|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 21 2012 03:04 EternaLLegacy wrote:
Most Europeans are on the pro gun control side because they're incapable of seeing how the State could fail them, even while European States are collapsing all around them. They are fiddling while Rome is burning.
Yes, because the riots in Greece would be WAY better if they all had guns /trollface.
The founding fathers' reason for the 2nd amendment is ridiculously outdated and does not merit discussion. Dragging 18th century arguments into this thread is not doing anyone any favours.
|
On February 21 2012 03:01 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:53 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 01:38 micronesia wrote:
Do you still feel we should only allow licensed hunters (and licensed farmers, I guess) to be allowed to own their own guns? In a country where guns are plentiful regardless of laws, shouldn't we try to find a way to enable people like my dad (and the majority of gun owners, to be honest) to continue to own their guns while fighting gun crimes at the same time? I'll reiterate my point which was probably drowned in that whole graph talk from a few pages back. My problem with what you're saying is that you're taking the example of your dad, who presumably is a great person - but does he represent the US population? Yes, your dad should be allowed to own guns, but it's not because it's a hobby - those things are designed to kill. But, how do we spot people like your dad and give them license to have lethal weapons? I mean, sure there are some shoddy safety nets, perhaps some background checks (lol), but ultimately you're handing out hunks of metal that kill, pretty much like candy. It works pretty well for most European countries, where pretty much everyone can have a gun, and a lot of people do, and still they don't shoot each other dead.
Yes but again, can we compare European countries to the US?
First they CAN have guns, but they don't. The US has twice as many guns per capita than the second most armed industrialized country (Switzerland) and 2.5x more guns than the third most armed industrialized country (Finland). Why do these countries have so few murders though? The conjuncture is different - for one they have significantly less guns (because it's not part of their identity), but also those countries are a LOT more egalitarian.
I mean, if we're to take all countries as equals, let's take South Africa, an industrialized country, but just about the least egalitarian one at this point in time. They have about 7x less guns than the US, but their murder rate is almost 6x higher. How's that not a perfect example for the HUGE lack of correlation between murder and guns? I mean, it's fairly convincing in a way. A lot less guns, a lot more homicide - but can you really compare the post Apartheid South Africa to the current "everything's fucking awesome and I love my Xbox" United-States?
Those who have had some economics class certainly know about "Ceteris paribus", which means "with other things the same". Can't compare different countries on one issue and pretend that it works - it doesn't. Those countries are too different. In this case, you can only compare the US to the US, and you don't have the data for "US with guns" and "US without guns" to compare
|
United States24676 Posts
On February 21 2012 02:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:38 micronesia wrote:
Do you still feel we should only allow licensed hunters (and licensed farmers, I guess) to be allowed to own their own guns? In a country where guns are plentiful regardless of laws, shouldn't we try to find a way to enable people like my dad (and the majority of gun owners, to be honest) to continue to own their guns while fighting gun crimes at the same time? I'll reiterate my point which was probably drowned in that whole graph talk from a few pages back. My problem with what you're saying is that you're taking the example of your dad, who presumably is a great person - but does he represent the US population? Yes, your dad should be allowed to own guns, but it's not because it's a hobby - those things are designed to kill. Guns aren't designed to kill. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet-shape projectile at a designated speed, and often with a designated rotation. Guns and knives are both tools that can be used to kill. I think it's important to point out that the majority of gun use is not to kill humans (I'm not going to take a stance on hunting animals). Guns take more training as a tool to be safe to use than many other tools, such as knives.
But, how do we spot people like your dad and give them license to have lethal weapons?
You should be very careful about how you describe this stuff.... 'lethal weapons' includes cars and knives. If you mean 'highly dangerous tools' then it isn't so easy to classify guns vs cars vs knives vs flamethrowers vs blowtorches anymore.
I mean, sure there are some shoddy safety nets, perhaps some background checks (lol), but ultimately you're handing out hunks of metal that kill, pretty much like candy. In my area it isn't handed out like candy. For example, if I want to legally acquire a pistol I have to jump through many hoops that almost make it not worth it (and not easy for someone inappropriate for gun ownership to acquire a pistol). Rifles aren't as restrictive, but also aren't as easy to conceal.
Like I said in a PM, my neighbor could easily pass any "crazy tests" and buy a handgun for $500 - but I wouldn't be happy. That guy kicks his cars repeatedly when they don't start during the winter, and all around he's a very impulsive guy (who owns a kindegarten of all fucking things). Odds are, he'd never do anything stupid - but I hope he doesn't have a gun.
