

[PvtRyan]

So Cybernoid, where are you planning to go with this "words is teh evil!" thingy? It doesn't make any sense and holds little relevance to the question if guns are made to kill people.

Which they are. Do you have a different purpose for them?
Words can be used for other things, many other things, not just to play uncle Adolf.

 

[NeLi]

Mostly just words.

No, wwII happened because of his ever expanding army and gun toting nazis. The people themselves never voted to go to war and burn jews you know. To say that a word is a weapon is stupid. It was he who was the cause of effect, not his words. I can't explain it further than that in english.

Much like a weapon, then.

No. Not at all. As countless people already have explained to you.

You are actually, seriously trying to tell me that guns have more of an influence on the human mind than ideas and thoughts? It's like saying that holding up a gun and saying "UGH! ME HAVE GUN!" has more of an effect than, say, a political speech.

As for the false sense of security, that's just your own personal problem.

Jeez, now you're just trying to shoot down everything I say by all means necessary. I said that guns influence people. yes. They give the weirdos out the an easy chance of inflicting harm upon people.

 

[Cybernoid]

So Cybernoid, where are you planning to go with this "words is teh evil!" thingy? It doesn't make any sense and holds little relevance to the question if guns are made to kill people.

It makes no sense that words can be used to kill people? I think it makes a lot of sense. It also makes a lot of sense when I have all the history in the world to back me up. You can take a gun and shoot some people, or you can talk people into commiting genocide (the "pencil").

Which they are. Do you have a different purpose for them?
Words can be used for other things, many other things, not just to play uncle Adolf.

Sigh.

And guns can be used for other things as well... do you see where this is going?

No, wwII happened because of his ever expanding army and gun toting nazis.

Which were all accomplished almost exclusively through manipulation, propaganda and cunningness. Words and thoughts.

The people themselves never voted to go to war and burn jews you know.

They were pretty happy to go to war after the humiliation that was WW1, and burning jews wasn't a big deal, either.

To say that a word is a weapon is stupid.

If you can't grasp very basic and simple metaphors, you are really out of your league by participating in this discussion.

It was he who was the cause of effect, not his words.

So his mere existence was the catalyst that caused the war, not what he said or did?

Jeez, now you're just trying to shoot down everything I say by all means necessary.

This is an argument.

 

[NeLi]

Which were all accomplished almost exclusively through manipulation, propaganda and cunningness. Words and thoughts.

And executed with guns. Yes. words can be dangerous. Boo ****ing who. WE CAN'T BAN WORDS. we can ban guns though.

They were pretty happy to go to war after the humiliation that was WW1, and burning jews wasn't a big deal, either.

That's bullshit. Only the extremists supported the actions done to the jews.

If you can't grasp very basic and simple metaphors, you are really out of your league by participating in this discussion.

As I said earlier, we can't do much about human manipulation and gullability, we can, however, deal with guns. Don't try to use the "omg, there are other legally dangerous things in teh world too, so guns are ok too" argument.

It's retarded.

So his mere existence was the catalyst that caused the war, not what he said or did?



.

Yes, he made up the plans and executed them through his supporters. Yes, he did use words as a tool against the people, he did not, however, use them as direct weaponry against anything. Besides, I've already talked about the word argument.

 

[Cybernoid]

And executed with guns. Yes. words can be dangerous. Boo ****ing who. WE CAN'T BAN WORDS. we can ban guns though.

Oh, that's where you're wrong - we can ban words. Many people have done it. You simply kill or capture anyone who says anything that you don't like. You can also bombard them with propaganda until they stop challenging you. Even better, you can bar certain people from learning how to read and write, like women.

That's bullshit. Only the extremists supported the actions done to the jews.

If only it were so.

Yes, he made up the plans and executed them through his supporters. Yes, he did use words as a tool against the people, he did not, however, use them as direct weaponry against anything. Besides, I've already talked about the word argument.

If we examine the events of WW2, we can quickly conclude that the results were direct enough...

 

[poseyjmac]

You said it yourself, only SOME opponents. I'd rather be ready for ALL opponents.

show me someone who can get peppered sprayed in the eye and still be able to see.

 

[NeLi]

Oh, that's where you're wrong - we can ban words. Many people have done it. You simply kill or capture anyone who says anything that you don't like. You can also bombard them with propaganda until they stop challenging you. Even better, you can bar certain people from learning how to read and write, like women.

