Gun control debate

i do not attach emotional meaning to the word "natural". it merely means present in nature. and nature is everything. so id say everything is natural.

yes, everyone should listen to their own moral values. that is the best that anyone can do. i would not ask people to do things they thought were wrong. I do not think that most cereal killers are listening to their moral values, I think they do it because they enjoy defying their own morals. these people are sick, and should be killed.

there are othe people who have mental disabilities which prevent them from havign the same moral values that the rest of us do. if this causes them to kill people because it is not against their morals, then i think these people should also be killed. i do not believe in extended imprisonment, i think that is more cruel than execution, because execution is a swift punishment and there is no suffering.

0 Replies

Now we're in agreement. Cereal killers should definately be killed - after being disarmed.

0 Replies

Ok since we live in a real bad world with real bad people, we need guns to protect ourselves. Gun control has not worked over in the UK, run a search on the internet for stories about how crime went up when the government took the guns, away from honest citizens.
From a personal stand-point I think guns are cool.

0 Replies

So do I, disenter, which says nothing about killing animals for sport. Neither does the 4th amendment, by the way.

0 Replies

The thing is, people, that guns are DESIGNED to kill. That's what they were invented for. I don't mind people shooting harmless pellet guns or water pistols at "pieces of paper" in my perfect world though.

I read some argument complaining about gun control in the UK, and the author said that banning guns is like banning cars because of car accidents. But guns are designed to kill, whereas cars are designed to get you from place to place. And car accidents are, by and large, accidents, whereas gun crimes are deliberate - nobody accidentally shoots anyone in the head, or not very often anyway.

Eating animals may be natural, but there's really no need to keep guns around just so we can hunt for them - what's wrong with farming? Everybody likes chicken!

Montana, I suspect everybody has a natural urge to kill. It's a survival mechanism - if we are threatened, we need to kill, and we need to kill for food. I think that's probably a natural urge we have - and there is evidence for it somewhere or other.

disenter512, no matter how "cool" you think guns are, they are killing machines, which is really not all that cool. The world is really not as dangerous as you gun lovers think it is. Obviously it totally depends on where you live, so there's not much point me mentioning that I've never needed a gun, but I don't even trust people who say they need guns who live in the worst neighbourhoods in the world - if nobody in the neighbourhood had a gun you wouldn't need one either. The internet may have told you that crime has gone up since guns have been taken away, but what exactly are you deducing from that? Less guns causes more crime? How does that work? If the statistics are true, it could still be a coincidence - the rise in crime may have another cause. I'm not convinced that crime could possibly be caused by a lack of guns.

Roger, this is really a death penalty debate, but I'm gonna have to bring up the age-old argument that killing a murder is sinking to their level. Why would you kill anybody unless they were a direct and immediate threat to you or someone you cared about? Why not lock them up and keep them out of the way? It's actually cheaper to keep them in prison apparently - the trials that you need to go through before you execute somebody cost more money (so I've heard anyway, I could be completely wrong =/ ). And if you kill a serial killer, forget who they've killed - you've just killed a PERSON! If you want to punish a serial killer, it's presumably because you think it's wrong to kill people, but executing a serial killer is doing just that - killing a person! Don't tell me that he doesn't count as a person just because he's had a fucked up life that made him choose to kill lots of people - he may be a bad or 'evil' person, but he's still a person. Maybe if there was no alternative you might say the serial killer needs to be killed simply for the safety of the rest of the world - but why do that when you can lock him up for the rest of his life? We'll all be safe, he'll be out of the way. Prison really isn't as cushy a place as a lot of people in favour of the death penalty seem to think it is - I personaly would rather get the lethal injection than be raped up my arse once a week for the rest of my life. So I see no reason to execute serial killers - maybe it just turns you on to see people die, could be a natural urge or something.

