Guns don't kill people .... - Page 3

monster · 01-21-2011, 09:21 PM

Comparisons with "when I was a a kid" are invalid for so many reasons. It's a different world, of course attitudes are different.

Way back when in the dark ages, no-one washed their hands after defecating/wiping whatever. Now we know germs and hygiene. Knowledge changes.

Way back when we were kids, seatbelts were new-fangled and our parents moaned about how they never needed them and few kids died from being thrown from the back seat. How many cars were on the roads then? How fast did they go? Situations change

Way back when kids went hunting before school, guns weren't kept loaded because the fear of intruders wasn't so high, guns weren't so taboo (and we alll know what happens when you ban kids from things).... and kids didn't mess with papa's gun unless they fancied a good hiding.... Attitudes change.

It's such a diffeent world it isn't really appropriate to make comparisons. imo.

Uday · 02-13-2011, 01:51 PM

Is true. Guns are not killing people. Bullets are killing people.

Big Sarge · 02-13-2011, 08:39 PM

If we start saying guns are killing people, we will say cars are killing them too?

Uday · 02-13-2011, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

If we start saying guns are killing people, we will say cars are killing them too?

Yes.

But people are need cars, yes? Also need guns. If only government has guns, people are helpless. Trust Uday for this.

TheMercenary · 02-15-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

If we start saying guns are killing people, we will say cars are killing them too?

Yes. Lots more than guns.

Pete Zicato · 02-16-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yes. Lots more than guns.

Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?

A potential gun owner should be able to prove that
1) He/She can handle a gun.
2) He/She isn't manifestly crazy.

Spexxvet · 02-16-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?

A potential gun owner should be able to prove that
1) He/She can handle a gun.
2) He/She isn't manifestly crazy.

Uday · 02-16-2011, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?

A potential gun owner should be able to prove that
1) He/She can handle a gun.
2) He/She isn't manifestly crazy.

Who will write tests? Who will grade tests?

toranokaze · 02-15-2011, 02:59 PM

2* 9/11 every year from car accidents. Driving is dangerous very dangerous, but we accept the risk as necessary.

Guns are weapons. A tool for killing. To use a weapon; to own a weapon is dangerous. To not own a weapon is also dangerous.

We must weigh the risk of use and positions of such things to address the overall benefits of such actions.

And cooking is damn dangerous too. (I have been hurt more from cooking and walking than guns knifes and cars.)

Spexxvet · 02-15-2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toranokaze

And cooking is damn dangerous too. (I have been hurt more from cooking and walking than guns knifes and cars.)

But not killed yet, right?

toranokaze · 02-15-2011, 03:29 PM

Not yet

richlevy · 12-15-2012, 10:09 AM

I guess one question is 'What is the gun designed for?'. Someone with a bolt action rifle is not going to be able to quickly kill two dozen people. What is really needed for hunting, target shooting, home defense? Who uses a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

One problem is the lethality of weapons. If someone wanted to build and own a low yield nuclear device, then told their neighbors that it was perfectly safe and protected by the second amendment, the response would be obvious. Because the lethality of the device directly impacted those neighbors, including the threat of it's misuse. By the same token, a concealed knife or openly worn sword is also lethal, but limited in their ability to inflict mass damage. A semi-automatic firearm, however, is capable of inflicting great harm, even assuming the assailant could be overpowered.

A lot of arguments about the Constitution revolve around the intent of the founding fathers. The personal weapon technology of the time was the flintlock rifle and pistol. Imagine any of the recent mass shootings being committed by someone armed with a flintlock.

Our founding fathers did not have to consider 20th century weapon technology when they considered the 2nd amendment, other than to imply the intent being a well regulated militia. This presumes weapons training and weeding out of unsuitable candidates. Show them a clip of the fire rate of a semiautomatic pistol and those requirements would have been a lot tighter and more explicit.

Switzerland allows honorably discharged veterans to retain carry permits for weapons. You don't see many mass murders in Switzerland. Of course American culture is considered to be too violent by most industrialized nations.

Big Sarge · 02-16-2011, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?

There is no requirement to have a driver's license to purchase a car. There is no background check required to purchase a car like there is a gun. An individual with felony DUI convictions can still buy a car, but he can't buy a gun. Strange when you consider he is far more likely to hurt/kill someone with a car rather than a gun.

Pete Zicato · 02-16-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

There is no requirement to have a driver's license to purchase a car.

No. Just to use one. It'd be easier to administrate if we check the buyers, don't you think?

Please we're trying to reason by analogy. That's always slippery. No two things are ever equal.