Yes. You could do that. But why? beats me. I was talking about ethical choices. We can do a lot of things. It doesn't mean anything though, because it's not part of the discussion. In a pure ethical viewpoint, (and this is a thread about morale and ethics anyway) we can't ban words. Some countries do it, and yes, it's wrong. What's your point?

If only it were so.

The extremists supported it, but the general populace either didn't know or didn't do anything about it, but they sure as hell did not suppor the slaughter.They were just passive, because really, what could they have done?

If we examine the events of WW2, we can quickly conclude that the results were direct enough...

Lets play a game called "Lets not ignore previous arguments". Stop discussing the word argument since we've already shot it down.

 

[Joe]

No, im saying that there's a bigger chance of more deaths happening if anyone can get a hold of a gun anywhere.

The reality is anyone CAN get a gun ANYWHERE. Hence why theres the blackmarket, the thug down the road, etc. The bottom line is if someone wants a gun, they can get one, legally or not.

Sorry mate, but you can't make either side sharper. It doesn't matter if civilians get guns. The criminals will only get bigger and better guns if that's the case. It's just a start of a ****ed up circle.

Not entirely true. Given that most criminals are more likely then not carrying a pistol, how are they going to get bigger and better guns? You can't hide rifles and shotguns under a t shirt.

Most robberys does not end up in death when the person does comply with the robbers demands. And the likelyhood of that the robber will just walk away is lightyears more likely than that he suddenly decides TO BECOME A ****ING MURDERER INSTEAD. Jeez.

So you're willing to bet your life on the robbers mercy? Not a chance I would take.

No, because, you see, if you use logic, it's pretty easy to see that a guy comin up from behind will already have his gun ready, when you will not.

And again, not every single robbery is from the front, not every time the robber has the gun out before he comes up to you. And last I checked, breaking the law isn't very logical in the first place, now is it?

better beat up than dying in a hospital due to bloodloss and 5 shells in your back.

Better unharmed and slightly shook up with 5 less assholes in the world then lying in a hospital in coma.

 

[Joe]

show me someone who can get peppered sprayed in the eye and still be able to see.

Show me someone who can effectively use pepper spray 20 feet away from the bad guy.

 

[NeLi]

The reality is anyone CAN get a gun ANYWHERE. Hence why theres the blackmarket, the thug down the road, etc. The bottom line is if someone wants a gun, they can get one, legally or not.

The reality is that it's not as easy as you think to get a hold of an untrackable gun and get away with it. Sure, guns are available through shady connections, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for the criminals by putting up gunshops all over a country.

Not entirely true. Given that most criminals are more likely then not carrying a pistol, how are they going to get bigger and better guns? You can't hide rifles and shotguns under a t shirt.

I don't know. Bombs, sniper rifles, sawed off shotguns. My point was though, that you can't counterbalance the criminals guns with your own, since that will only lead to even more deaths. Not less.

So you're willing to bet your life on the robbers mercy? Not a chance I would take.

I can't say what I'd do in such a situation. All i can do is speculate.

And again, not every single robbery is from the front, not every time the robber has the gun out before he comes up to you.

Unless the guy is stupid as shit, he will have his finger on the trigger before he robs you. Even if its in his pocket. It still gives him a huge advantage over the victim, even if the victim had his own gun.

Better unharmed and slightly shook up with 5 less assholes in the world then lying in a hospital in coma.

It doesn't work like that in real life. People are not born as rambo, and will either chicken out when assaulted, panic, or make the situation worse.

It's not often you see a person scaring off 5 gun toting thugs just like that.

 

[Cybernoid]

Yes. You could do that. But why? beats me.

Beats me too. But lots of rulers are doing it all the time. Banning words is even easier than banning weapons.

In a pure ethical viewpoint, (and this is a thread about morale and ethics anyway) we can't ban words. Some countries do it, and yes, it's wrong. What's your point?

Ethics and morals aren't always objective. Someone else might say that it's ethically and morally right to allow citizens to carry and use weapons for self-defence. And this isn't about ethics or morals, it was about the ability or inability to ban words. You said that we can ban guns and not words, but that isn't true.

Lets play a game called "Lets not ignore previous arguments". Stop discussing the word argument since we've already shot it down.

You haven't shot down anything, I'm afraid.

show me someone who can get peppered sprayed in the eye and still be able to see.