0 Replies

Quite right about the high costs leading to an actual execution, agrote, but isn't this like protesters arguing the high cost of nuclear power plants, when a major part of the startup costs are caused by the protesters, themselves.

I do enjoy shooting. My point in posting was to highlight stuh's spelling of "serial" after what I though was his unprevoked rudeness to Montana.

The rest of your arguments, we can discuss at leisure if you wish, though it's been determined that ideas on the topic don't seem subject to change regardless of the argument.

Re water pistols, I can save you some bucks here. Evian has no better ballistic characteristics than tap water after undergoing reverse osmosis filtration.

Haven't noticed your presence before, agrote. You sound like a good addition to the forum.

0 Replies

Ah, whoops, sorry roger, I thought you were actually making an argument about serial killers. I've stopped noticing anything that's spelt wrong - everyone spells something wrong on the internet. I've been on the forum for about a week or two, haven't seen you before either.

0 Replies

No problem, agrote. Fact is, I disagree with almost everything you said, but you say it very nicely.

0 Replies

Quote:

My point in posting was to highlight stuh's spelling of "serial" after what I though was his unprevoked rudeness to Montana.

the hell it was, you didn't comment on my "rudeness to montana" OR on my spelling error.

furthermore, i was not rude to montana...perhaps you should inspect HER posts a little more carefully...a little rude, judgemental, and all I said was "duh". hmm....yeah, definitely Im not being the rude one here.

0 Replies

Roger, so how and why do you disagree with what I've said? Tell me what your views are, let's get a debate going - we might as well, nevermind if it's impossible to convince anyone of anything, just tell me everything you disagree with.

0 Replies

Seven paragraphs you want to discuss? How about I comment on areas of disagreement and see what comes up? I've always considered it a lazy man's way of answering, but with more than two topics it gets hard to know what is being referred to.

agrote wrote:

The thing is, people, that guns are DESIGNED to kill. That's what they were invented for. Well, of course it is, and I won't insult your intelligence by maintaining the opposite. Designed to kill doesn't mean they will kill. It doesn't mean the wrong person will be killed. It also doesn't mean a gun must even be fired to prevent violence. I don't mind people shooting harmless pellet guns or water pistols at "pieces of paper" in my perfect world though. I'm going to take this as a throwaway, but will point out that firearm proficiency doesn't come from water pistols or pellet guns - not the ones most of us can afford, anyway. Your world is not perfect, and I bet you know it as well as I.

I read some argument complaining about gun control in the UK, and the author said that banning guns is like banning cars because of car accidents. But guns are designed to kill, whereas cars are designed to get you from place to place. And car accidents are, by and large, accidents, whereas gun crimes are deliberate - nobody accidentally shoots anyone in the head, or not very often anyway. Do you not agree that crimes of violence have increased in the UK with the banning of guns, or do you believe there is some other cause arising more or less simutaneously? I ask because we both need to be discussing the same thing, just to avoid confusion. Okay, I concede that autos/guns is a weak analogy. Cars are registered and insured. Drivers are licensed and have presumably (unbelieveably, in many cases) demonstrated some minimal proficiency and knowledge of the law. I think the point there, is that there are many instruments around with lethal potential. In other words, removal of guns does not equate to removal of violence.
Eating animals may be natural, but there's really no need to keep guns around just so we can hunt for them - what's wrong with farming? Everybody likes chicken! Disagree - I can eat chicken, but don't much care for it. Okay, I agree on this point, and may have already mentioned it.