So, two problems:
1- You don't have any decent ways to weed out the crazy people and morons. In the end, you're allow the sale of guns to people who ultimately will kill others, themselves, or allow for accidents to happen. Some people will bring up the whole "cars kill a lot more people" argument. But really, not only are cars pretty useful (imo, significantly more so than guns), people shouldn't start doing more and more dangerous stuff just because life isn't 100% safe. Salmonella kills less people than cars but I'm still not going to eat raw chicken.
Solution: Only Micronesia's father gets to have a gun. I don't feel that gun control has been fully explored to the point where we have to conclude: only thing that works is to make guns illegal for everyone except for law enforcement etc. More work should be done to allow appropriate gun ownership in the USA while eliminating legal inappropriate gun ownership, and more work should be done to reduce illegal gun ownership. The controversial nature of this topic, within the usa, has actually slowed the progress of appropriate gun laws.... similar to the problems with social security where there is too much politics to actually try to solve a problem in the best way available.
2- Gun control is impossible because there are so many illegal firearms that have made // still make their way into the US, people can buy guns anywhere. Hell, even a bunch of weapons that are sold legally are pretty much as untraceable as illegal guns imported from whatever countries import guns to the US
Solution: Frankly you're fucked. It's a whole market that's way overblown in the US, and it's a vicious circle. There are so many guns it causes some paranoia, I need one too, more guns are sold - many of them to crazy people. In my area this isn't true... legally purchased guns are very well tracked/documented (specifically thinking about pistols). Yes, the amount of illegal guns is a serious problem.
Easy access to guns for almost everyone is a bad thing. Should we introduce some gun control laws? What good would that do? Prohibition produces more Al Capones. There are ways to make moderate laws, after careful research and implementation, that actually make progress. It's not easy, though.
Should we praise the freedom to own lethal weapons? No, frankly that's childish. Some people own guns for recreational purposes, and that's fine - I understand that - I wish they were all smart and careful. Some people own guns for self-defense, and I don't blame them as long as they're smart and careful - but it's an unfortunate symptom of a country with an extremely high murder rate for an industrialized democracy.
Yea it's not a simple issue.
|
On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted)
How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ?
|
On February 21 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:
Guns aren't designed to kill. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet-shape projectile at a designated speed, and often with a designated rotation. Guns and knives are both tools that can be used to kill. I think it's important to point out that the majority of gun use is not to kill humans (I'm not going to take a stance on hunting animals). Guns take more training as a tool to be safe to use than many other tools, such as knives.
Meh, no I don't accept that. Guns are designed to kill, that's their primary function - it's what the engineer had in mind when he drew up the thing. Fine, knives are not designed to kill and they can have that function, but that's different. Guns are more comparable to cars. If the gun's function is to shoot a bullet, the car's function is to make explosions that make wheels turn... But the projectile is launched at a person, and the wheels turn to go places.
You should be very careful about how you describe this stuff.... 'lethal weapons' includes cars and knives. If you mean 'highly dangerous tools' then it isn't so easy to classify guns vs cars vs knives vs flamethrowers vs blowtorches anymore.
Sure but now we're screwing around with semantics  . I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people".
As for the rest of your post, can't disagree.
|
On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source
It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that.
If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them.
On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ?
Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well.
"The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so."
|
On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them.
Guns don't give birth to millions like alcohol does x_X
|
United States24676 Posts
On February 21 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:
Guns aren't designed to kill. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet-shape projectile at a designated speed, and often with a designated rotation. Guns and knives are both tools that can be used to kill. I think it's important to point out that the majority of gun use is not to kill humans (I'm not going to take a stance on hunting animals). Guns take more training as a tool to be safe to use than many other tools, such as knives. Meh, no I don't accept that. Guns are designed to kill, that's their primary function - it's what the engineer had in mind when he drew up the thing. Fine, knives are not designed to kill and they can have that function, but that's different. Guns are more comparable to cars. If the gun's function is to shoot a bullet, the car's function is to make explosions that make wheels turn... But the projectile is launched at a person, and the wheels turn to go places.
I don't understand how you are deciding what tools are 'designed to kill people' and what tools are 'designed to do something else, but they can kill people'. You can talk about the original purpose of a gun. Guns were originally designed many hundreds of years ago and were different than they are now. There are many sports/activities that take tools that were originally designed for military purposes, and use them in a safe manner. Archery came from using a bow and arrow as a weapon... they are just as 'designed' to kill people as guns I guess, but they aren't being discussed. Marksmanship/hunting both come from using guns in early military conflicts.
