|
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 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing?
Next time someone kills 30 people in a school with a bow I'll make a thread about should people being allowed to own and carry a bow.
Problem with a gun is that 1 person can kill so many people so quickly.
If you kill 1 person with a bow or a sword, the rest of the class already fled.
|
On February 01 2013 03:54 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:50 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:47 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:45 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Which, in the end, is practicing to become a better killer with it. so you're saying Olympic archers are practicing to become killers? (albeit with an archaic weapon) Well they are  It's not their personal goal, but that is what they are doing yes. The core purpose of a bow and a gun are shooting. And shooting has no other purpose than killing besides practicing and sports. That people are using them for sports and practicing, doesn't change what they are made for. no the design of olympic bows and arrows is not based on lethality, its based on accuracy. so their purpose is to hit a target accurately at a certain distance, not to harm the target. the fact that the target may be harmed is an unfortunate by product - much like with cars (which i recall you dont support a ban on). and again, if people are not getting harmed by them then whats the problem? why should a large population be deprived of liberty due to a the misdeeds of a few?
because of the disproportional amount of casualties and their deprived liberty
|
On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing?
I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever.
Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead.
|
On February 01 2013 03:54 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? Next time someone kills 30 people in a school with a bow I'll make a thread about should people being allowed to own and carry a bow. Problem with a gun is that 1 person can kill so many people so quickly. If you kill 1 person with a bow or a sword, the rest of the class already fled.
chinese man killing 20 kids with a knife has already happened. pretty sure would have been more if it had been a sword.
|
On February 01 2013 03:57 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:54 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? Next time someone kills 30 people in a school with a bow I'll make a thread about should people being allowed to own and carry a bow. Problem with a gun is that 1 person can kill so many people so quickly. If you kill 1 person with a bow or a sword, the rest of the class already fled. chinese man killing 20 kids with a knife has already happened. pretty sure would have been more if it had been a sword.
Actually, the latest knife attack ended with only wounded, no dead, as far as I can recall
|
On February 01 2013 03:57 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:54 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? Next time someone kills 30 people in a school with a bow I'll make a thread about should people being allowed to own and carry a bow. Problem with a gun is that 1 person can kill so many people so quickly. If you kill 1 person with a bow or a sword, the rest of the class already fled. chinese man killing 20 kids with a knife has already happened. pretty sure would have been more if it had been a sword.
22 kids and a teacher got attacked, 23 wounded, no deaths.
Thanks for proving my point
|
On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead.
its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time?
|
On February 01 2013 04:02 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:57 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:54 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? Next time someone kills 30 people in a school with a bow I'll make a thread about should people being allowed to own and carry a bow. Problem with a gun is that 1 person can kill so many people so quickly. If you kill 1 person with a bow or a sword, the rest of the class already fled. chinese man killing 20 kids with a knife has already happened. pretty sure would have been more if it had been a sword. 22 kids and a teacher got attacked, 23 wounded, no deaths. Thanks for proving my point
how is that proving your point. had that guy had a sword they would be dead. should we ban swords? (keeping in mind that the majority of sword owners dont use them to kill)
|
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it.
|
On February 01 2013 04:08 Zandar wrote:
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it.
it will be once you ban guns. people will still want to kill each other, theyll just be more creative about it.
|
On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time?
Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be.
The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society.
On February 01 2013 04:09 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:08 Zandar wrote:
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it. it will be once you ban guns. people will still want to kill each other, theyll just be more creative about it.
And he will very likely be MUCH less effective at killing if compared to the same person having a gun. I, with no training and being a skinny asshole could pick up a handgun and kill a bunch of people. A sword? I bet I'd slash myself before killing anyone LOL.
|
On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society.
see i would think it would be much more useful and effective to try to find the root of what is causing people to go on killing sprees, address that and prevent them that way, rather than continuously banning things.
|
On February 01 2013 04:04 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:02 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:57 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:54 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? Next time someone kills 30 people in a school with a bow I'll make a thread about should people being allowed to own and carry a bow. Problem with a gun is that 1 person can kill so many people so quickly. If you kill 1 person with a bow or a sword, the rest of the class already fled. chinese man killing 20 kids with a knife has already happened. pretty sure would have been more if it had been a sword. 22 kids and a teacher got attacked, 23 wounded, no deaths. Thanks for proving my point how is that proving your point. had that guy had a sword they would be dead. should we ban swords? (keeping in mind that the majority of sword owners dont use them to kill)
Because it's illegal to walk around with a sword in the US... Heck, in CA any blade longer than an few inches is not allowed.
