Topic: The Gun Topic

[Brandonazz]

Guns didn't kill anyone. People mishandling them did.

Nuclear weapons never killed anyone, the US army did.

Mustard gas never killed anyone, the people operating the canisters did.

Poison in coffee never killed anyone, the awkward butler did.

____________________________________________________

Also, mishandling? If you believe the purpose of a gun was never to kill, you are sadly mistaken.

[Werechicken]

Out of curiousity, where did you get that graph, by the way? Because it's incorrect. There were 17,000 murders in the US as of 2006, and that's been the average for the few years before, and that's all deaths, not just gun related. We also know that only a few hundred die from accidents in the US.

These statistics sound flawed. Unless, perhaps, they're including suicide, but even then that sounds fishy...

I use this as proof that you do not read through the posts of other people, you just skim for things you can argue:

From your center of disease control and prevention, a report comparing deaths by firearms and deaths by car.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp#Table_1

I think they'd have a pretty good idea, also they predicted the numbers of deaths in 2006, they don't have a bloody crystal ball.

[Daxx]

Out of curiousity, where did you get that graph, by the way? Because it's incorrect. There were 17,000 murders in the US as of 2006, and that's been the average for the few years before, and that's all deaths, not just gun related. We also know that only a few hundred die from accidents in the US.

These statistics sound flawed. Unless, perhaps, they're including suicide, but even then that sounds fishy...

I use this as proof that you do not read through the posts of other people, you just skim for things you can argue:

From your center of disease control and prevention, a report comparing deaths by firearms and deaths by car.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp#Table_1

I think they'd have a pretty good idea, also they predicted the numbers of deaths in 2006, they don't have a bloody crystal ball.

I'm starting to question why I ever extended him the courtesy of engaging in actual intellectual debate. It's so much easier to just ignore what the other person says.

[Axelgear]

Nuclear weapons never killed anyone, the US army did.

Mustard gas never killed anyone, the people operating the canisters did.

Poison in coffee never killed anyone, the awkward butler did.

Yep. People were killed with those things, but not by those things. No World War II, no people killed by Nuclear Weapons.

Also, mishandling? If you believe the purpose of a gun was never to kill, you are sadly mistaken.

A gun's purpose is to punch holes in things and its greatest application is killing. Guns are designed, typically, FOR that purpose. Killing, however, is a varied act. Killing for food, for self defense, to protect someone or defend your rights, to overthrow an unjust government... These are killings typically considered good or at least not bad. Killing someone out of greed, jealousy, hate, or political motivation in relation to something they are not involved in... These are bad things.


And, yes, Werechicken, I read your post, and I read the bit at the end after I posted it. Again, they included suicides. As for motor vehicle rates, the numbers are relatively steady but, yes, there has been a decrease. There's also been a decrease in murder rates.

[Brandonazz]

Nuclear weapons never killed anyone, the US army did.

Mustard gas never killed anyone, the people operating the canisters did.

Poison in coffee never killed anyone, the awkward butler did.

Yep. People were killed with those things, but not by those things. No World War II, no people killed by Nuclear Weapons.

The sarcasm escapes you. I was simply reiterating the point that something made explicitly to kill is not justified simply because it requires someone to use it. Such things are wrong even before they are unleashed, not after the fact.

As to the second part:

When was the last time the average person needed a gun to get food?

Shut up about fringe peoples and whatnot. They can keep their guns.

When was the last time an unjust government needed overthrowing here? More than two centuries ago?

Even the civil war is well over a century ago. I don't see any dictators or doomsday scenarios soon. If one seems imminent, then again, have your guns. I don't care under such circumstances, but they are not the circumstances of now.

Continue to argue as you will for self protection and whatnot, tossing and receiving statistics, but please drop these other baseless arguments.

[Axelgear]

The sarcasm escapes you. I was simply reiterating the point that something made explicitly to kill is not justified simply because it requires someone to use it. Such things are wrong even before they are unleashed, not after the fact.

The sarcasm doesn't escape me, it was just a bad point. There's no need to use things like sarin or nuclear weapons outside of a state of war, which is why private citizens typically shouldn't own them. A firearm is far more useful in local self-defense. Any weapon with a massive potential for uncontrolled damage is generally not a good idea (I.E. Most explosives). Guns, knives... These things are a lot more controlled.