Let's suppose, on average, 1 person was killed by a gun on earth every year (murder or accidental shooting). The other billion cases of gun use were all either properly conducted hunting, or properly conducted target shooting. You'd have a hard time making the case that guns are designed to kill people. Sure, they were originally designed to kill people, but that's irrelevant now. What features do most modern guns have that are maintained to increase killing potential rather than to increase non-murder-inspired functionality/features? Do you think that the companies that make guns are thinking primarily about how to increase killing potential? That's not true. Stopping power for law enforcement situations, perhaps... but that's different than trying to kill. Most guns are primarily designed to be safe and easy to use and clean.
Show nested quote +You should be very careful about how you describe this stuff.... 'lethal weapons' includes cars and knives. If you mean 'highly dangerous tools' then it isn't so easy to classify guns vs cars vs knives vs flamethrowers vs blowtorches anymore. Sure but now we're screwing around with semantics . I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people".
I can argue with it. In fact, that's exactly what we have been discussing. Thus, this isn't just 'screwing around with semantics.' Attempting to further your argument fallaciously by mislabeling something is a problem.
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people.
|
On February 21 2012 03:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. Guns don't give birth to millions like alcohol does x_X
LOL.
You are kidding right? Because if not we have to get into the whole deal about unplanned pregnancies, and how those kids often live really shitty lives, and it just perpetuates the cycle of poverty, and these births are just as much of a problem as the deaths.
|
On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ?
You face the intruder, while they escape, and when they are safe, you run as forest.
|
On February 21 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:53 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 01:38 micronesia wrote:
Do you still feel we should only allow licensed hunters (and licensed farmers, I guess) to be allowed to own their own guns? In a country where guns are plentiful regardless of laws, shouldn't we try to find a way to enable people like my dad (and the majority of gun owners, to be honest) to continue to own their guns while fighting gun crimes at the same time? I'll reiterate my point which was probably drowned in that whole graph talk from a few pages back. My problem with what you're saying is that you're taking the example of your dad, who presumably is a great person - but does he represent the US population? Yes, your dad should be allowed to own guns, but it's not because it's a hobby - those things are designed to kill. Guns aren't designed to kill. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet-shape projectile at a designated speed, and often with a designated rotation. Guns and knives are both tools that can be used to kill. I think it's important to point out that the majority of gun use is not to kill humans (I'm not going to take a stance on hunting animals). Guns take more training as a tool to be safe to use than many other tools, such as knives.
The only guns that you could argue are not made to kill people are hunting rifles and shotguns. Everything else has as main (if not only) function to kill people. Knives, there's a large range, but you cannot tell me that kitanas or stilettos are made for any purpose other than cutting, or stabbing respectively, people. There are people who collect kitanas because they're pretty, just as there are people who collect guns, but their main purpose is to kill "the enemy", whether that is by propelling a bullet out of a barrel, or slicing.
|
On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:
Guns aren't designed to kill. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet-shape projectile at a designated speed, and often with a designated rotation. Guns and knives are both tools that can be used to kill. I think it's important to point out that the majority of gun use is not to kill humans (I'm not going to take a stance on hunting animals). Guns take more training as a tool to be safe to use than many other tools, such as knives. Meh, no I don't accept that. Guns are designed to kill, that's their primary function - it's what the engineer had in mind when he drew up the thing. Fine, knives are not designed to kill and they can have that function, but that's different. Guns are more comparable to cars. If the gun's function is to shoot a bullet, the car's function is to make explosions that make wheels turn... But the projectile is launched at a person, and the wheels turn to go places. I don't understand how you are deciding what tools are 'designed to kill people' and what tools are 'designed to do something else, but they can kill people'. You can talk about the original purpose of a gun. Guns were originally designed many hundreds of years ago and were different than they are now. There are many sports/activities that take tools that were originally designed for military purposes, and use them in a safe manner. Archery came from using a bow and arrow as a weapon... they are just as 'designed' to kill people as guns I guess, but they aren't being discussed. Marksmanship/hunting both come from using guns in early military conflicts. Let's suppose, on average, 1 person was killed by a gun on earth every year (murder or accidental shooting). The other billion cases of gun use were all either properly conducted hunting, or properly conducted target shooting. You'd have a hard time making the case that guns are designed to kill people. Sure, they were originally designed to kill people, but that's irrelevant now. What features do most modern guns have that are maintained to increase killing potential rather than to increase non-murder-inspired functionality/features? Do you think that the companies that make guns are thinking primarily about how to increase killing potential? That's not true. Stopping power for law enforcement situations, perhaps... but that's different than trying to kill. Most guns are primarily designed to be safe and easy to use and clean. Show nested quote +You should be very careful about how you describe this stuff.... 'lethal weapons' includes cars and knives. If you mean 'highly dangerous tools' then it isn't so easy to classify guns vs cars vs knives vs flamethrowers vs blowtorches anymore. Sure but now we're screwing around with semantics . I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people". I can argue with it. In fact, that's exactly what we have been discussing. Thus, this isn't just 'screwing around with semantics.' Attempting to further your argument fallaciously by mislabeling something is a problem. I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people.