My take: a normal person will go apeshit when he is blinded and stop his attack. His attention turns inward. A crackhead on a rampage can just keep attacking, with or without vision. It's not a problem if you can get out of the way, but if he is just about to ram into you, it's a problem.

 

[Cybernoid]

The reality is that it's not as easy as you think to get a hold of an untrackable gun and get away with it. Sure, guns are available through shady connections, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for the criminals by putting up gunshops all over a country.

I'm only speaking for Finland (and probably most of the western world), but there's no way in hell a criminal can get a gun from a shop, unless he steals one. You need the proper documents, permits and whatnot to get a gun legally.

I don't know. Bombs, sniper rifles, sawed off shotguns.

Eh, sniper rifles and bombs are not used in street fights, and you cannot hide a sniper rifle under your coat.

It doesn't work like that in real life. People are not born as rambo, and will either chicken out when assaulted, panic, or make the situation worse.

Now you're just making assumptions based on your own abilities or inabilities. Some people panic, while some resist (and either win or lose). It's invidivual, and panic can be reduced with training and experience.

It's not often you see a person scaring off 5 gun toting thugs just like that.

As Marc McYoung puts it: "there are some hardcore people out there."

 

[NeLi]

Beats me too. But lots of rulers are doing it all the time. Banning words is even easier than banning weapons.



Ethics and morals aren't always objective. Someone else might say that it's ethically and morally right to allow citizens to carry and use weapons for self-defence. And this isn't about ethics or morals, it was about the ability or inability to ban words. You said that we can ban guns and not words, but that isn't true.

I'm saying that in the western world we SHOULD and CAN ban guns. And then you dragged in the word argument, saying that we CAN but SHOULDN't ban words for no apparent reason. Stick to the subject.

You haven't shot down anything, I'm afraid.

You said that words can be used for destruction. I said that yes, they can be used for destruction, yet why do you bring it up in this discussion? We're not talking about banning all dangerous things in life, we're talking about banning GUNS.

 

[poseyjmac]

My take: a normal person will go apeshit when he is blinded and stop his attack. His attention turns inward. A crackhead on a rampage can just keep attacking, with or without vision. It's not a problem if you can get out of the way, but if he is just about to ram into you, it's a problem.

well anyway, my original point was that some non-lethal devices are FASTER at neutralizing an opponent than some lethal weapons.

 

[NeLi]

I'm only speaking for Finland (and probably most of the western world), but there's no way in hell a criminal can get a gun from a shop, unless he steals one. You need the proper documents, permits and whatnot to get a gun legally.

I'm talking about the US... Yeah, you need the documents. Sure. So what? Not all criminals are black listed you know... There's a huge grey zone area where the law enforcment doesn't know jackshit about who is the bad guy and not.

Eh, sniper rifles and bombs are not used in street fights, and you cannot hide a sniper rifle under your coat.

I was talking in general. Like the guy in the US who shot several people with his sniper rifle. Although really, as I said, my point was that at best, you would be able to give everyone a gun, and that would, without a doubt, lead to more deaths.

Now you're just making assumptions based on your own abilities or inabilities. Some people panic, while some resist (and either win or lose). It's invidivual, and panic can be reduced with training and experience.

Yes, I bet there are some people who survive a 1gun vs 5 guns confrontation.

 

[PvtRyan]

It makes no sense that words can be used to kill people? I think it makes a lot of sense. It also makes a lot of sense when I have all the history in the world to back me up. You can take a gun and shoot some people, or you can talk people into commiting genocide (the "pencil").

You said it yourself, words can be used to influence people into killing, but they can also do quite the opposite. Guns can't, they kill people, period. It's nonsense comparing communication with an instrument designed to kill.

Sigh.

And guns can be used for other things as well... do you see where this is going?[/quote[

Like... what? Guns can kill people, guns can maim people, guns can wound people. Yeah I can see where that is going.

What are you gonna do with them? Build bridges? Find some way to make an airplane out of them? Do you see where this is going?

 

[Cybernoid]

I'm saying that in the western world we SHOULD and CAN ban guns.

Why should we and how can we? Criminals will always get guns, ,your stance on guns isn't shared by everyone and denying people the right to hunt animals or shoot for sports won't go down that well.

And then you dragged in the word argument, saying that we CAN but SHOULDN't ban words for no apparent reason. Stick to the subject.

You said that we can't ban words, only guns. I responded. There's your apparent reason.