Montana, I suspect everybody has a natural urge to kill. It's a survival mechanism - if we are threatened, we need to kill, and we need to kill for food. I think that's probably a natural urge we have - and there is evidence for it somewhere or other. Not sure of this at all. I suspect all of us are capable of being incited to violence and killing, but that does not strike me as being quite the same as having a natural urge to kill.

disenter512, no matter how "cool" you think guns are, they are killing machines, which is really not all that cool. The world is really not as dangerous as you gun lovers think it is. That's pretty vague. Not as dangerous as some think, but more dangerous than others hope it to be. Obviously it totally depends on where you live, so there's not much point me mentioning that I've never needed a gun, but I don't even trust people who say they need guns who live in the worst neighbourhoods in the world - if nobody in the neighbourhood had a gun you wouldn't need one either. I disagree with this so strongly that I'm just going to say you are wrong. Car jackers, muggers, house invaders, and many other violent perpetraters often don't carry firearms. They don't need to - they have the choice of who is going to be a victim, and when. They pick and choose. When they don't have the advantage of superior strength, skill, wielded weapons, or numbers, they chose a different person and a different time. Your victim does not have the luxury of such choices. The internet may have told you that crime has gone up since guns have been taken away, but what exactly are you deducing from that? Less guns causes more crime? How does that work? If the statistics are true, it could still be a coincidence - the rise in crime may have another cause. I'm not convinced that crime could possibly be caused by a lack of guns. You're right again. Lack of guns doesn't cause crime. Presence of guns (in the right hand, of course) can and sometimes does prevent crime. Not just the presence of guns, by the way, but the possibility that the potential victim may have a gun.

Roger, this is really a death penalty debate, but I'm gonna have to bring up the age-old argument that killing a murder is sinking to their level. Why would you kill anybody unless they were a direct and immediate threat to you or someone you cared about? Why not lock them up and keep them out of the way? It's actually cheaper to keep them in prison apparently - the trials that you need to go through before you execute somebody cost more money (so I've heard anyway, I could be completely wrong =/ ). And if you kill a serial killer, forget who they've killed - you've just killed a PERSON! If you want to punish a serial killer, it's presumably because you think it's wrong to kill people, but executing a serial killer is doing just that - killing a person! Don't tell me that he doesn't count as a person just because he's had a **** up life that made him choose to kill lots of people - he may be a bad or 'evil' person, but he's still a person. Maybe if there was no alternative you might say the serial killer needs to be killed simply for the safety of the rest of the world - but why do that when you can lock him up for the rest of his life? We'll all be safe, he'll be out of the way. Prison really isn't as cushy a place as a lot of people in favour of the death penalty seem to think it is - I personaly would rather get the lethal injection than be raped up my arse once a week for the rest of my life. So I see no reason to execute serial killers - maybe it just turns you on to see people die, could be a natural urge or something.

Death penalty is indeed a whole different subject, but briefly, imposing it doesn't lower you to anyone's level, though you might have to get the right frame of mind - maybe it would be easier if you tell yourself that some deserving of the death penalty isn't deserving of the word human. Let's leave this as a separate topic?

Again, I apologize for this mode of answer, but you've raised more issues than is convenient to answer any other way.

0 Replies

Whoa Agrote you are certainly out spoken, and too bad that roger and you don't agree! Now, do we or do we not live in the wonderful land of the free and home of the Brave? We do infact! Hunting is a right. If a man or woman does it for food or sport it is not a crime, because this is a free Country. For crying out loud some folks like to kill weeds will RoundUp big deal it's a free country, and I know that the Weed Worshipers of America don't like it! Life goes on, some-things can't be changed or helped. But please don't take this to mean that if you have convictions not to try. Change can be a good thing, I have things I would like to see change in this country and I am not shy to say so.

0 Replies

roger, I don't really see any problem with that method of reply, and in fact I think I'll use it myself Very Happy

Quote:

The thing is, people, that guns are DESIGNED to kill. That's what they were invented for. Well, of course it is, and I won't insult your intelligence by maintaining the opposite. Designed to kill doesn't mean they will kill. It doesn't mean the wrong person will be killed. It also doesn't mean a gun must even be fired to prevent violence.

No, but I still see a problem with people's attachment to something which is designed to kill people - it's a bit unnerving. A lot of people who are against gun control seem to forget that guns are killing machines, not golf clubs or tennis rackets. That's all.