The laws are not very enforced because we don't have sword killing sprees. But the laws are there.
|
On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:09 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:08 Zandar wrote:
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it. it will be once you ban guns. people will still want to kill each other, theyll just be more creative about it. And he will very likely be MUCH less effective at killing if compared to the same person having a gun. I, with no training and being a skinny asshole could pick up a handgun and kill a bunch of people. A sword? I bet I'd slash myself before killing anyone LOL.
ill take that bet. im pretty sure you'll manage to kill quite a few people.
|
On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:09 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:08 Zandar wrote:
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it. it will be once you ban guns. people will still want to kill each other, theyll just be more creative about it. And he will very likely be MUCH less effective at killing if compared to the same person having a gun. I, with no training and being a skinny asshole could pick up a handgun and kill a bunch of people. A sword? I bet I'd slash myself before killing anyone LOL.
Wait, if guns are so easy to use to kill, why do people need to practice with them? Do you have any idea what happens the first time most people pick up a gun? They're lucky to hit paper with no training. I've seen people drop a gun in surprise at the recoil. I saw a SOLDIER break his nose the first time he used a shotgun.
They're so loud they require hearing protection to shoot, the noise can startle people into dropping them if the recoil doesn't.
Different guns work different ways, if you try to use an M2 machine gun without training, odds are you won't even figure out how to put it on full auto.
The first time you pick up an M249 or M240B, you might get completely lost trying to get the belt to seat.
If you try to mag feed an M249 without modding your mags, you're going to misfeed and chop bullets.
Holding a pistol the wrong way can put you in the hospital missing chunks of your hand.
Sure, takes zero fucking training. Ok.
|
On February 01 2013 04:15 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. see i would think it would be much more useful and effective to try to find the root of what is causing people to go on killing sprees, address that and prevent them that way, rather than continuously banning things.
But that root exists everywhere in the world. Do you think you have more problem kids than other countries?
Mentally disturbed kids exist everywhere, kids who'd love to go on a killing spree if they could.
Luckily in most countries they cannot get a gun or that school shooting list would be much larger.
|
On February 01 2013 04:15 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. see i would think it would be much more useful and effective to try to find the root of what is causing people to go on killing sprees, address that and prevent them that way, rather than continuously banning things.
You'd have to restrict, or modify the following (at least):
-TV shows
-Movies
-Video games
-Advertisement campaigns
-History lessons
-Military
-Books
-Magazines
-School teachings
Amongst probably many more, these are just a few of the things that teach us that guns are made for killing people. They do not cause people to be violent, certaily not, but a violent or psychiatrically affected person (which is very likely to go unnoticed), learns from these amongst other things and media, that guns are made for killing.
I will note and repeat, these are not the causes of shootings, but you're saying guns have other uses. What I'm saying is that through their life, people learn that guns are made for killing, most of them don't do anything with that knowledge, but some of them will, those who are violent or psychiatrically ill.
If all the killing we're shown in our life was made by swordarm, and swords were widely available, you can bet your ass there would be a lot of mass sword butcherings.
Since you cannot prevent the presence of mentally ill people or violent people, you have to restrict their access to murdering tools, AKA firearms in this case.
|
On February 01 2013 04:18 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:15 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:
[quote]
do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. see i would think it would be much more useful and effective to try to find the root of what is causing people to go on killing sprees, address that and prevent them that way, rather than continuously banning things. But that root exists everywhere in the world. Do you think you have more problem kids than other countries? Mentally disturbed kids exist everywhere, kids who'd love to go on a killing spree if they could. Luckily in most countries they cannot get a gun or that school shooting list would be much larger.
so they just sit at home, content with not killing anyone at all? if i wanted to kill people id still do it, even if i had to resort to a less effective method. (or you could make a home made bomb with is more effective)
|
On February 01 2013 04:17 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 03:33 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:32 Zandar wrote:
Another reason is, video games are not weapons.
Yeah the occasional asian kid dies from playing wow for 3 days without sleeping and eating.