You said that words can be used for destruction. I said that yes, they can be used for destruction, yet why do you bring it up in this discussion? We're not talking about banning all dangerous things in life, we're talking about banning GUNS.

I bring it up because it's ridicilous to claim that guns kill people, but pencils never misspell. They are both tools that do whatever the user wants them to do. They can be used to kill people, both literally and metaphorically speaking. They can also be used for opposite purposes.

You said it yourself, words can be used to influence people into killing, but they can also do quite the opposite.

Guns can't, they kill people, period. It's nonsense comparing communication with an instrument designed to kill.

You can use a gun (without firing it) to convince someone that doing something is a bad idea. You can use a gun to get yourself food (by killing an animal). You can use a gun for recretional purposes (target shooting). EXACTLY like pencils (or words), guns can be used for a variety of purposes.

As for something being designed to do this and that, it's a moot point because applications can change. Atomic weapons were designed to kill people, now they are being used as a power source. And so on.

Like... what? Guns can kill people, guns can maim people, guns can wound people. Yeah I can see where that is going.

Same thing goes for words.

I was talking in general. Like the guy in the US who shot several people with his sniper rifle. Although really, as I said, my point was that at best, you would be able to give everyone a gun, and that would, without a doubt, lead to more deaths.

Yes, it would lead to more deaths. More criminals would die because citizens could fight back. What a waste (not).

Yes, I bet there are some people who survive a 1gun vs 5 guns confrontation.

Was that sarcasm? Because there ARE people that can survive a 1 vs. 5 gun fight.

 

[NeLi]

Why should we and how can we? Criminals will always get guns, ,your stance on guns isn't shared by everyone and denying people the right to hunt animals or shoot for sports won't go down that well.

Stop putting words in my mouth please. I said that we should try and ban guns. Not outlaw them totally. Hunter, of course, can keep their damn guns. Athletes can use non lethal guns if they want to do shooting practice. Etc etc.

I bring it up because it's ridicilous to claim that guns kill people, but pencils never misspell. They are both tools that do whatever the user wants them to do. They can be used to kill people, both literally and metaphorically speaking. They can also be used for opposite purposes.

And unfortunately, the overwhelming use of firearms today result in death or injury. Hence my opinion on the subject matter..

Yes, it would lead to more deaths. More criminals would die because citizens could fight back. What a waste (not).

So you're saying that a citizen should become the judge, jury and executioner right there and then, even if its just some kid who robs you for your cash?



[/quote]Was that sarcasm? Because there ARE people that can survive a 1 vs. 5 gun fight.[/QUOTE]

I tried to make it sound as if it was unlikely...which it is, you know. Very unlikely. Like, extremely unlikely. Bordering impossible.

 

[Joe]

The reality is that it's not as easy as you think to get a hold of an untrackable gun and get away with it. Sure, guns are available through shady connections, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for the criminals by putting up gunshops all over a country.

Sure it is. File the serial number off. No way to trace the gun now.

I don't know. Bombs, sniper rifles, sawed off shotguns. My point was though, that you can't counterbalance the criminals guns with your own, since that will only lead to even more deaths. Not less.

Bombs arn't firearms. Hiding a sniper rifle under a t shirt? :upstare:

Of course you can counter balance criminals with your own gun. Criminals don't want to endanger their lives any more then you, so if they knew every citizen was carrying a pistol, do you think they'd maybe think twice before robbing someone and consider a career change?

Unless the guy is stupid as shit, he will have his finger on the trigger before he robs you. Even if its in his pocket. It still gives him a huge advantage over the victim, even if the victim had his own gun.

And that's only assuming the bad guy has the gun out, pointed at you. Like I said before, that's not the same case every time. Criminals arn't very smart to begin with, wouldn't you agree?

It doesn't work like that in real life. People are not born as rambo, and will either chicken out when assaulted, panic, or make the situation worse.

Or react as to how they've been trained and solve the situation without them being harmed.

It's not often you see a person scaring off 5 gun toting thugs just like that.

Really?