Or to disable them.
|
On February 21 2012 04:00 nicotn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:On February 21 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:
Guns aren't designed to kill. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet-shape projectile at a designated speed, and often with a designated rotation. Guns and knives are both tools that can be used to kill. I think it's important to point out that the majority of gun use is not to kill humans (I'm not going to take a stance on hunting animals). Guns take more training as a tool to be safe to use than many other tools, such as knives. Meh, no I don't accept that. Guns are designed to kill, that's their primary function - it's what the engineer had in mind when he drew up the thing. Fine, knives are not designed to kill and they can have that function, but that's different. Guns are more comparable to cars. If the gun's function is to shoot a bullet, the car's function is to make explosions that make wheels turn... But the projectile is launched at a person, and the wheels turn to go places. I don't understand how you are deciding what tools are 'designed to kill people' and what tools are 'designed to do something else, but they can kill people'. You can talk about the original purpose of a gun. Guns were originally designed many hundreds of years ago and were different than they are now. There are many sports/activities that take tools that were originally designed for military purposes, and use them in a safe manner. Archery came from using a bow and arrow as a weapon... they are just as 'designed' to kill people as guns I guess, but they aren't being discussed. Marksmanship/hunting both come from using guns in early military conflicts. Let's suppose, on average, 1 person was killed by a gun on earth every year (murder or accidental shooting). The other billion cases of gun use were all either properly conducted hunting, or properly conducted target shooting. You'd have a hard time making the case that guns are designed to kill people. Sure, they were originally designed to kill people, but that's irrelevant now. What features do most modern guns have that are maintained to increase killing potential rather than to increase non-murder-inspired functionality/features? Do you think that the companies that make guns are thinking primarily about how to increase killing potential? That's not true. Stopping power for law enforcement situations, perhaps... but that's different than trying to kill. Most guns are primarily designed to be safe and easy to use and clean. You should be very careful about how you describe this stuff.... 'lethal weapons' includes cars and knives. If you mean 'highly dangerous tools' then it isn't so easy to classify guns vs cars vs knives vs flamethrowers vs blowtorches anymore. Sure but now we're screwing around with semantics . I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people". I can argue with it. In fact, that's exactly what we have been discussing. Thus, this isn't just 'screwing around with semantics.' Attempting to further your argument fallaciously by mislabeling something is a problem. I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Or to disable them.
Or shoot targets at the range.
|
On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people.
Going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're so inclined. But I wouldn't say I did anything fallacious.
I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing. It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason.
Edit: Acrofales brings up a good point, IMO.
On February 21 2012 03:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:53 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. Guns don't give birth to millions like alcohol does x_X LOL. You are kidding right? Because if not we have to get into the whole deal about unplanned pregnancies, and how those kids often live really shitty lives, and it just perpetuates the cycle of poverty, and these births are just as much of a problem as the deaths.
I was kind of, mostly kidding? 