Quote:

I don't mind people shooting harmless pellet guns or water pistols at "pieces of paper" in my perfect world though. I'm going to take this as a throwaway, but will point out that firearm proficiency doesn't come from water pistols or pellet guns - not the ones most of us can afford, anyway. Your world is not perfect, and I bet you know it as well as I.

Yes, a throwaway, I'm sure my world isn't perfect I was just responding to whatthewtf's mention of a "perfect world."

Quote:

I read some argument complaining about gun control in the UK, and the author said that banning guns is like banning cars because of car accidents. But guns are designed to kill, whereas cars are designed to get you from place to place. And car accidents are, by and large, accidents, whereas gun crimes are deliberate - nobody accidentally shoots anyone in the head, or not very often anyway. Do you not agree that crimes of violence have increased in the UK with the banning of guns, or do you believe there is some other cause arising more or less simutaneously? I ask because we both need to be discussing the same thing, just to avoid confusion. Okay, I concede that autos/guns is a weak analogy. Cars are registered and insured. Drivers are licensed and have presumably (unbelieveably, in many cases) demonstrated some minimal proficiency and knowledge of the law. I think the point there, is that there are many instruments around with lethal potential. In other words, removal of guns does not equate to removal of violence.

I don't know all the facts, so I can't say for sure that something else has caused the rise in crime. But I find it hard to believe (though maybe I wouldn't if I had more information) that the rise in crime is a result of the banning of guns - guns are not a big thing here in the UK, and muggers and burglars and such are unlikely to expect their victims to be armed - very few people are, I've never seen a gun in my life (well, not in this country anyway - I saw some armed guards in Italy). So before the ban on guns I doubt that criminals were worried about armed victims, so banning guns is not going to make them more confident an increase crime in that way. If that's what you're suggesting - if not then nevermind.

So I suspect that something else may have caused the rise in crime, but because I don't know all the facts I'm a little reluctant to assert this. Removal of guns obviously cannot remove violence - but if there are no guns, it is at least slightly harder for one person to murder another person. That may not be much, but it is something. Whether the British police should be armed is another debate, but as for UK citizens - keeping a gun in the house is pretty much unheard of here as a way of protecting oneself. Some of us are even reluctant to bother locking the front door. But there's a heck of a lot more murder in America, where just about everybody has a gun, so I'm not sure possessing guns limits violence. I don't really see how fighting violence with violence can really work, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to murder somebody who was breaking into my house. I might like to whack him over the head with something, but he doesn't deserve to die just for trying to steal things from me - I don't blame him, he probably has a lot less money than we do. Anyway, I've gone off on a bit of a tangent...

Quote:

Eating animals may be natural, but there's really no need to keep guns around just so we can hunt for them - what's wrong with farming? Everybody likes chicken! Disagree - I can eat chicken, but don't much care for it. Okay, I agree on this point, and may have already mentioned it.

Good, glad you agree.

Quote:

Montana, I suspect everybody has a natural urge to kill. It's a survival mechanism - if we are threatened, we need to kill, and we need to kill for food. I think that's probably a natural urge we have - and there is evidence for it somewhere or other. Not sure of this at all. I suspect all of us are capable of being incited to violence and killing, but that does not strike me as being quite the same as having a natural urge to kill.

I'd have thought killing was some sort of survival instinct, or an aspect of a survival mechanism or something. All that evolutionary stuff, fight-flight response, blah blah blah. But that's a different argument, I'll try and stick to the gun control thing.

Quote:

disenter512, no matter how "cool" you think guns are, they are killing machines, which is really not all that cool. The world is really not as dangerous as you gun lovers think it is. That's pretty vague. Not as dangerous as some think, but more dangerous than others hope it to be.

Yes it is vague, I'm just being rhetorical, or something. But I've developed it a bit below, or tried to anyway...