"On Dec. 3, 1996 @ about 5:15 pm I was driving home, I pulled into the center turn lane to turn north. A Honda w/3 youths pulled into the same turn lane facing me. 2 of the youths leaned out of the car cursing and making hand signs, telling me to back up, that I was blocking them from turning. Letting my Irish Temper get the best of me I yelled "chill out, why dont you just kiss my ----. Traffic cleared, I turned north into my neighborhood, the Honda followed on my bumper. I was'nt going to lead them to my home, so I hit the gas, and went to the parking lot of a nearby store. I thought with plenty of people around, these 3 "punks" would be hesitant to try anything. "BIG MISTAKE" 2 of them exited the Honda, running in my direction with a baseball bat. I tried to drive away, but the driver of the Honda blocked my exit. Realizing I had no choice but to confront the youths, I did some creative driving, blocked the Honda driver from exiting his vehicle. Placing my laser equipped HK on the driver's seat,(in this state it is legal to carry a firearm in a holster in a unconcealed manner) I stepped out of my car. Screaming at the 2 punks"you want a piece of me? COME ON" they stopped. I have always been a avoicate of the defense tatic try to make your enemy think you are crazier than him. the Honda driver had meanwhile exited his vehicle from the passenger's window, and I noticed he and his friends were moving to the back of the Honda. A bystander approached, and yelled at the youths to "Leave him alone!" The Honda driver opened the trunk, and proceeded to start loading a sawed off Remington Mod 11 shotgun(th police later showed me it). It seemed that both my brain and adreniln kicked in at the same time, saying "YOU ARE GOING TO BE SHOT, DO SOMETHING NOW". I bolted for my pistol, unholstered it and raised it on the youth who was now raising the shotgun from the Honda's trunk. I don't know if my training or reflexes took over, but the laser was switched on, and in the shotgun holding Youth's eyes at about 20 feet. He froze. Somehow I said in a forceful voice"drop the gun or you are dead." Again "DROP THE GUN NOW" He droped the shotgun. I looked at the helpful bystander and said we should back away, I dont know if friends are also armed. We backed away, the 3 youths jumped in their car and fled. The Police arrived less than 2 minutes later, as several people had called them. Fortunatly, the same people verified my story. About 2 weeks later the 3 youths were arrested in two different vehicles, which were found to contain stolen items, and several stloen firearms. After talking to the officers who responded to my situation, I was told that the 3 youths I had encountered were members of a local Asian gang, and their arrests led to several more arrests of their "friends". I am thankful that I did'nt have to shoot the shotgun holding youth (19 years old), and am firmly convinced that the laser beam in his eyes made him stop. Since this incident, I have equipped my wife's .45 with a CDRC laser also."

"I was on my way into work one morning when at a traffic light, three white dirtbags approached my car. I put my Ruger P89 in my lap, and two of them started towards the driver's door, while the 3rd walked around to the passenger's side. I knew what was about to happen. As one of them started to lean inside my window, I put my hand on the P89. He started to say: "Hey man, you got a cig.......... Oh my God, he's got a gun!". With that, all three disappeared. No magician could have ever done a better disappearing act! The police agreed that I had prevented them from car jacking my car, or worse. Like American Express, I never "leave home without it"!"

"1 year ago I was walking back to my car in Seattle. I live 50 miles northeast along the Cascade foothills so I had little knowledge where the bad areas are down South. (Only get 2 TV Stations)

As I walked back to my car 11:00pm, a white beater station wagon sped towards my direction down the hill and stopped for a second. I looked and I could count about 4 blacks from the street light. They drove by, turned around, got next to me and started screaming all kinds of bad stuff. I started to get a little nervous, no idea what was going to happen. They were screaming some real grave threats.

I then saw what I thought was a "object" from one of the occupants in the car starting to lift towards me. I could not tell what it was, a baton, a gun, I did not know. So motioning towards a parked car for cover, and since I could not make a positive ID on the "object", I brushed back my jacket and rested my hand on my Colt in ready. Still screaming at me, they high tailed it out. Seemed like hours but it was seconds.

Now, I've been in the Navy and through alot of crap, I tell some of you people, this guy was scared. I'm glad I did not have to use my gun, but I'm real glad I had it. Even my Law enforcement friend said it was a good thing I was armed.

The main thing is I did not have to use it. To me, the last thing I wanted to do is shoot another human being."

"I was out at sea while serving in the U.S. Navy, defending the rights of lawless pukes to terrorize my wife. One day, three high-school age, misguided youths came calling at my house while my wife was home alone, but for our puppy (hardly a fearsome animal). The three commenced banging and kicking on our door in an attempt to gain entry. A frantic call to 911 brought the deputy sheriff running! Of course, when the Kitsap county deputies run they don't travel very fast. The dispatcher heard the commotion over the phone (it was only 6 feet from the door that was being kicked in) and it still took the police over 20 minutes to show up.