Big Sarge · 02-16-2011, 04:42 PM

Actually you do not have to have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. A license is only needed if you drive on public streets/property. You can drive on your ranch/farm without a license. You can also drink and drive without restriction on private property.

What it all boils down to are people trying to restrict a fundemental right (to bear arms) and allowing something far more dangerous (motor vehicles) to be used with little restriction versus the potential for serious death/maiming.

01-21-2011, 09:21 PM	#1
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	Comparisons with "when I was a a kid" are invalid for so many reasons. It's a different world, of course attitudes are different. Way back when in the dark ages, no-one washed their hands after defecating/wiping whatever. Now we know germs and hygiene. Knowledge changes. Way back when we were kids, seatbelts were new-fangled and our parents moaned about how they never needed them and few kids died from being thrown from the back seat. How many cars were on the roads then? How fast did they go? Situations change Way back when kids went hunting before school, guns weren't kept loaded because the fear of intruders wasn't so high, guns weren't so taboo (and we alll know what happens when you ban kids from things).... and kids didn't mess with papa's gun unless they fancied a good hiding.... Attitudes change. It's such a diffeent world it isn't really appropriate to make comparisons. imo. __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

02-13-2011, 08:39 PM	#3
Big Sarge Werepandas - lurking in your shadows Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: In the Deep South Posts: 3,408	If we start saying guns are killing people, we will say cars are killing them too? __________________ Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

02-15-2011, 02:59 PM	#9
toranokaze I'm still a jerk Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Little Mexico Posts: 1,817	2* 9/11 every year from car accidents. Driving is dangerous very dangerous, but we accept the risk as necessary. Guns are weapons. A tool for killing. To use a weapon; to own a weapon is dangerous. To not own a weapon is also dangerous. We must weigh the risk of use and positions of such things to address the overall benefits of such actions. And cooking is damn dangerous too. (I have been hurt more from cooking and walking than guns knifes and cars.) __________________ "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible." - Frank Zappa It is the ignorance of ignorance that lead to the death of knowledge The Virgin Mary does not weep for her son, for he is in paradise. She weeps for the world , for we are in suffering.

02-15-2011, 03:29 PM	#11
toranokaze I'm still a jerk Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Little Mexico Posts: 1,817	Not yet __________________ "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible." - Frank Zappa It is the ignorance of ignorance that lead to the death of knowledge The Virgin Mary does not weep for her son, for he is in paradise. She weeps for the world , for we are in suffering.

12-15-2012, 10:09 AM	#12
richlevy King Of Wishful Thinking Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Philadelphia Suburbs Posts: 6,669	I guess one question is 'What is the gun designed for?'. Someone with a bolt action rifle is not going to be able to quickly kill two dozen people. What is really needed for hunting, target shooting, home defense? Who uses a 30 round clip to hunt deer? One problem is the lethality of weapons. If someone wanted to build and own a low yield nuclear device, then told their neighbors that it was perfectly safe and protected by the second amendment, the response would be obvious. Because the lethality of the device directly impacted those neighbors, including the threat of it's misuse. By the same token, a concealed knife or openly worn sword is also lethal, but limited in their ability to inflict mass damage. A semi-automatic firearm, however, is capable of inflicting great harm, even assuming the assailant could be overpowered. A lot of arguments about the Constitution revolve around the intent of the founding fathers. The personal weapon technology of the time was the flintlock rifle and pistol. Imagine any of the recent mass shootings being committed by someone armed with a flintlock. Our founding fathers did not have to consider 20th century weapon technology when they considered the 2nd amendment, other than to imply the intent being a well regulated militia. This presumes weapons training and weeding out of unsuitable candidates. Show them a clip of the fire rate of a semiautomatic pistol and those requirements would have been a lot tighter and more explicit. Switzerland allows honorably discharged veterans to retain carry permits for weapons. You don't see many mass murders in Switzerland. Of course American culture is considered to be too violent by most industrialized nations. __________________ Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE! I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama

02-13-2011, 01:51 PM	#2
Uday Poker Playing Fool Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 128	Is true. Guns are not killing people. Bullets are killing people.

02-16-2011, 04:42 PM	#15
Big Sarge Werepandas - lurking in your shadows Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: In the Deep South Posts: 3,408	Actually you do not have to have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. A license is only needed if you drive on public streets/property. You can drive on your ranch/farm without a license. You can also drink and drive without restriction on private property. What it all boils down to are people trying to restrict a fundemental right (to bear arms) and allowing something far more dangerous (motor vehicles) to be used with little restriction versus the potential for serious death/maiming. __________________ Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)