Quote:

Obviously it totally depends on where you live, so there's not much point me mentioning that I've never needed a gun, but I don't even trust people who say they need guns who live in the worst neighbourhoods in the world - if nobody in the neighbourhood had a gun you wouldn't need one either. I disagree with this so strongly that I'm just going to say you are wrong. Car jackers, muggers, house invaders, and many other violent perpetraters often don't carry firearms. They don't need to - they have the choice of who is going to be a victim, and when. They pick and choose. When they don't have the advantage of superior strength, skill, wielded weapons, or numbers, they chose a different person and a different time. Your victim does not have the luxury of such choices.

Well I'm a bit biased because I live in a relatively friendly place. the worst that could happen to you around here is your house could get burgled at night while you're asleep - which obviously isn't a good thing, but there's no danger involved; it happened about a week ago to our neighbours, and they just slept through the whole thing, so they were absolutely fine. Or if you're young you might get mugged by some teenagers with a bit of bad luck. But nothing life threatening - so nobody here needs a gun, absolutely nobody. Oh wow I've just realised that muggings and house invasions were on your list there. Well here, at least, a gun is not needed for protection from those crimes. Yes, if a burglar somehow knew that we had a gun in the house, or suspected it, he might not bother. But keeping a gun here basically means that if a burglar does break into the house, and we know about it, we'll threaten him with the gun, and if he for some reason ignores the threat and carries on, or if he looks liek he's goign to attack us, we'll shoot him! If that's not true then there's no threat, the burglar might as well just carry on. And it certainly isn't true - nobody's shooting anybody in this house. So I personally would rather have my TV nicked and get punched in the face than kill anybody. That might sound ridiculous to you, I dunno.

Quote:

The internet may have told you that crime has gone up since guns have been taken away, but what exactly are you deducing from that? Less guns causes more crime? How does that work? If the statistics are true, it could still be a coincidence - the rise in crime may have another cause. I'm not convinced that crime could possibly be caused by a lack of guns. You're right again. Lack of guns doesn't cause crime. Presence of guns (in the right hand, of course) can and sometimes does prevent crime. Not just the presence of guns, by the way, but the possibility that the potential victim may have a gun.

Can and sometimes does, yes, but not enough for it to be better to have guns around, in my opinion. As for the possibility that the potential victim may have a gun, that only really works when there's loads of guns about, like in America. I reeaally don't want there to be more guns around here, because I think crime would increase - America does have worse crime rates.

As for the death penalty thing, I don't believe any human deserves the death penalty, and I think that anyone who is human is human, of course. So a serial killer who's raped and killed 8757650 people is still a human, so long as he is a human, and not some kind of criminal badger or anything like that. Killers and rapists and whatnot are still human, and they have human rights. Obviously we shouldn't let them rape and kill people, but we shouldn't rape or kill them either. It might help to believe that the person isn't human when you're giving them the lethal injection - but it isn't true, they are human. I mean, what do you even mean by "not human"? When does a human stop being a human?

Sorry, I'm just blurting things out - I could argue carefully and logically, but I can't really be bothered.

disenter512 wrote:

Whoa Agrote you are certainly out spoken, and too bad that roger and you don't agree! Now, do we or do we not live in the wonderful land of the free and home of the Brave? We do infact! Hunting is a right. If a man or woman does it for food or sport it is not a crime, because this is a free Country. For crying out loud some folks like to kill weeds will RoundUp big deal it's a free country, and I know that the Weed Worshipers of America don't like it! Life goes on, some-things can't be changed or helped. But please don't take this to mean that if you have convictions not to try. Change can be a good thing, I have things I would like to see change in this country and I am not shy to say so.

I'm glad roger and I disagree - you can't have a debate with somebody who agrees with you. I don't live in any land of the free and brave. I don't live in America either - I live in England. I think I've lost you a bit in the middle there, what's all that about killing weeds? Do American hunters hunt plants as well as animals? Confused

And what are weed worshippers? You mean hippies?? Liberals? Sounds like some kind of stereotype.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

The thing is, people, that guns are DESIGNED to kill. That's what they were invented for. I don't mind people shooting harmless pellet guns or water pistols at "pieces of paper" in my perfect world though.