Not wanting to be another statistic, and knowing the police help wasn't available in a timely fashion even though she'd had time to call, my wife retrieved our shotgun. We had a window by the door, and one look at the 12-gauge helped those poor unfortunates to decide that there were plenty of other fun things they could be doing.

I might point out that the shotgun was neither loaded, yet, or pointed at the three. Just being able to legally have it was enough to prevent a tragic situation for my wife as well as for the families of the three would-have-been assailants turned victims.
"

While not 5 gang members, those stories show that just pointing a gun CAN be enough, even at a group of people.

 

[NeLi]

Bombs arn't firearms. Hiding a sniper rifle under a t shirt? :upstare:

Ever heard of a ****ing backpack? How hard would it be to carry a small rifle, or a rifle in parts or even submachineguns with you in a backpack? The kids in columbine got away with it just fine, didn't they?

Of course you can counter balance criminals with your own gun. Criminals don't want to endanger their lives any more then you, so if they knew every citizen was carrying a pistol, do you think they'd maybe think twice before robbing someone and consider a career change?

Yes, they'd think twice. They'd get smarter. If they knew you had a gun, without a doubt, they'd never approach you WITHOUT A GUN. So forget knife robbery, now every ****ing thug got a gun instead.

And that's only assuming the bad guy has the gun out, pointed at you. Like I said before, that's not the same case every time. Criminals arn't very smart to begin with, wouldn't you agree?

They should be smart enough (IQ above 50) to realise that being prepared = higher success rate.

lots of unrelated stories

That's great. I love it how the Pro gun sites always put up a bunch of awesome stories about how a guy showed his gun and the thugs ran off.

And when they don't run? Yeah, someone end up dead. A human killed.

 

[Cybernoid]

Stop putting words in my mouth please. I said that we should try and ban guns. Not outlaw them totally. Hunter, of course, can keep their damn guns. Athletes can use non lethal guns if they want to do shooting practice. Etc etc.

Non-lethal guns? Even an airgun is lethal. And hunting guns are just as good at killing people, not to mention the fact that hunters may need a handgun for smaller beasts.

So you're saying that a citizen should become the judge, jury and executioner right there and then, even if its just some kid who robs you for your cash?

Yes. Because, when someone has invaded your home or is currently trying to rape you, there is no other judge, jury or executioner around. No cops, just you.

I tried to make it sound as if it was unlikely...which it is, you know. Very unlikely. Like, extremely unlikely. Bordering impossible.

If some hardcore special forces soldier was in a firefight againts some homie gang bangers, I'd wager that the soldier wins. And before you say it: yes, special forces soldiers exist outside of movies and games.

 

[NeLi]

Non-lethal guns? Even an airgun is lethal. And hunting guns are just as good at killing people, not to mention the fact that hunters may need a handgun for smaller beasts.

Yeh, but as you yourself said, concealing RIFLES is harder. And airguns would do much better than normal guns. Yes. Tell me, why the hell do you need a fully lethal gun in order to shoot a board?

Yes. Because, when someone has invaded your home or is currently trying to rape you, there is no other judge, jury or executioner around. No cops, just you.

I was talking about guns in the streets.
Although that is also a double edged sword. If you make guns in homes legal, and guns in the streets illegal, there is still no way to find out if a person walking down the street is carrying a firearm or not, so the law would be useless.

If some hardcore special forces soldier was in a firefight againts some homie gang bangers, I'd wager that the soldier wins. And before you say it: yes, special forces soldiers exist outside of movies and games.

Right. But we were talking about normal civilians here.

 

[Cybernoid]

Ever heard of a ****ing backpack? How hard would it be to carry a small rifle, or a rifle in parts or even submachineguns with you in a backpack?

Not hard, but neither is it very practical. You need to take out the parts and assemble the rifle before it can be used. Meanwhile, your opponent has shot you twenty times and gone home.

Yes, they'd think twice. They'd get smarter. If they knew you had a gun, without a doubt, they'd never approach you WITHOUT A GUN. So forget knife robbery, now every ****ing thug got a gun instead.

From what I've read of criminal psychology: criminals looking to gain something look for easy targets. If the target seems alert and knows what's going on, the criminal will look for someone else. If the criminal knows that the target knows what's going on and is carrying a weapon, he will most certainly find a better target. And so on.