I'm pro-choice btw don't blame me! Note that plenty of unplanned pregnancies end up well :D
|
On February 21 2012 04:02 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:00 nicotn wrote:On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:On February 21 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:
Guns aren't designed to kill. Guns are designed to shoot a bullet-shape projectile at a designated speed, and often with a designated rotation. Guns and knives are both tools that can be used to kill. I think it's important to point out that the majority of gun use is not to kill humans (I'm not going to take a stance on hunting animals). Guns take more training as a tool to be safe to use than many other tools, such as knives. Meh, no I don't accept that. Guns are designed to kill, that's their primary function - it's what the engineer had in mind when he drew up the thing. Fine, knives are not designed to kill and they can have that function, but that's different. Guns are more comparable to cars. If the gun's function is to shoot a bullet, the car's function is to make explosions that make wheels turn... But the projectile is launched at a person, and the wheels turn to go places. I don't understand how you are deciding what tools are 'designed to kill people' and what tools are 'designed to do something else, but they can kill people'. You can talk about the original purpose of a gun. Guns were originally designed many hundreds of years ago and were different than they are now. There are many sports/activities that take tools that were originally designed for military purposes, and use them in a safe manner. Archery came from using a bow and arrow as a weapon... they are just as 'designed' to kill people as guns I guess, but they aren't being discussed. Marksmanship/hunting both come from using guns in early military conflicts. Let's suppose, on average, 1 person was killed by a gun on earth every year (murder or accidental shooting). The other billion cases of gun use were all either properly conducted hunting, or properly conducted target shooting. You'd have a hard time making the case that guns are designed to kill people. Sure, they were originally designed to kill people, but that's irrelevant now. What features do most modern guns have that are maintained to increase killing potential rather than to increase non-murder-inspired functionality/features? Do you think that the companies that make guns are thinking primarily about how to increase killing potential? That's not true. Stopping power for law enforcement situations, perhaps... but that's different than trying to kill. Most guns are primarily designed to be safe and easy to use and clean. You should be very careful about how you describe this stuff.... 'lethal weapons' includes cars and knives. If you mean 'highly dangerous tools' then it isn't so easy to classify guns vs cars vs knives vs flamethrowers vs blowtorches anymore. Sure but now we're screwing around with semantics . I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people". I can argue with it. In fact, that's exactly what we have been discussing. Thus, this isn't just 'screwing around with semantics.' Attempting to further your argument fallaciously by mislabeling something is a problem. I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Or to disable them. Or shoot targets at the range.
Or opening that can that has been unopened for 10 years.
|
Is anyone else scared about their loved ones being attacked by a serial killer/ stalker or rapist? I always wish that the UK would at least allow tasers/ pepper spray, maybe only for women but still...it would be better than nothing. 3 women were killed within a 15 mile radius from me by a man with a hammer about 5 years ago. Makes me kind of freaked out.
|
United States24676 Posts
On February 21 2012 04:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're so inclined. But I wouldn't say I did anything fallacious. I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing. It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason. Edit: Acrofales brings up a good point, IMO.
You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is. You've decided for guns it's to kill people and for cars it's to turn the wheels, but how do you, for each tool, determine this?
"I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing"
Why do you keep essentially saying "I think it's reasonable that <my position in this discussion>"?
"It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason."
So are you saying that the way in which the guns are used determines what they are designed to do? Aren't these two different things? Also, do you have statistics on how much guns are used for various purposes in the USA?
|
You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is
Because a gun is defined as a weapon first and foremost.
|
United States24676 Posts
On February 21 2012 04:12 Gentso wrote:Show nested quote +You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is Because a gun is defined as a weapon first and foremost.
By who? If we are going to classify things we should at least by clear about how and why we are classifying them.
Evidence is needed. What are other examples of tools that are weapons first and foremost? What are examples of tools that are often used as weapons, but are not weapons first and foremost? Why the distinction?
|
On February 21 2012 04:09 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:02 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're so inclined. But I wouldn't say I did anything fallacious. I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing. It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason. Edit: Acrofales brings up a good point, IMO. You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is. You've decided for guns it's to kill people and for cars it's to turn the wheels, but how do you, for each tool, determine this? "I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing" Why do you keep essentially saying "I think it's reasonable that <my position in this discussion>"? "It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason." So are you saying that the way in which the guns are used determines what they are designed to do? Aren't these two different things? Also, do you have statistics on how much guns are used for various purposes in the USA?
No, I don't have an objective way to decide what's an object's function nor do I have statistics. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an answer. All I have is my subjective reasoning - I look at this thread, plenty of people are talking about self defense, shooting at other people. Then I look at the army, people who are trained to kill with their firearms. Same thing with the police. Then I look at target practice - the target is oftentimes shaped like a person's upper body.
Do I have solid evidence - no absolutely not. But to ME, these things add up. Guns are for killing people and other stuff. Is the primary function of a gun killing people? Well I, Carl M.C, certainly think so. Disagree? Hit me with your stats and change my opinion, but until then don't tell me my opinion is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