This is a bit of a nonsensical argument. Knives were designed to kill too but we don't hear people running about trying to have them all banned. Regardless of orignal design purpose several hundred years ago, people have found other purposes for them (just as they have with knives). Blaming an inanimate object for it's misuse by a small minority of owners is just silly.

0 Replies

Whether or not people want guns for a legitimate purpose is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that it is POSSIBLE for someone to want a gun for a legitimate use...and since wanting to own a gun isn't NECESSARILY mean you want to commit a crime, it therefore should be legal for us to own guns. And in the US, it is...and so I am happy.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

agrote wrote:
The thing is, people, that guns are DESIGNED to kill. That's what they were invented for. I don't mind people shooting harmless pellet guns or water pistols at "pieces of paper" in my perfect world though.

This is a bit of a nonsensical argument. Knives were designed to kill too but we don't hear people running about trying to have them all banned. Regardless of orignal design purpose several hundred years ago, people have found other purposes for them (just as they have with knives). Blaming an inanimate object for it's misuse by a small minority of owners is just silly.

I agree. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If there were no guns, criminals would find other weapons.

0 Replies

Fishin', it's the car argument all over again. Yes okay some knives are designed to kill, but they tend to be designed to kill animals - assuming that it's okay to kill animals, this is less worrying. Also, you can't chop a carrot with a gun, just as you can't drive to work in a gun. Guns are not merely inanimate objects. Yes okay you can still kill somebody with a great big knife, bit it's slightly more difficult - you can't do it from a distance. That's something, isn't it? The only other uses for guns are for killing animals and for sport. Right? You can't plough a field with a gun, or wash the dishes with a gun. They're just for fun, basically, when they're not for killing or threatening to kill (don't tell me they're used for protection - what you call 'protection' is in fact threatening to kill those who are a threat to you, that's your method of defence). I think sacrificing a bit of fun is worth it if it reduces a bit of murder.

Stuh, those who buy guns but don't intend to commit a crime intend to either go and shoot animals for sadistic pleasure, go and shoot animals for food (which is pointless - go to a supermarket Laughing

), go to a shooting gallery and PRETEND to murder people, or... anything else? Oh yeah, maybe they intend to keep a gun in the house so that if somebody breaks in and tries to steal the TV they can shoot him right between the eyes, for no apparent reason. Aren't we better off without them? If you want to catch your own food, use a spear, or go fishing. And if you want to have some violent fun, play ice hockey. It's not easy to kill people with fishing rods and hockey sticks. Or less easy than it is with a gun at least.

Montana - as I keep saying, although guns aren't the only potential weapons, they are probably the most effective weapons, and they're not neccessary, so we might as well do away with them.

0 Replies

Weapons of Mass Destruction don't kill people, people kill people. While Weapons of Mass destruction might have originally been made to kill they can evolve to have other utilities.

I say I should get a nuke. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

0 Replies

Quote:

I agree. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If there were no guns, criminals would find other weapons.

Sure, this is true...but there are MORE truths. One of them, is that people aren't perfect, and we don't always think everything through because of our emotions.

Last night I was watching eyes wide shut, and tom cruise was walking down the street (who I was identifying with at the time) and he got bumped around by a bunch of street gang thugs.

I thought to myself, "it's a good thing we don't all carry handguns" because if I had been in that situation with a handgun, I probably would have pulled it...and if they all had handguns, they would have all pulled them...and then there could have been some lives lost.