And when they don't run? Yeah, someone end up dead. A human killed.

Would you rather die yourself? Or have your wife raped?

 

[Cybernoid]

Right. But we were talking about normal civilians here.

No we're not. We're talking about people in general. "Hardcore" people exist, on both sides of the law. Special forces super commandos walk in the streets just like Joe Average. The simple point was that some people really do know how to handle themselves.

 

[NeLi]

Not hard, but neither is it very practical. You need to take out the parts and assemble the rifle before it can be used. Meanwhile, your opponent has shot you twenty times and gone home.

Opponent? Not all people die standing up, facing a guy with a gun. I was talking about massacres, and down right murder.

From what I've read of criminal psychology: criminals looking to gain something look for easy targets. If the target seems alert and knows what's going on, the criminal will look for someone else. If the criminal knows that the target knows what's going on and is carrying a weapon, he will most certainly find a better target. And so on.

Not if everyone carried guns... You see, the thugs can't really know if anyone is carrying a gun or not, so they will still pick up people as before, but now, they're PREPARED, oh yes, now they have guns as well, just in case the guy they picked out to rob has a gun too.

Would you rather die yourself? Or have your wife raped?

Of course I'd rather risk my life than letting my wife go through that. But, then we're back at the subject of non lethal home weaponry discussed earlier in the thread.

 

[Cybernoid]

Opponent? Not all people die facing a guy with a gun. I was talking about massacres, and down right murder.

I don't see how crazy massacres are related to this.

Not if everyone carried guns... You see, the thugs can't really know if anyone is carrying a gun or not, so they will still pick up people as before

If guns are available to everyone, criminals will auomatically assume that their potential target has one, unless something indicates otherwise. Besides, it's possible to detect a gun. It can show up as a bulge under someone's jacket, for example.

But, then we're back at the subject of non lethal home weaponry discussed earlier in the thread.

Such weaponry doesn't really exist.

 

[NeLi]

I don't see how crazy massacres are related to this.

You don't see how submachineguns in backpacks are related to massacres? Go watch "Bowling for Columbine" mate.

If guns are available to everyone, criminals will auomatically assume that their potential target has one, unless something indicates otherwise. Besides, it's possible to detect a gun. It can show up as a bulge under someone's jacket, for example.

That's what I said. They will automatically assume their potential target has one, like you said, but now they wont rely on bats or knives, no, now they gotta have guns themselves. You see, they gotta upgrade too if their targets also upgrade.

Such weaponry doesn't really exist.

It does, but only to the police. They currently have guns that fire small beanbags. Basically, it's like being hit by a heavyweight boxing champion, but worse. I think companies can develop guns similiar to that for civilian use, but they know that they'd loose profit on it, so they don't.

 

[Cybernoid]

It does, but only to the police. They currently have guns that fire small beanbags. Basically, it's like being hit by a heavyweight boxing champion, but worse. I think companies can develop guns similiar to that for civilian use, but they know that they'd loose profit on it, so they don't.

Severe head trauma can kill or permanently disable an attacker (be it a bean bag, a bullet or a kick). So there goes "non-lethal." And like you said, it's only available to law enforcement, and even to them only after specific training.

You don't see how submachineguns in backpacks are related to massacres? Go watch "Bowling for Columbine" mate.

I can see how submachineguns in backpacks are related to massacres, I just don't see how massacres are related to this discussion, which is mostly concerned with self-defence.

That's what I said. They will automatically assume their potential target has one, like you said, but now they wont rely on bats or knives, no, now they gotta have guns themselves. You see, they gotta upgrade too if their targets also upgrade.

But does the robber want to risk death?

 

[Shadowlands5325]

damn fine point there actually.

*Pats babyheadcrab on the head*


Holy Smokes Farrow!!! You have a intelligent being on the forums besides me!

 

[NeLi]

Severe head trauma can kill or permanently disable an attacker (be it a bean bag, a bullet or a kick). So there goes "non-lethal." And like you said, it's only available to law enforcement, and even to them only after specific training.

Yes, but I still prefer the beanbags over regular ammunition. Guns in general should only be available after specific training, and only in peoples houses, with non lethal ammo.

I can see how submachineguns in backpacks are related to massacres, I just don't see how massacres are related to this discussion, which is mostly concerned with self-defence.

Nah, this discussion is about the argument "Guns suck". All kinds of guns.