As to the second part:

When was the last time the average person needed a gun to get food?

Shut up about fringe peoples and whatnot. They can keep their guns.

Why should they have more rights than other people, though?

When was the last time an unjust government needed overthrowing here? More than two centuries ago?

Does it matter? Unjust governments can come and go. Should we not have an evacuation plan in case of a giant inferno or earthquake, even if one hasn't happened for centuries?

Even the civil war is well over a century ago. I don't see any dictators or doomsday scenarios soon. If one seems imminent, then again, have your guns. I don't care under such circumstances, but they are not the circumstances of now.

Well, that's the problem. The first act of a Dictatorship is typically to tighten gun restrictions. Hitler took them from dissenters, Jews, etc. Stalin did much the same. Castro took guns from those who opposed him and had them tortured and shot. Qadaffi... Well... You get the idea, right? Dictatorships take firearms because they let the people fight back. Limit access beforehand, and access after on any scale will be difficult.

Continue to argue as you will for self protection and whatnot, tossing and receiving statistics, but please drop these other baseless arguments.

They're not baseless, but they are admittedly less central to this argument.

[Brandonazz]

I had a nice long response ready, then the forum dropped out.

Seeing as my current sleep pattern dictates that I should be sleeping already, I can't manage it again.

[Axelgear]

I understand. Nearly happened to me too, but Firefox loves me so my post was saved. Take your time, if you even feel like responding.

[Yokto]

Saying guns do not kill people does not change the fact that they do. What do we mean when we say Weapon-X kill people? Well we mean that it was used to kill people. In context it makes sense. Trying to deconstruction it by removing it form its context serves nothing.

[Axelgear]

I'm trying to remove the idea that guns are somehow responsible for people's deaths when, ultimately, it is other people. It's not so much what was said but the implied thought behind it.

Again, could just be me reading too much into stuff, though.

[Yokto]

OK you agree that people is the when it comes to guns right? So Banning guns will not solve the problem (As people are the problem not the guns.) However you can not ban people. But what you can do is bad people from obtaining guns. And well that is what the laws do. They do not say that guns are outlawed are require the guns to collect them self and then destroy them self. No the laws are meant for people. They ban people form having guns and it is people that get in to trouble if they have or use guns.

(This do not change the fact that i still think that people should be allowed to have guns if they can manage them. Though i will not go more in to detail about this now.)

[Axelgear]

I'm sorry but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Just to see if I got it right, you're agreeing that guns aren't the problem but people are but we can't ban people so we ban guns to save them from themselves? Sorry, but that logic doesn't really compute. There are responsible people who will use them right. They should be allowed access to them. You can't ban an item just because someone might abuse it or we'd have to ban more things than I can count. The reason we have licenses for cars is to show that people have learned the rules for using them, will exercise them responsibly, and use them as such. We still have people dieing, a lot in fact, from car related incidents but we don't ban the cars.

[Yokto]

The point is that when we stay we ban something we do not expect it to remove it self. A ban always means people can not use it. In the end is always the responsibility of the people.

We can ban pretty much anything. Not that baning everything will solve anything. Rather is finding a balance that one must strive for.  (And sometimes that balance may be no ban at all.) Still even in USA there are bans on guns. Assault rifles are banned form public use. (Military and police still have access to these weapons however.) And stopping mentally ill and criminals form getting guns is not a bad idea.

[Axelgear]

A ban just ensures, though, that those willing to obey the law cannot use a weapon responsibly. Certainly, it might stop some people, but it will most certainly leave others vulnerable.

As for Assault Rifles, it depends on where you go as to what is classified. I don't disagree with regulation, though, just restriction. I'm not unreasonable and I do try to meet people in the middle here. I am fine with things like criminals and the mentally incapable of not being allowed weapons, with permits, that sort of thing, but people shouldn't be limited in their capacity to use guns for self defense. I'm okay with the private citizen having precision weaponry (Though the price tag is prohibitively expensive) but banned dispersal weapons (Flamethrowers, chemical and biological weapons, etc.) should stay banned because they're a high risk and the only use they have is to hurt a lot of people in a wide area indiscriminately.

[The Time Traveller]

Here's something to remember:
What you're trying to prevent is people shooting other people with guns to rob them or murder them or something.  That's already illegal.  Since people who would do that don't care about the law, a law would not help.