But you can't go to a school and kill 30 kids with a videogame. do you support banning alcohol because drunk drivers kill people? Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol. So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people? I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now. The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people. A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. On February 01 2013 04:09 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:08 Zandar wrote:
If swords would be used so often to kill large numbers of kids, yes, we should ban swords. But that's not the case is it. it will be once you ban guns. people will still want to kill each other, theyll just be more creative about it. And he will very likely be MUCH less effective at killing if compared to the same person having a gun. I, with no training and being a skinny asshole could pick up a handgun and kill a bunch of people. A sword? I bet I'd slash myself before killing anyone LOL. Wait, if guns are so easy to use to kill, why do people need to practice with them? Do you have any idea what happens the first time most people pick up a gun? They're lucky to hit paper with no training. I've seen people drop a gun in surprise at the recoil. I saw a SOLDIER break his nose the first time he used a shotgun. They're so loud they require hearing protection to shoot, the noise can startle people into dropping them if the recoil doesn't. Different guns work different ways, if you try to use an M2 machine gun without training, odds are you won't even figure out how to put it on full auto. The first time you pick up an M249 or M240B, you might get completely lost trying to get the belt to seat. If you try to mag feed an M249 without modding your mags, you're going to misfeed and chop bullets. Holding a pistol the wrong way can put you in the hospital missing chunks of your hand. Sure, takes zero fucking training. Ok.
A week or 2 ago some people in this very thread said that an elderly woman could easily use a gun without any training effectively.
Or did they just say that because their main point was that this is the only way an elderly woman could protect herself?
|
On February 01 2013 04:22 Pyrrhus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:18 Zandar wrote:On February 01 2013 04:15 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 04:10 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 04:03 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:56 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:50 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:48 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 03:42 Pyrrhus wrote:On February 01 2013 03:41 Zandar wrote:
[quote]
Well the car is the weapon there, not the alcohol.
So if you use that metaphore the question should be do you support banning cars because drunk drivers kill people?
I support punishing drunk driving way more severe than they do right now.
The thing with a car is, it's not meant for killing people.
A gun purpose is killing, even if you don't use it for that, that's what it is made for. its made for shooting. you can shoot plenty of things without killing. Nope, it's made for killing, shooting other stuff and not killing is an alternate use, but guns were made to kill. Specifically to kill people easily and at range. well i just have to disagree with you there. but the point remains, if its not used for killing then whats the problem? do you have a problem with archery in the Olympics? and fencing? I wouldn't have a problem with guns being used to shoot targets in the Olympics, that's not the point. The thing is guns actually not only are meant to kill, but are also USED to kill. Regularly. It's just the use people give to guns, be it because of culture, society, or whatever you want to kill. Personally, I believe guns should be restricted under heavy and very specific regulations and norms, and I would think the same about bows if we actually had bow snipers shooting kids from cathedral towers or whatever. Plus guns are capable of obscene amounts of killing in comparison to other tools, which is part of being made for killing. That guy in China with the knife? IIRC he didn't manage to kill a single kid, only wounded. With a gun all of them would be dead. its seems very silly to try to ban everything that is used to kill. take cars for example should we ban them too due to traffic deaths? or are lives lost in traffic accidents not worth saving because it is unintentional most of the time? Of course they shouldn't be banned, that's accidental, accidents happen, despite how horrible they can be. The moment mass murderers start using cars to go on killing sprees regularly, I will agree to harsher regulation on possession of cars. It won't happen, because culturally and functionally cars are not meant to kill. A murderer will not reach for a car to do his killing in most cases. He will, however, reach for a gun, his or not, because he knows guns are effective at killing, it's imprinted on his mind, he learned it from culture and society. see i would think it would be much more useful and effective to try to find the root of what is causing people to go on killing sprees, address that and prevent them that way, rather than continuously banning things. But that root exists everywhere in the world. Do you think you have more problem kids than other countries? Mentally disturbed kids exist everywhere, kids who'd love to go on a killing spree if they could. Luckily in most countries they cannot get a gun or that school shooting list would be much larger. so they just sit at home, content with not killing anyone at all? if i wanted to kill people id still do it, even if i had to resort to a less effective method. (or you could make a home made bomb with is more effective)
But they don't, because it's not easy to do. Murderers usually aren't very smart people or people who plan their killings carefully, they just go with what they got. Give them guns, they'll shoot, take them away, they'll try knives most likely (and kill less simply because it's less effective), give them bombs, they'll do that, give them rocket launchers, and they'll shoot those things.
BUT, they don't have access to these things so they just don't. It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