Now, making more and more guns available to public, like semi automatic rifles (in the us), massacres, (like the columbine school massacre) could become more frequent. Street violence between gangs can escalate etc etc, basically, in conclusion; a lot of bad things can go wrong unless the gun issue is controlled properly.

But does the robber want to risk death?

If he's got the upperhand, I don't think he considers risking death. Like you said, they're stupid.

 

[Cybernoid]

Yes, but I still prefer the beanbags over regular ammunition. Guns in general should only be available after specific training, and only in peoples houses, with non lethal ammo.

That's going to be a problem after you leave your house.

Now, making more and more guns available to public, like semi automatic rifles (in the us), massacres, (like the columbine school massacre) could become more frequent.

So because guns are available, kids turn into killers? That makes no sense.

Street violence between gangs can escalate etc etc, basically, in conclusion; a lot of bad things can go wrong unless the gun issue is controlled properly.

Street gangs already have guns. It can't escalate just because they get more. Again, you are making no sense.

If he's got the upperhand, I don't think he considers risking death. Like you said, they're stupid.

He doesn't have the upper hand if the target is armed and dangerous. And I never said robbers are stupid, someone else did.

 

[NeLi]

That's going to be a problem after you leave your house.

So increase law enforcement. Don't let the average joe have to fend for his life with tools 'o death. Eh? And the non lethal gun works outside as well... why wouldn't it?

So because guns are available, kids turn into killers? That makes no sense.

It gives them the opportunity to kill. It can give them ideas. Inspirations. Just like swords did in feudal Japan.

Street gangs already have guns. It can't escalate just because they get more. Again, you are making no sense.

Street gangs (at least where I live) have like, 2-3 old shitty guns in a group of 5+ people. Now, if they could wear them legally, and get them through stores, I bet all of the members would carry the latest ****ing model, complete with huge ammounts of ammunition.

He doesn't have the upper hand if the target is armed and dangerous. And I never said robbers are stupid, someone else did.

The one who attacks always has the upper hand. Jesus, that's common sense. If a guy puts a gun to your side from behind and pushes you into the shadows, what exactly are you going to do, if you're the average civilian, and not a hardcore navy seal?



By the way, I'd love continuing this convo with you, but it's 3:30 in the MORNING, so I MUST get to bed. I can't seem to change any of your views anyway, so what's the point? We've been arguing for over an hour. That's enough.

 

[Cybernoid]

So increase law enforcement. Don't let the average joe have to fend for his life with tools 'o death. Eh?

It's not going to be increased. Even if it is, it would have to be EVERYWHERE to fully protect people. And I mean everywhere. In fact, every citizen would need an armed bodyguard from the police.

And the non lethal gun works outside as well... why wouldn't it?

They won't work outside if you can't carry them outside, obviously.

It gives them the opportunity to kill. It can give them ideas. Inspirations. Just like swords did in feudal Japan.

Now you're just being full of shit. You can kill with a million items that are 100% legal. Baseball bats, knives, rocks, scissors, powertools, anything. As for this inspiration bullshit, it's the same line used by people who are opposed to violent video games.

Street gangs (at least where I live) have like, 2-3 old shitty guns in a group of 5+ people. Now, if they could wear them legally, and get them through stores, I bet all of the members would carry the latest ****ing model, complete with huge ammounts of ammunition.

I hardly think gang bangers can get guns from stores. And if you didn't notice, guns and ammo cost a lot of money.

The one who attacks always has the upper hand. Jesus, that's common sense.

Only if the defender is caught completely unaware. If the defender senses trouble before anything happens, the upper hand is gone.

If a guy puts a gun to your side from behind and pushes you into the shadows, what exactly are you going to do, if you're the average civilian, and not a hardcore navy seal?

Average civilians can practise hand to hand combat, so that's not an issue.

 

[Cybernoid]

I can't seem to change any of your views anyway

It might help if you'd read about self-defence instead of making things up as you go.

 

[Vigilante]

all they do is end godamn lives and cause suffering, my best online buddy's best friend is now dead thanks to a ****ing berreta he had on hand when he was depressed. I cant tell you who the guy was because he was a talented member of the pc/gaming community who knew c++ / webdesign.. he was also an exmarine.. sad sad shit, he had more to live for then so many people I can think of.

I feel for you, but couldnt he have just as easily killed himself with a rope or knife?