Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I think know it owls are worse.
Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
You know, my friend...<sigh> I already told you. Wise up.
Whom?
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Going back to the title of the thread;
In the strictest sense, it is the gun owners with the intention to kill, and therefore it's the person not the gun committing the crime.
But although guns have no intention, they do easily allow negative intentions to be quickly, and easily acted out in an unprecedented manner. It's pretty much people being scared.... Where people seem to be arguing is over the justification of the fear.
There's no question that more guns will inevitably lead to more gun related injuries. If there were absolutely zero guns, there would by default, be zero gun injuries.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a correlation between the amount of legally owned guns and gun crimes. For that, as I already stated, I believe we'd need access to information we just don't have access to.
In the strictest sense, it is the gun owners with the intention to kill, and therefore it's the person not the gun committing the crime.
But although guns have no intention, they do easily allow negative intentions to be quickly, and easily acted out in an unprecedented manner. It's pretty much people being scared.... Where people seem to be arguing is over the justification of the fear.
There's no question that more guns will inevitably lead to more gun related injuries. If there were absolutely zero guns, there would by default, be zero gun injuries.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a correlation between the amount of legally owned guns and gun crimes. For that, as I already stated, I believe we'd need access to information we just don't have access to.
Doer
Well-Known Member
But, blade murders will rise. This is a circular argument that we settled last year. I can show the lost logic trail.
1- less murder is desireable
2- guns can quickly murder, (but it is not as sure as a cut throat...even a head shot.)
3- less guns = less murder....wrong
People kill people and a snick with a blade is pretty easy. And since we seem to focus on mass killing, if you want to kill, the bomb and the blade is still the main way in this world, not guns. Posted stats last year.
It does reduce protection. So, this barrage of fake science, lately, rolled up Statistical Analysis is lie for Agenda. The variables can be as obnoxious as you want. They can be hidden in fake papers, published under double=think.
So, real science will show, guns themselves are deterrence. They are deterrent measure for saftey and the last chance to do something when civil unrest and common thugs invade. You all keep saying you understand that the criminals are armed and you cannot disarm them.
You will admit the police cannot protect your family. So, that leaves You huddled in fear of a simple tool, and possessing only hope and a golf club or a baseball bat. And I guarantee you don't know how to use those, in any case. (hint: poke, don't swing)
No shots are fired in most cases when this tool is used in earnest. So, the fear is made up. Come into the light.
It is a false argument to say this tool is only used when it is fired.
I've had one used on me several times. I took no wound, but I did move slowly, and very carefully.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I agree to a point. Stabbing will go up to compensate for the lack of guns, after all killers are still killers; but it's so much easier and less personal to kill someone with a gun I tend to believe (admittedly unsourced) that due to the nature of the knife, less people have the wherewithal to use them. I certianly don't think this point is un-arguable.
There's no question it's easier to mass kill with a bomb or a gun as opposed to a knife. A bomb is definitely the easiest way to kill, but people lack the technical skills or ability to find the hardware required to make bombs much more frequently than those who want to kill with guns. Can't go to a 'bombshow' and pick up bombs... lol
Yep, I like my guns. Great deterrent, but I also keep mine secured so it's inoperable to other people. I keep my ammo in a safe location, and I'm never negligent. In a perfect world everyone would follow suit, but unfortunately most gun owners are fucking idiots. (Most people are also fucking idiots)
I think people should be allowed to have guns. I own... 12? Jesus, I can't ever remember.
Good point. Firearms, don't require discharge to be a deterrent. Just the sound of a pump action sliding should be enough to make most would-be intruders shit themselves.
IMO it shouldn't be out of the question to try to adopt laws and programs that teach/enforce proper usage, cleaning, and storage of firearms. I'm a centralist; I see the merit in your arguments, but I also think that laws shouldn't be a static thing and that new information should be used to better the laws to ensure everyone has equal opportunity to life.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, let's stay in proportion. This says those 11,000 firearm murders are only 5 out of 10 of all violence related death in all age groups.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf
And murder is not ever the main cause of death, (I should hope not,) but some sick stuff in the young ages.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf
And murder is not ever the main cause of death, (I should hope not,) but some sick stuff in the young ages.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf
budlover13
King Tut
Unprecedented?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Some swinging is good if you have the proper form.
body wise..similar color hair about 2 inches shorter..bod very similar..yes, i have a rack..face wise if i sent you a pic you wouldn't believe it..or maybe you would..