Quote:

Stuh, those who buy guns but don't intend to commit a crime intend to either go and shoot animals for sadistic pleasure, go and shoot animals for food (which is pointless - go to a supermarket ), go to a shooting gallery and PRETEND to murder people, or... anything else? Oh yeah, maybe they intend to keep a gun in the house so that if somebody breaks in and tries to steal the TV they can shoot him right between the eyes, for no apparent reason. Aren't we better off without them? If you want to catch your own food, use a spear, or go fishing. And if you want to have some violent fun, play ice hockey. It's not easy to kill people with fishing rods and hockey sticks. Or less easy than it is with a gun at least.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point.

Let me list of a view completely legal uses for guns:
1) A zoo trainer needs one as protection when dealing w/ animals
2) A park ranger again for animals
3) A policeman or member of the military, and they usually buy their own for personal training
4) A scientist running tests for medical understanding of terminal ballistics, or exterior ballistics testing
5) A movie producer
6) Someone who takes a trip into a dangerous part of the world like into the jungle or Africa
7) Someoen who chooses to abandon society and live in Alaska for a few years and live off the land
8) Someone who likes to go duck hunting with friends, the family dog, and their son on the weekends
9) Someone who just wants to be ready in case they get into a bad situation by a violent person
10) Someone who just thinks its fun to shoot holes in paper some afternoon
11) Any of the people at AR15.com where I am a member and we like to share pictures of our modified AR15's...which don't even really get used except at the range.
12) People who spend their whole lives practicing to be good target shooters, win medals, earn respect...taking away their gun is like taking away Beethoven's piano.
13) People who just want to figure out how the internal operation works
14) People who just want to display it on their wall

You are trying to assume people are guilty before proven innocent. The point is that it is POSSIBLE for someoen to want it for a legitimate reason. And if it is possible to want for a legitimate reason, then the government has NO RIGHT to prevent people from getting it. It's a matter of freedom. It's not a matter of what was in the constitution, it's not a matter of what will save more lives, these are irrelevant. It's a matter of a person being able to buy a material object that isn't SOLELY designed for breaking the law.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Fishin', it's the car argument all over again. Yes okay some knives are designed to kill, but they tend to be designed to kill animals - assuming that it's okay to kill animals, this is less worrying. Also, you can't chop a carrot with a gun, just as you can't drive to work in a gun.

Again, silly arguments. What if I have no need nor desire to chop carrots or drive to work? Does that make knives and cars useless? Just because YOU have no use for a gun doesn't mean no one else does.

Quote:

Guns are not merely inanimate objects.

They aren't???

in·an·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-n-mt)
adj.
1. Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms at dead.
2. Not animated or energetic; dull.

As far as I know there are no living guns. They are simply an object. They do not live and they don't take any action at all on their own.

Quote:

Yes okay you can still kill somebody with a great big knife, bit it's slightly more difficult - you can't do it from a distance. That's something, isn't it? The only other uses for guns are for killing animals and for sport. Right?

A "great big knife"?? You mean like a sword? lol Lord knows we've never had anyone use one of those throughout history! Obviously in your opinion it's right. I disagree. Guns can have historical significance, they often hold artistic value, etc...

Quote:

You can't plough a field with a gun, or wash the dishes with a gun. They're just for fun, basically, when they're not for killing or threatening to kill (don't tell me they're used for protection - what you call 'protection' is in fact threatening to kill those who are a threat to you, that's your method of defence). I think sacrificing a bit of fun is worth it if it reduces a bit of murder.

Can you plow a field or wash dishes with a knife? lol It's nice that you think it's ok to eliminate somoene elses fun as long as it doesn't inconvience you. Wink

Look, I understand your point. It just seems short sighted to me. The comment that got us started down this discussion was your statement that ""in a perfect world" you'd eliminate guns. It just seemed odd to me that you would choose to eliminate one (out of thousands) possible means of murdering another person instead of just choosing a world in which no one had any reason or desire to commit murder to begin with. Wouldn't eliminating murder itself be a lot more effective means to the end goal?

0 Replies

Gun control debate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know