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Sorry, that is a bit misleading.
Unprecedented in the sense of readily available items.
The only other thing I can think of that might be considered as deadly is a vehicle; but vehicles offer a lot of limitations. You have to actually drive people over, and terrain is a limiting factor. It's not easy to hit someone, then back up and hit other people in as timely a fashion as you can shoot people with a firearm. Vehicles are typically more expensive than guns and also require licensing, insurance, and have other checks and balances to help prevent accidents/homicides. I realize none of the licensing matters to someone who wants to commit vehicular homicide.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But her rack is "off the rack"
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Beef, for many gun owners the principal motive is to acquire a fairly reliable and positive defense device. The fact that it delivers a killing impulse in order to stop an assailant is considered an unfortunate feature (a bug) by most of those. Should a similarly or more effective defense technology become generally available, one that is nonlethal but immediately positive in its effect ... expect a mass migration to that technology.
Until then, I am fierce in defending the right to lethal defense.
Until then, I am fierce in defending the right to lethal defense.
yeah, i meant to say mine are not..but just as perky with no give-away of implantsBut her rack is "off the rack"
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats is specious. none of the licensing or registration of automobiles has anything to do with preventing vehicular homicide.
you may as well claim the IRS is just reducing our "disposable income" so we dont blow it all on candy and junk food so "it's for our own good"
people have been killing people with "vehicles" for centuries, or do you porpose that "war horses" were not dangerous, or Hannibal's Elephants were properly licensed and registered thus, harmless?
if one is of a mind to do some killin, even the magical disappearance of all firearms from the face of the earth would not dissuade them.
you lefties make a HUGE DEAL about how "guns make killin easier for muderers" but the REAL utility in firearms is that it makes their deployment in DEFENSE much faster and easier than previous playing field leveling measures, while their use in OFFENSE remains largely the same as a sword among a population of unarmed japanese peasants was 200 years ago.
the use of a sword, a spear a club or even a knife against unarmed victims is a huge advantage for the assailant, but when the victims are similarly armed, the advantage goes to those most proficient in the weapon available.
those who made a living by the use of a sword were ALWAYS better at the use of said weapon than the guy who kept his great grandfather's sword over the mantle and never used it, but against the average bandit, it was sufficient.
likewise, a pistol close to hand is more than adequate for defense against a similarly armed asailant, but the LACK of a pistol against an assailant armed with even a kitchen knife or baseball bat rapidly swings the advantage to the attacker.
as the attacker is the INSTIGATOR of violence, he has the automatic advantage of preparation, while the victim remains blissfully unaware of this assailant's intentions until the moment of the attack.
your proposition of hurdles and justifications and explanaitions and requests and pleadings before anyone can own a gun simply moves the advantage even further to the attacker's side, while leaving the ever growing victim pool at the mercy of the criminal element.
nobody should have to explain why they should be allowed to have a gun, the only time this needs any explanation is after somebody gets shot.
THAT'S your "due diligence" after you shoot somebody, you have to justify it, if you fail to justify your shooting you go to prison and never get to own a gun again.
demanding proof that your gun WONT be used to commit a crime is the cheapest, stupidest and least intelligent argument of the gun control lobby, but because it makes people FEEL like they might be safer, they foolishly accept this faulty premise quite easily, just as you have.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yeah, i meant to say mine are not..but just as perky with no give-away of implants
it's not always a good thing...
now i'm going to have nightmares considering a man's body is a temple..
it's not always a good thing...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
1) Civilians cannot get Tasers. They can only get watered-down designer cattle prods.
2) I find it interesting that cops, who get real shoot-them-electrodes Tasers with enough joules to jolt your jimmies to jelly, still carry the hot lead projectors. I interpret that as consumer opinion.